O Demagoguery, I Renounce Thee

I’ve been developing a certain style to my weblogging, and I’ve been liking it. I feel like my weblog entries have been getting better… except very recently. Lately, they’ve felt silly.

I want to retain the style I’ve been developing, but still talk a lot about immigration. Thus, my goal on this weblog will be to have an open exploration on the topic of immigration. (And other topics too.) All aspects of it, without resorting to talking points of any sort. I will retain an open mind, with one exception. I can’t have an open mind on any thing that harms my country. I will, however, keep an open mind as to whether something will harm the country or not.

I’m young, only 19. I still want to be in exploration mode as to my ideals. That’s not to say I’ll suddenly close my mind when I become older, but I’ll be more sure about certain topics. I think… I dunno… I haven’t grown up yet so I don’t know if it’s like that or not.

One Language

“And the Lord said, ‘Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.’ So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore it was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the earth” (Genesis 11.6-11.9).

I don’t take the Tower of Babel story literally — that people all spoke one language until they were scattered after trying to build this tower. Yet, like other Bible stories, it has some good lessons we can take away from it. I’ve actually brought up the Tower of Babel to make a point about immigration. One lesson you can take away is that these multiple tongues made it difficult for people to communicate. No longer could they build their city. I think the same applies for America. We need one language — English.

That’s not to say we should banish other languages. However, the official language should be English. If we are to teach our children, we should teach them all in English. If we are to conduct business among ourselves, it should be in English. Road signs, street signs, store signs, billboards — all English. It makes it easier for our nation to function, and it makes us function more efficiently.

[EDIT: Woah, I went a little overboard there… Education should be in English, at least.]

If illegal aliens flood into our country (and make no mistake, it is a flood), then it is difficult for them to assimilate. It is less likely they’ll learn English, no? Thus, this population that can’t communicate hinders our productivity, does it not?

At least, those are my initial thoughts. I’m not sure entirely how convinced I am on that point. (However, I am convinced that language is essential for national unity, but that’s another can of worms.) The conclusion raises further interesting issues. Do you think many languages within African nations is a factor in hindering their economic development? (Probably negligible compared to many other factors.) We’ve had troubles in Iraq because of the language barrier. Have there been any strong truly multi-lingual nations?

To me, it seems as if a unity of language is salutary for a nation.

Bush in Fox’s Pocket?

Read this article from the AP, which I found on Yahoo! News: Bush Pushes Congress to OK Immigrants. Bush meets with Vincente Fox. Perhaps they talking further on the deal to give some of our states to Mexico? I kid.

There are a few startling quotes from the article. First: “Bush is pushing for a guest worker program that would let foreigners in low-paying jobs stay temporarily, which Fox says is a good first step toward some form of legal status for all Mexican illegal immigrants.” Granting legal status for all Mexican illegal immigrants, eh? And yet the New York Times has the gall to tell us that it’s not amnesty. Rewarding people for breaking the law is not amnesty, eh?

The second startling quote you’ll find at the very beginning: “With Mexican President Vicente Fox at his side, President Bush gave Congress a long-distance push Thursday to open the United States to immigrant workers who have been sneaking across the borders to fill low-paying jobs.” I think they’ve got part of it backwards. The reason why illegals get paid dirt cheap is because they’re illegal. It’s because they aren’t citizens, and they don’t have the legal recourse. Are they coming in to fill the low-paying jobs? Or are those jobs low-paying because competition from illegal immigrants forces the wages down?

A Note From Management Regarding Immigration

As I understand it, there are three great dangers that face America: Islamofascism, porous borders, and the looming energy crisis. It doesn’t matter how much we combat Islamofascism in the Middle East, if we leave our borders open. It threatens to bankrupt our border states. It threatens to dissolve our nation. We will lose our country.

We face a danger that I don’t think is getting enough attention: open borders. For once, I can legitimately criticize the so-called mainstream media. The LAT is producing open propaganda in favor of the stream of illegal immigrants. The Republican Party has abandoned the base on this issue. The Party is basically committing suicide, but more on that later. You may think I’m going overboard, but I’m not, and I will illuminate this in further entries.

I like politics. I like commenting on different issues. But this is especially important. It is especially important to combat the pro-open border propaganda. Thus, I will be commenting on different issues from time to time, but I feel as if I will be devoting most of my future entries to this issue for I don’t know how long. Perhaps up until the midterm elections. Perhaps longer.

I never really wanted to commit myself to a certain niche, but I feel like this issue is too important to the solvency of my nation, and there aren’t enough crusaders on this issue. When half a million people rally in LA, and a bunch of them are waving Mexican flags, you have to be outraged. I’m sure as I continue this, lots of people will call me a xenophobe and a demagogue. It’s not about being anti-immigration. It’s not about being anti-Mexico. It’s about being pro-America. It’s about being pro-legal immigration. It’s about closing our border for security issues. If you hate America, you have no business being in our country. You are a threat to our sovereignty. Period.

Right now, I’m a small voice with a small audience. This blog has just been the random musings of a 16-19 year old. I plan on being an aggregator of news regarding immigration issues. I plan on being biased. I plan on being pro-security. And heck, why not, I plan on being big… or at least medium.

As I type this, I’m not sure I believe what I’m saying. These are quite lofty goals for such a young person. I’m not even sure I want to commit myself to this, but here I am, taking the first step. I hope you’ll join me as I begin this new journey.

Senate Passes Legislation to Give Away 6 States

In case you haven’t heard, the Senate recently passed a bill that gave away California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and Utah to Mexico. Of course, the xenophobes are mad as hell, but this is obviously the best solution.

You should learn a little history, xenophobes. These territories were stolen by the United States because we won the Mexican-American War back in the 1800’s. We’ve been taking part in an illegal occupation as bad as the Jewish occupation of Israel. We don’t belong there.

You see, none of these people are illegal immigrants… they’re just returning to their homeland! The xenophobes complain that these people don’t want to learn English or anything. Of course they don’t! They’re still in Mexico!

Believe me, folks. People aren’t here to follow the American Dream. That’s why they were waving so many Mexican flags at their protests. That’s why this group of protesters decided to fly the American flag upside down. That’s why they don’t show any respect for American laws by crossing the border illegally. They’re not all here to support the economy by performing low-paying jobs. Some of them support the informal sector, by dealing drugs. Some of them form boys organizations — also known as gangs. Some of them make up the backbone of our prison system — according to Michael Savage, they are up to 29% of our inmates.

Look, we’re never going to stop the flood of immigrants. There are already millions of illegals in the US. They’re just going to keep coming until the states essentially become provinces of Mexico anyway. That’s why it’s best just to give away our states now to Mexico. Of course, since it’s unfair to Mexico to pay for the infrastructure of all this, American tax dollars will still go to support all the hospitals and schools in the former occupied states.

C’mon you xenophobes. What’s your problem? Obviously, if you give a damn about Mexico stealing stars from our flag, you are a racist.

[Note: This is satire. The Senate has not yet passed legislation that would give any states to Mexico.]

A Slap to the Republican Base

Check out the new immigration bill. Just what the hell are the Republican party leaders thinking? Essential amnesty for millions of illegals? Caving into Democrats? Caving into a rally where illegals waved Mexican flags?

Does the Republican Party represent us anymore? Any fellow Republicans out there reading this? This must be where we make our principled stand. We must tell our party, our candidates, that we will not vote for them unless they stand firm against illegal immigration.

What’s the point of having control of the Senate and House if they won’t stand for our ideals? They say, “Don’t let the Democrats get in, they’ll do worse.” Well, look, we have reached the point where you’re just as bad as the Democrats.

The leaders of the Republican Party have delivered a slap to our faces. We must respond likewise. I don’t care how many big business people you woo. You can’t win without our votes.

Is it too ridiculous to hope for Tom Tancredo in ’08?

Aw Fuck (Civil War in Iraq)

Well, just read this from Lloyd. Follow the links within.

My response was pretty much summed up within my title, “Aw fuck.”

I don’t know what to think other than: The war is lost. We screwed up. And as for my support for Bush, I dunno if I can in good faith support such a failure. There’s a difference between missteps and failures. I thought we were on track in Iraq. I thought we could turn things around as long as we had patience. I was encouraged by American progress in Mosul. That’s why I said what I said.

I’m not sure what we should do in light of this. Establish an independent Kurdistan? Cut and run? I’m afraid we might even have to leave troops there because I wonder what Iran will do.

The old-fashioned way would be to install a puppet dictatorship. I’m not sure how that would work.

Heavens, the insurgents outsmarted us. Bombing that mosque and starting civil war. I tell you, though, it didn’t have to be this way. We just acted too slowly and I guess that’s Bush’s fault.

Perhaps that’s why Bush has seemed so distracted lately. He’s been trying to deal with (and cover up) a civil war.

Still, who do we turn to? I fear we have no leaders who can step up. We still have 3 years of Bush. What will he do now? Hide it as much as he can until midterm elections? The Republican Party can take a big hit. And then what, the Democrats censure Bush? Then what? How does this accomplish anything? This is what I fear.

We need to detach Bush from the War on Terror.

I’m sorry for being so choppy, but I’m just so flustered, and I need to throw out some thoughts now.

It’s a complex world. I still don’t think we should’ve gone into Iraq in the first place. Yes, that’s right, I don’t think we should’ve gone in Iraq and I said this a while back. Still, what do we do now? That’s the problem.

There was an article I read a while back… It said something about Iraqi civil war and the US funding each side for a stalemate. I need to find it.

One more thing, I wonder how long Saddam’s regime would’ve lasted without our invading. I’ve heard opponents of the war make the case that it was close to collapse anyway. We would be in kind of the same mess anyway, then, wouldn’t we?

And what’s up with Russia feeding intelligence to Iraq during the invasion? Something smells fishy. I wonder who is really funding the insurgents.

I don’t know. I really don’t know what to think at this point. Sometimes, it’s okay to be that way.

In Defense of Our President

[I wrote this on the airplane and have only made a few minor edits.]

George Bush has been catching a lot of flak lately. I find that whenever one makes sweeping generalizations, it is best to back it up with a personal anecdote. At my last JHU College Republicans meeting, before the president of our club had showed up, one of the high-ranking members posed this question: “Does W suck?” The general consensus seemed to be a reluctant (or perhaps not-so-reluctant) “yes.” Mind you, this is the core of the College Republicans. I don’t think we’re alone, or else Bush wouldn’t be enjoying a 37% approval rating. After a lackluster State of the Union address, Republicans seem to be disillusioned.

I wouldn’t be saying this if I wasn’t experiencing some level of disillusionment myself. I’m disappointed with the situation in Iraq. I’m disappointed with the situation with Iran. And I’ll throw in North Korea too, just to round out the Axis of Evil. I’m disappointed with Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. I’m disappointed with the wiretapping. Yep, folks, I’m disappointed overall with how the War on Terror is going.

Yet, let us take a closer look at this War on Terror. It is come to my attention that there are some problems in defining this war. We’ve got Glenn Reynolds, celebrated right-wing blogger, saying on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show: “Terrorism is an information war disguised as a military conflict.” I must strongly disagree. I hate to play the 9/11 card and play off emotions, but it is necessary. I hardly think 3000 dead constitutes some kind of mirage of violent conflict.

9/11

See that? That’s not some disguise. That’s an attack on the American people. As I’ve said before, 9/11 was an overt act of war. It’s disappointing that a lot of people don’t understand that. John Kerry, the former presidential candidate, wanted to turn this war into a law enforcement issue. You fight a war with soldiers, not policemen. You’re not going to destroy any terrorist camps that way. Thomas Friedman implores that we not let 9/11 define us. Should we have cried, “We will not let Pearl Harbor define us?” Wait, before you cry “false dichotomy,” hear me out. The point I want to make is that we’ll never win this war by playing defense, by trivializing this conflict, or ignoring it. We need to get off our asses and fight. Ladies and gentlemen, the barbarians have sacked Rome, and we seem content to fiddle with our remote controls while the nation burns.

There’s only one person in power who seems to realize that we’re at war: George W. Bush. That’s why we reelected him in 2004. Despite the flaws and disappointments, he’s the only one who realizes that 9/11 did change everything. One can rightfully make a case that he has gone too far in some instances, in extending presidential power, but I say better too much than too little. Some may argue with my reasoning. They may say, “Yes, Bush recognizes that there is a war, but he’s gone about it wrong. He may have the best intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Yes, it is true that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. However: Apathy Avenue is a quicker road to hell than Good Intentions Way. Good Intentions may lead us to hell, but it is a circuitous route, and we have many opportunities to right ourselves. In the grips of apathy, there is no destination but Self-Destruction.

In fact, let me state in plain terms what has been said earlier: I agree that George W. Bush has extended his executive powers too far. Thus, I wish Congress would grow a backbone and curtail these abuses of power. As a conservative who distrusts big government of all type, and as a liberal, in the classic sense, who wishes to guard against tyranny, I think this is of the utmost importance. However, Congress must do so in a responsible manner. The problem is that I don’t trust Congress to do so. I don’t think Congress recognizes that we’re at war. I don’t think Congress recognizes that whether it should have happened or not, Iraq is a front in the War on Terror. If we lose in Iraq, that will cause more to flock to Osama’s cause than 10 Abu Ghraib’s could cause.

I don’t trust Congress to fight the War on Terror; I trust George W. Bush. Even though he’s made some errors, at least he knows that there’s a war going on. Everyone else seems content to think that 9/11 never happened. I believe this quote from Bush is apt: “Time and distance from the events of September the 11th will not make us safer unless we act on its lessons.” George Bush also made the right and just decision to invade Afghanistan. I wonder if any Democrat would have done so. I wonder if certain Republicans would have done so. That’s why I still support our president.

I will continue to criticize him, but make no mistake, I still support him. If you are a wavering Republican, I urge you to reconsider your stance regarding Bush. If you are a Democrat who voted for him in 2004, I urge you to think of why you voted for him in the first place.

Pro-Reality is no more

I did some more thought-experimenting, and I have decided to ditch the “pro-reality” phraseology. My propagandous utterings need to be more subtle. No really, there’s something off with the phrasing. It happens when you start to confuse reality with practicality. That’s when a whole can of worms gets opened, and I’m not pro-can of worms. (For people who think you’re pro-can of worms, no you’re not because I’m not referring to real worms, I’m referring to metaphoric worms.) Note: This does not mean that I’m now anti-reality.

Pro-Reality and Pro-gay marriage

I’ve been pondering a new phrase: pro-reality. I can use it to support opinions that may not line up perfectly with who would become my political base. Or really, I can use it to justify just about any position. It’s a great little tool.

For example, let’s say, “I’m pro-gay marriage.” At this point in time, many Americans are opposed to gay marriage. Now, people will immediately want to discard any other opinions I have simply because they disagree with me on this one issue. Ah, but not so fast, “I’m pro-reality.” Wait, they must be thinking, this is an intriguing turn of phrase and not part of any of the talking points I’ve been trained to ignore. “People don’t choose to be homosexual. It’s biological. So, we’re always going to have homosexual couples.” Yeah, that’s true. That’s right. That’s reality. “We have to deal with this reality.” Exactly what I was thinking! This guy makes sense. I wonder what he’ll say next. “I’m simply in favor of marriage for homosexual couples in order to give them to same legal rights as other married couples have. If one partner dies, we want the other partner to be able to inherit his or her things. It’s unfair any other way.” Hm, yes. That’s true. But I’m still not completely convinced that’s why we should allow gay marriage. “But I understand that some people are against gay marriage.” Hey, this guy understands my position and doesn’t think I’m a bigot. Maybe I will listen to the rest of what he has to say. “That’s why I’m also okay with civil unions.” (That’s the compromise qualifier. There’s also the implied “pro-reality” argument within the last two statements.) “See, all I want is for same-sex couples, a reality we have to deal with, to have the same legal rights as other couples.” That’s good. He doesn’t want to redefine marriage. He doesn’t want to tear down society. “I’m in favor of legal benefits for same-sex couples. I don’t want to redefine marriage. I have no hidden agenda. This is my agenda, and I think it’s fair, and I think it’s consistent with reality.” Oh, so this guy isn’t completely crazy simply because of his position he uttered at the start. I guess it’s okay to support him even though I disagree with him on one issue. In fact, I may be starting to agree with him on the civil unions thing.

I don’t think this was the best example, but you can see the power of the pro-reality argument. When you say you’re pro-reality, you control the facts. Thus, the audience automatically must agree with your premises. Then, you build a logically tight argument that allows for compromise (compromise being an essential component of being pro-reality), and there’s pretty much no conceivable way an opponent can disagree. No, I take that back, they can disagree, but there’s no conceivable way an opponent can paint you as a radical. And see, the way I lay out my argument, there’s no slippery slope for bestiality or polygamy. I was talking about couples. I was talking about reality.

I must add that this is my true position for gay marriage, and I hope I didn’t offend anyone by trying to simulate an opponent’s thoughts. I meant it to be humorous. However, I must add one thing to my argument. I am pro-gay marriage because I think it’s easier to give the legal benefits same-sex couples deserve through marriage, instead of trying to construct the all-new status of “civil union.” But like I said, I’m pro-reality, so I’m not automatically anti-civil union, as long as it provides legal benefits that same-sex couples should have.

15 Pages Or Less

We have two staplers in the library, in the room where the printers are. There is one for 15-something pages. There is another for 15 or less pages. However, some smart aleck decided to cross out “less” and put “fewer.” Hilarious. Only at JHU.

Pi Day Hooray

In honor of pi day… from memory…

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459

Still got it. My one useless talent. Whoo.

I figure it’s good to have at least one useless random hidden talent so that if anyone surprises you on the street for some TV show, you can do something amazing.

I Am Short

I have come to the realization that I am very short. This is a problem. Not that I’m insecure or anything, but people look up to their leaders, so to speak. Basically, if I want to be a politician and president, I’ll be facing an uphill battle as a short person. I don’t have as commanding a presence as those who are taller. Those as tall as, let’s say, John Kerry, have a natural advantage in elections. The taller person tends to win.

This disappoints me. I do have a plan, though. I am half-Asian. (That’s why I’m so short.) More specifically, half-Chinese. Perhaps, I should help agitate for democratic change in China. If they ever do have democratic elections, I can move there. Maybe I can be president of China. I don’t think I’ll have to be as tall.

Just kidding. I love my country. I figure if FDR could figure out how to deal with being disabled, I can figure out how to deal with being short.

Returning to My Resolution

What is my purpose? I read to read. I write to write. I take classes for what purpose? I must return to my New Year’s resolution.

I have realized that I have lost the way in writing essays. I simply write just to put things on paper, in the idea that “You can’t edit what you don’t have written down.” Very true, but I’ve been struggling as of late, with my essays. I realize it’s because I need purpose. I must not write to write. I must not write to go through motions. Each step must be for the purpose of making a completed essay. Not just to get stuff down on paper.

I have realized that I have lost the way in my classes. I am just taking classes and for what purpose? I experiment with different classes and to what end? I am rudderless without knowing my major. However, I should not use that excuse in order to not have a purpose. My purpose should be determining my major. It is the same if you are approaching a battle and you are unsure of what course of action to take. Reconnaissance is not done just for the sake of reconnaissance. Reconnaissance is done with the intent of winning the battle.

I have realized that I have lost the way in reading for my classes. I read just to get the reading done. I think of nothing else. There must be a higher purpose in mind. To read for pleasure is certainly a goal that can be had, but it is not this way for classes.

I have realized that I have lost the way with my comic. I go through the motions simply trying to catch up with updating. I must have a higher goal in mind. I must actively work on these steps, not merely think about them.

Truly, I have lost my way. I merely go through the day, trying to survive. I merely go through my day, often losing my way. I lose hours upon hours of time, and for what purpose? Just to put off my work. There must be a better way.

I noticed that when I was doing research for a particular project, I merely looked at news articles. I didn’t aggregate or anything until later. Once I was finished with the articles, I stopped working. I have since realized that I did this without the express purpose of completing my work. I did this without any end in mind. In fact, I planned on not finishing. That’s a big problem. Every move should be a killing move.

If I wish to truly follow my New Year’s resolution, I must apply it to every facet of life. Two months and 13 days have gone by, and what have I done? All I have done is lost my way, constantly.

This entry was written with the express purpose of returning myself to that day, January 1, 2006. This entry was written with the express purpose of refocusing my energies. This entry was written with the express purpose of returning to my way:

Every move is a killing move.

A New Barrier

There’s a barrier there that wasn’t there before. In the old days, if I met you as a friend of a friend, you became my friend. Now, friends of friends are just that — friends of friends. There is no guarantee that they can make that hop over to being my friend. In fact, it’s more likely that they’ll not make that transition and remain distant. Such is life in the second semester of college.

ISP Blocked

I didn’t update yesterday because somehow my ISP got blocked by my webhost. As in, I couldn’t access my own websites. Ah well, problem fixed.

Your 15 Minutes Are Up… No, really

This from the Balitmore Sun: “Cindy Sheehan… was arrested yesterday along with three other women during a demonstration demanding the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The march to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations by about a dozen U.S. and Iraqi anti-war activists followed a news conference at U.N. headquarters… Police said the women were charged with criminal trespassing and resisting arrest” [emphasis mine].

A dozen people? That’s all Cindy Sheehan could muster? It’s laughable that the Democrats thought she would reinvigorate their party. All she gets now is a buried little tidbit in the paper.

In related news, Democrats Vow Not To Give Up Hopelessness.

The New Hartford Convention

In case you don’t know your history, the Hartford Convention took place right about the end of the War of 1812 in which America fought Great Britain to a standstill. Anyway, the Hartford Convention was the death of the Federalist party. I suggest you go look it up.

What I’m saying right now isn’t that there is one occuring right now. I’m saying we might be looking at something very similar in the future.

Let’s first look at the possibility that there may be such an event. We have the Republican “Contract With America” in 1994 that led to Republican power today. The Democrats want to imitate that. They want a strong national image, an alternative to the Republicans that they’ve been searching for. They have “said that they were planning to offer their own version by summer.“

I’m saying we could be looking not at a new Contract With America, but a new Hartford Convention. Could. Not will be. It’s not assured by any means or even highly likely. Still, I can’t help shaking this feeling. If you want to know why, read on…

First off, the Democrats are bungling, inept, and have some questionable choices for leadership. (Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean come quickly to mind.) First, they were going to turn Sheehan into a revolution. Then, it was Katrina. Now what? Face it, going into the 2004 election, we had a president who by most historical indicators, probably should’ve lost, but the Democrats managed to lose it anyway. I’m sorry for the harsh words if you’re a Democrat, but you must realize that your party is on the ropes.

If the radical left manages to control the message in the future Democratic Contract With America, we will see the suicide of the Democratic party. Why? It won’t be because they introduce things like gay marriage, abortion anytime anywhere, or national health care. It’s because they are out of the American mainstream regarding security and the Iraq War. The Federalists died after Andrew Jackson won in New Orleans. If the Democrats call for a timetable for retreat, it will be the end of the Democratic party, mark my words.

Alright, maybe it’s not a guaranteed suicide. But I think the Democrats must be very careful because this could spell the end of their party, especially if they extend any proposals that would weaken our nation’s security.

Especially too… if we capture Osama bin Laden right after they release their message. Hm…

The Democrats keep screwing up and screwing up, despite all that’s happening to Bush and the Republican Party. I don’t think anyone can disagree with that. All I’m saying is, one big screw up, and the party could go kablooey. Think about it for a second. Think about the conditions that could coincide with the Democratic message. Think about how much the Dems have screwed up recently. Think about it very carefully, and you will realize that although it is not likely, there is still a very real possibility.

[EDIT: Replaced “whackjobs in control” with “some questionable choices for leadership.” Also replaced “nutjobs” with “radical left.”]

Discourse on Jon Stewart

Jon Stewart seems to me a very niche comedian. He’s found his shtick. He’s the exasperated newscaster. I used to watch the Daily Show everyday. He’s talented and people are right to love him.

However, I’m not sure how well it translated to the Oscars tonight. (Which means, in a roundabout fashion, it didn’t translate very well.) Granted, I only caught glimpses, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt. I think Jon Stewart needs to be flabbergasted or exasperated to be at his funniest. Of course, the Oscars… for the kind of jokes we know Jon Stewart… not an appropriate venue. Face it, Jon Stewart… Oscars… complete mismatch. The only way for Jon Stewart to be funny at the Oscars would be to completely satirize it.

That being said, the funniest moment out of the parts that I saw: The commercials for best actress. Who did the voice-over? Stephen Colbert? (Hm…) Anyway, they worked because they were in a parody format. Like I said, the only way Jon Stewart could be funny at the Oscars would be to parody it.

Unless, Jon Stewart decided to parody the whole hosting thing. That would be crazy, but too subtle for people to pick up on, I think.

Of course, maybe the biggest joke would be if the Oscars were a parody of themselves. Maybe it was and I missed it…

In any case, stick to the Daily Show, Jon.

03/07/06 – EDIT: According to a Time.com article, it was Stephen Colbert who narrated those attack ads.

Why I Need To Go On Vacation More Often

I wrote this on a post-it note while in Atlanta:

“I carry around a granola bar in my pocket, so if a homeless guy wants money, I can give him that instead. Unfortunately, I started a trend, and now an ounce of cocaine is worth 20 granola bars. I plan to flood the market with currency and destabilize the drug trade.”

I realize that I haven’t been observing the world as closely as I was during summer. That vacation was just me observing the world. I would like to go on more fact-finding missions. I think I need to go to random places, just stare at the people, and then write about them.

“they mill about aimlessly
i am not watching the fish
i am watching the people”

Honestly, I’ve found it increasingly harder to write Chalkboard Manifesto comics. I just don’t have the same poignant observations about the world that compel me to write them down. Mainly, it’s a point of me just not really looking for them. Before, I was always on the look out for something that could turn into a comic. Nay, I also spent much more time interacting with people. I am at my best comedically when I can twist someone’s words or use their words as a springboard for a humorous thought. Today, my interactions are limited to less than a minute. I pass by them in the hall, in the bathroom, outside Terrace, and soon I must be on my way, and they, their way.

“wicked fob of the west red shoes”

Vacations seem unfeasible, though. I think I need to take Post-It notes around with me always and be unafraid to write everything down. Most of it will be junk. However, at least within the junk I can find a few gems, rather than trying to conjure something from nothing.

So Confused About Econ

So… I thought I failed my Econ quiz. I get my quiz back and the grade doesn’t look great, but better than I expected. Then my TA gives the A, B, C, D breakdown. I’m just at the cut-off… for an A. I’m in a state of utter disbelief at this point. The only conclusion: I am fucking brilliant. No, really, in a sense, I’m mad at the world for continually rewarding my lack of studying, effort, and trying. But I’ll take it as a sign to not sweat the small stuff and concentrate on more important things. Really, it’s a blessing if I can figure out how not to lapse into apathy.

My Impressions of Mr. Friedman at JHU

In one sense, I was disappointed. His speech was a concise version of the first part of his most recent book, The World is Flat. He basically explained what he calls the levelling of the global playing field, what led to this, and implications for the future. Well, not so much on implications for the future.

However, I’m an auditory learner. Although I’d just finished his book, I felt like I consolidated his teachings by listening to him. Furthermore, he’s a great speaker. He’s a storyteller. He took what was happening in the world today, and explained it in terms everyone could understand, and presented it as this great story of globalization. He did it humorously, sprinkled it with personal anecdotes, and with great changes in voice inflection and volume. Amazing, convincing speaker.

He was right-on with his answers. The things people asked, he’d already thought out the answers way before. Especially when the idiot questioners asked things he’d already addressed in his book. (Oy.)

I did learn some new things. One thing, I don’t remember the thing, but I do remember that Mr. Friedman said he was going to talk about it in his Op-Ed article coming out tomorrow in the New York Times.

Well, I’d love to reference it tomorrow, but unfortunately, all of Mr. Friedman’s articles, and all the other Op-Eds, and stuck behind the subscription wall called Times Select. A pay wall, I must add.

So, in an ironic sense, Mr. Friedman is a little bit behind the times, despite his amazing grasp of the globalizing world. He mentions “uploading” as one of his 10 Flatteners. This is uploading content — like bloggers. Well, interesting statistic: After Times Select went up, I’ve seen approximately zero links to any of Mr. Friedman’s articles.

Now, don’t misunderstand me and think I’m trying to get a “gotcha” moment. Mr. Friedman has a best-selling book out, and people read the paper version of the New York Times, and some people pay for Times Select — he’s still got big clout and big reach. Still, I think the New York Times (not Friedman, I’m sure he wasn’t in charge of this at all), made a mistake. You want your opinions bandied about the blogosphere.

Whenever a speaker mentions that we need great leaders to promote certain things, it ignites a fire in my heart — I want to be that leader. And yet, I always end up chastising my lack of work ethic. But I don’t think it’s that. I think I lack passion. I haven’t found anything that would make me so passionate that it would compel me to amazing action, despite the occasional stirring in my heart. Or, perhaps, I haven’t found it within myself.

In conclusion, I got my book, which I just finished, signed by Mr. Friedman. Pretty cool, I guess. But I’d rather be the guy doing the signing.