Pirates

Whenever I think of pirates, I typically think of the movie Pirates of the Caribbean featuring Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow. Although it has been a while since I have seen that movie, and I do not remember much of the plot, I still associate the type of attire they wore in that movie and old wooden ships, as well as, gross, very mild zombielike people with the stereotype of a pirate. Buried treasure and the search for it also comes to mind when thinking about pirates.

The type of pirates mentioned above must be the old-school version, because the first time I ever heard of pirates in real life (and found out that they really exist) was when the Somalian pirates took over Captain Phillips's ship. If I'm not mistaken, that is what the new movie featuring Tom Hanks is about. Prior to the Somalian pirate incident, I did not realize that piracy (other than the technological meaning) was a real problem in the world. According to the New York Times article, Somali piracy is currently at a seven year low. This is good news for the east coast of Africa. However, on the west coast of Africa, particularly Nigeria, there is a different story. This is where, just a week ago, two Americans were abducted by Nigerian pirates off a US oil vessel.

In my opinion, the new-school pirates are not as cool as the old-school ones. The new pirates (or real ones) do not wear eyepatches, fight using cannons, pistols, and swords, and travel the seas in a wooden ship with a skull and crossbones flag in search of buried treasure, but rather wear raggedy shirts, carry assault rifles, abduct innocent people from ships, and hold them for ransom. This could, however, have been how pirates have always been, but the legends of the pirates of the past have twisted this truth into something completely different and much more interesting, rather than just savage-like and inhumane.

Government Shutdown and Debt Ceiling

The recent battle over the government shutdown and the debt ceiling serves as a wonderful illustration of where our country stands politically right now. Nearly every vote was split on party lines, and the ever-intensifying split in the GOP was seen throughout, not necessarily by vote, but by each side's words and attitudes toward one another. The cry for a third party is definitely getting louder amongst the Tea Party and Libertarians, as each favor much smaller government, are from the grassroots (which makes them more relatable to the people), and share many of the same views regarding liberty and freedom.

The cry for a third party, to me, is a healthy sign, as a third party would offer another option for Americans, strengthening democracy. One thing that is not so healthy, however, is something I read from the guardian article that we read on the shutdown. The Guardian wrote...

"Another Chinese tourist, on the National Mall with his fiancée, said he had not followed the politics of the fiscal crisis closely. "But this is what happens when you have two parties," he quipped. "One party is better.”"

This is a scary idea to me. A one party system may get things done much faster because there is no opposition, however, it is practically a dictatorship. The system of checks and balances may stop the government from operating at its full potential, but that is the way of a democracy. I find this very interesting, as I am learning about different political and government structures, as well as, democracy versus dictatorships in my world politics class.

One thing I have heard through most media outlets, including ESPN last night, is that it is the Republicans fault for shutting down the government because they failed to compromise. I can empathize with that view of the situation because it could certainly seem like that, (I also know that I may be a little biased, since I do consider myself a conservative at the end of the day) but I do not think that the Republicans were the ones refusing to compromise. Democrats, including the president, got everything they wanted out of the shutdown. Also, every bill written up by Republicans in the house was put down by Democrats in the senate. In addition to this, it was said many times that the president did not want to negotiate with Republicans. So Republicans were not the ones who were unwilling to negotiate, and ended up getting little to nothing (except for blame) out of the bill that finally ended the government shutdown and extended the debt ceiling.

As for the debt ceiling, it should not have been raised. The U.S. national debt is currently over $17,000,000,000,000. That is more than our current GDP. The current debt per citizen is nearly $54,000 and the current debt per taxpayer is nearly $149,000. The national debt is growing as we speak and it must be paid off eventually. It is time our government takes responsibility and only spends what they bring in. They must be held accountable now because the future is going to be rough with this debt hanging over for generations-to-come.

New York Biker Incident

The incident that occurred in New York including a family in a Range Rover versus a mass of bikers (NOT a biker gang, as explained in the article) is very interesting to me because I do not know how I feel, nor do I know how I should feel about the situation. In my eyes, the altercation can be described as a series of blame shifts from one party to the other, broken down like so:

• Initially, the bikers are to blame due to their disobedience of road laws, performing stunts and traveling at illegal speeds, as well as their plain lack of respect for other users of the road, gathering in masses that leave little to no room for other drivers.
• Next, the driver takes the blame when he bumps into the back of a motorcyclist.
• Then, the bikers regain blame when they surround the car, and intimidate the driver, who then is allowed to flee, since he feels threatened.
• After this, the driver takes back the blame in dramatic fashion, running over a biker who was helping the initially injured motorcyclist, and then speeding off.
• Finally, the bikers steal the blame back once and for all by chasing the man down, and, eventually, beating him up. 

As you can see, according to my analysis, blame is transferred four times here. The bikers begin and end with the blame so it should be easy to pin it down on them. However, if you look at the actual damage that was done here, you can see that the biker that was run over, fell into a coma, and is now paralyzed and won't be able to walk for the rest of his life. This is rather sad, considering he was helping out the initial fallen biker, and wasn't even part of the supposed mob that scared or spooked the driver, causing him to drive off so viciously. Also, the driver's beating wasn't too bad, I don't believe. It was described that he had minor injuries. His Range Rover suffered a pretty hard hit though. Bumping into bikers and having the window smashed is sure to do some damage to it.

The second article was somewhat confusing to me. It seems as if the NYPD officer they are speaking of, may have been involved with the biker group and contributed to the beating of the man. I am not 100% if that is correct though, possibly he was investigating the situation crookedly? I am not sure, as the article spoke more of his ties to infiltration of the Occupy Wall Street movement by the NYPD and his specific involvement. 

Occupy Wall Street is an interesting topic in itself. Described as an anti-capitalist movement, I am definitely far away from them ideologically, however, I can relate with their anger at the power and special treatments given to big corporations by government. In my opinion, this is what occurs when the establishment types in Washington are continued to be elected to their seats for so long, that they forget who they are actually there for, and begin to work for special interests, rather than the general public, as Adam Smith may say. This causes "Wall Street Giants" who are often kept afloat by government bailouts, and are not allowed to fail when practicing poor business techniques, as any small business would. This interferes with the "invisible hand", and does not allow the economy to regulate itself. The way I see it, this is a very crooked form of capitalism (if capitalism at all) and not a true free market economy.

The Golden Age of Television?

I've been watching TV ever since I can remember. From children's shows like Rugrats and movies like Tarzan, Toy Story, and Bug's Life to TV MA shows like South Park and Beavis and Butthead and movies with Will Ferrell and Jim Carrey to sitcoms like The Fresh Prince, Full House, and Roseanne, I watched everything from a young age. This was because my dad is awesome, and let my brother and I watch what ever he was watching, as much as my mom or grandma didn't approve. I think we turned out alright though, so there was nothing to worry about in the end. All it gave my brother and I was a great sense of humor, almost too good at times. We have joked before on how it seems hard to find certain things, that many people find funny, to be funny because we have been blessed with seeing such funnier things.

I was informed in class last week that we are living in the golden age of television programs. My initial reaction was, "No way!", but then I started thinking, "Wait, this could very well be true." In my experience watching old TV shows with my dad, I have learned that shows used to be pretty corny with bad acting. Nowadays, the acting is wonderful, the sets and props look very real and are high quality, and the plots have people obsessed with the shows. This is seen in shows like Breaking Bad, TV drama series that end nearly every episode with cliffhangers that have you counting down the days to the next one. I think that in the TV Drama department, we are definitely living in the golden age.

Another department that I feel we are doing well in TV wise is the spin on "America's funniest home videos" department. With shows like Tosh.0 and Ridiculousness, I feel this is a great time for these types of shows. Not to mention, the help of the internet with the creation of this new take on an old classic.

There is a couple places, however, where I feel we are really lacking compared to the late 1980s to early 2000s in TV. The first is the children's chow category. All of the shows I have seen my younger cousins watching are ridiculous and stupid. They leave out the moral to the story that is supposed to come at the end of every children's show. Instead, they all end with a bunch of odd looking creatures dancing to some dumb song because they got what they wanted. What type of message is that sending? It is isn't even teaching kids to win with some integrity, just dance around like an idiot whenever you get what you wanted. In life you hardly ever get what you want, but that is something I learned from a young age because I was taught by my cartoons (and my parents, of course, I have, after all, spent a lot of my life in a recession). Another place, for the moral reason and because the new ones just aren't funny, is the situation comedy department. There just aren't any good sitcoms on TV, anymore. Where are the Fresh Prince of Bel-Airs, the Full Houses, the Roseannes, and the Home Improvements in today's TV? These were all situated around a family who, at the end of the day, always had a good message to send, and many people could relate to and/or learn from them. All of these shows had good values in them that reinforced or echoed, so to speak, the same things being taught by your parents at home. There isn't anything like these shows today and it really saddens me.

Overall, I think the quality of TV produced by high definition TVs and HD cameras and such, has really catapulted the production of any show to have much greater potential than it did years ago. The plot writing by those in the TV drama department, along with this, has really caused that TV sector to boom, in my opinion. However, the sitcoms I loved are still missing from the modern TV guide. I guess you can't get the best of both at the same time (and that is a lesson you won't learn by watching any modern sitcom or children's show and that is what is wrong with them).

Pet Videos and Memes

If someone were to ask me what I thought college would challenge me with academically, never would I have said, "Probably writing blogs on cat and dog memes and videos for a grade." Yet, here I am a month in to my first year and that is exactly what I'm up against.

There aren't too many people in the world that can deny the cuteness of a little kitten getting tickled with its paws spread or a puppy with big eyes who looks more like a beanie baby than a real creature. However, why have we as a society developed an obsession and, in some cases, an addiction to watching, sharing, searching, and/or creating memes and videos of these pets of ours? What I see being the answer to this question came to me when doing the assigned reading for this topic. I didn't extract it from the text, but (somehow) when applying cats and dogs to history and economic ideas, the answer just came to me.

One thing I learned from my tenth grade AP world history course is that all throughout history, whenever a society is doing well economically, there is a mass increase in leisure time and leisure activities. I feel that watching pet videos and viewing pet memes would be considered a leisure time activity (except for in this case, which is academic, of course). As we all know, the United States of America has been, and still is, a powerhouse of a country at a global level. Many of the less fortunate in our country are well off from the perspective of someone in other countries around the world. However, what we also know is that our economy isn't performing at a level that it used to, and the "general public", as Smith may say, has definitely felt a mighty blow. Oddly though, dog and cat memes and videos are not a privilege reserved exclusively for the rich. This is very much due to the invention of the internet and all of the free entertainment within it. Just think about how this would've been back prior to the 20th century. The wealthy and ruling classes of society would be the only ones to have the privilege of live shows of dogs and cats being cute and performing funny acts. Luckily, for us, this isn't the case now. 

Or are we really so lucky? The rich in society can afford to waste time watching pet videos and such, however, the general public does not have this kind of time to waste. I don't know about you, but I know that when I get on youtube to watch a video, it never EVER stops with just one. Very frequently actually, it turns into 30 minutes to an hour of time wasted that I will never get back. Granted not all of these videos are on pets, it is easy to start with one focus and bounce from one topic to another. But imagine if you had all the time you ever wasted watching pet videos or searching for pet memes back? Or if you had all of the time you ever wasted watching the videos or memes that these videos and memes triggered you to watch or see back? You'd have a lot of time on your hands to do something very productive...or you could just use it to watch more pet videos.