The New World Order

Here are my thoughts on the Amero...

I believe our government is absolutely planning to create a global government, a global economy, a global currency, a global military, and a global police state. 9/11 was carried out by our own government and not middle eastern terrorists. There is no real "war on terror". We're in Iraq just to get the oil. All of these things are just steps in their plan to unify and control the world, and they're using the mass media to do it. They use the mass media to control the public's emotions, and to manipulate the public's will in their favor. Our government is planning to implement a mandatory global identification card. As if that's not bad enough they eventually plan to implant microchips inside people's bodies in order to track citizens in this global totalitarian society. Here is a quote from the bible that foretells this evil plot. "No one will be able to buy or sell without the mark of the beast, or the number of the beast".

The Euro, the Amero, 9/11 and the patriot act are all just stepping stones in bringing about the new world order. The patriot act is only one of many new laws being put into place by our government which are designed to take away our rights and transform our society into a global totalitarian state. The sad part is that they fooled the public into believing that they are fighting the war on terror, and that these things must be done for the sake of our national security. That's complete bullshit!! Some people say the free masons are behind our government, some people say it's the bilderberg group, others say it's the illuminati. Whoever it is, what they're doing speaks much louder than who they are. The public needs to realize what they're doing, and take immediate action!!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy_theory%29

Millennial Tension (Generation Next)

I just watched the 60 minutes video about Millenials. I consider myself a Millennial because I fit many of the criteria. I was born in 1980. I only take "yes" for an answer, and I'm tech savvy, despite the fact that I'm still unable to get links to work in my blogs.

It seems like my generation has the most negative attributes associated with it, compared to any other generation. They call us immature, narcissistic, dependant on our parents, bossy, rude. Although, I guess every new generation is looked upon that way to some extent by the previous generations. Either way, I'm proud of these stereotypes and characteristics. Why? Because we have the power, and that's what matters. They need us more than we need them, and if not, screw them anyway. We will find other ways of making money using the Internet, our computers, our cell phones, our PDAs, and yes, even our iPods.

There is always tension between generations, but in the end we all learn to adapt and live with each other. Right now they have to adapt to us, but remember that life comes full circle. One day, we're going to have to adapt to the next generation as well, and we'll probably say similar things about them.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y

So My Daughter Married A Witch Doctor

This week we watched Guess Who's Coming To Dinner. The film's theme remains controversial to this day. I can imagine how controversial it must have been in 1967. In the process of researching Guess Who's Coming To Dinner, I found out that interracial marriage had been against the law in many states in our nation up until fairly modern times. I was surprised to learn that. I hadn't realized just how prejudiced and closed minded our legislation could be in a time so recent to our own. I have to admit that I'm not as open minded as I like to think I am, but unlike gay marriage, I believe interracial marriage should not be outlawed. People are people and no one race is any better than another. Though everyone likes to think that their race is the best, at the end of the day when everything is said and done, we're all people and we're all in the same boat.

The premise of the film is to show that there's really nothing wrong with interracial marriage so long as the involved parties are willing to deal with the consequences. In order to show this, they made Dr. Prentice's character almost unrealistically perfect and appealing in every way except for the fact that he's black. Which is fine, but there's one thing I don't understand. Why the rush? If they intended to make Dr. Prentice the ideal fiance, then why have them getting married within days of meeting each other? That aspect really takes away from the integrity of his character and diminishes the value of his quality as a fiance. In fact, it makes him rather questionable and suspicious if you take into account the added racial tension. I think if they would have left out the time limitations, it would have been far more effective in portraying Dr. Prentice's character in the intended way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guess_Who's_Coming_to_Dinner

Shiver Me Timbres!!

Should people be allowed to pirate music? As a musician and a music consumer, I'm faced with a difficult dilemma. As a musician, part of me says no because I want fans to purchase my recordings. Another part of me says yes because allowing your music to be pirated is an extremely effective way of distributing your music to a global audience and getting your name out there. As a consumer, I say absolutely music should be pirated because it saves me hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year, which I would have otherwise spent at the music store. Another positive aspect of peer to peer networks is that they provide a market for musicians which just doesn't exist in a traditional music store. http://limewire.com/

Most of the bands and artists out there can't be found in most music stores, and they even can't be found in so called "independent" or "underground" music stores. I'm not talking about your neighbor's son's high school punk band. I'm referring to professional, world famous artists. The reason is because achieving distribution in the physical world is extremely expensive and time consuming. A lot of musicians simply can't afford it. But in cyber space, all it takes is a few mouse clicks and your recordings are instantly available to the entire world. It's free distribution on a truly global scale.

It really depends on who you are. There are many artists out there that want their music to be pirated and use it as a means of promotion and distribution. Obviously if you're Metallica, you're going to be against pirating music because you're already world famous and it would take away from your album sales. But if you're an unknown struggling musician or even a somewhat famous musician, allowing your music to be pirated can be quite a beneficial tool that will actually build your career rather than destroy it.

A Siriusly Sound Subscription

In my opinion, satellite radio is absolutely worth paying for. The main reasons are because satellite radio plays the music I want to hear, and terrestrial radio doesn't. And because satellite radio is commercial free. Terrestrial radio is free but it doesn't play the music I want to hear, and it's littered with annoying commercial advertising. So it's a trade off, but one that's well worth it for me. Satellite radio should charge people because it's providing a service that terrestrial radio doesn't provide. Plus you can listen to satellite radio for free on the Internet so it's really not that bad, nor is it that expensive if you do pay for it.

I like the current radioscape and I hope it remains the way it is. I don't see very much change occurring in the next ten years, and that's a good thing because I like things the way they are. I'm a musician and if music is my bread and butter, then satellite radio is the oven and the churn. You might have to pay for satellite radio, but look at the bright side. Thanks to the Internet and the advent of peer to peer file sharing programs and bit torrents, we don't have to buy music anymore. We can just download songs and even entire albums for free. However, whether we should or shouldn't pirate music is another matter, and another blog post.


http://www.xmradio.com/

One Small Step For Man... One Giant Leap For Freedom Of Speech!!

I couldn't be more thrilled about the fact that satellite radio is not governed by the FCC. In my vocabulary, FCC stands for the Failure to Communicate Commission. The FCC filters out so much cool stuff that terrestrial radio has become extremely boring, tasteless, and watered down. That's exactly why I don't listen to terrestrial radio. Terrestrial radio only plays pop music from MTV, or stuffy old classical music. Other than the occasional good jazz composition, terrestrial radio has nothing to offer me. If I want to hear the music that I really listen to, I have to listen to satellite radio because only satellite radio will play it. So if it wasn't for satellite radio and the fact that it's not governed by the FCC, I wouldn't be able to hear my favorite bands on the radio.

I pray the FCC never gains control of satellite radio, that would be a truly sad day for people who enjoy real music, and real radio content. Being a musician myself, I strongly believe that music needs to have an uncensored medium because the majority of music that has been produced in the world, doesn't conform to FCC regulations. Underground music needs to have a medium where it can be broadcast in a mass media format because there is a large market out there for it. Not in the sense that there is money to be made, although there is. But in the sense that people who produce underground music, and the people who listen to underground music need to have a mass media outlet for it so they can enjoy it, and promote it.


http://www.sirius.com/

Water for Elephants Essay

Jacob Jankowski, the novel's protagonist, comes from an upper class background and in an ironic twist of fate, is repositioned to lower class status due to an unfortunate accident. The novel is told in flashback by Jacob. He reminisces on the exciting and uncertain period he spent with the Benzini Brothers circus, which he joined during the Great Depression. The memories start when Jacob is twenty three years old and studying for his finals as a veterinary student. Jacob’s father was a veterinarian also and Jacob planned to join his practice. Unfortunately, Jacob learns that his parents have been killed in a car accident, leaving him penniless.

He finds out that his father was greatly in debt because he had been treating animals without pay as well as mortgaging the family home to provide Jacob with an Ivy League education. Jacob goes through a breakdown and is forced to drop out of Cornell University just shy of graduation. He jumps on a train only to learn that it is a circus train. When the owner of the circus, Uncle Al, learns of his training as a vet, Jacob is hired to care for a menagerie of exotic circus animals. The novel chronicles Jacob’s experiences with the circus as he learns the hierarchy of circus workers and performers, and gains an understanding of the injustices of circus life while fighting to maintain his own moral identity. He falls in love with Marlena, one of the show's star performers. This romance is complicated by Marlena's husband, August, the abusive animal trainer who beats both his wife and the animals Jacob takes care of. August is suspicious of their relationship and beats Marlena and Jacob. Soon after, Marlena leaves August. This is the pivotal event which leads to the ultimate downfall of the circus. Toward the end, several workers who had been thrown off the train previously, come back and release the animals causing a stampede during the performance. Amidst the panic and chaos, August is murdered. As a result of all of this taking place during a circus performance, the circus goes out of business. Marlena and Jacob, along with several circus animals, leave and begin their new life together. The story resolves itself with a violent but happy and optimistic ending.

The entire circus is a metaphor that describes the uneasy and often violent relationship between the ruling class and the poor lower class within society. The circus is a microcosm and represents the larger society's economic hardship and class war, portraying it on a personal level. The stampede of animals in the prologue paints a powerful picture of rebellion and revolution as the under class overthrows the sadistic and oppressive ruling class within the hierarchy of the circus. Jacob represents John Q Public, the blue collar working man in the throes of economic oppression. Uncle Al and August represent the upper class which abuses and exploits the working class. Locked within this circus's strict class system was a deep anger and resentment at injustice. The turmoil gathered steam until a backlash was unleashed and it manifested itself as pandemonium and violence. We don't have to go back to the time of the great depression to witness tension between the rich and the poor. In recent times, we have seen many riots in lower class and inner city neighborhoods. Rioting, robbing, looting, and violence are common methods of rebelling against the upper class and continue to plague our society in modern times.

The animals and the lowest class workers were pushed beyond the point of tolerance and resorted to murder and mayhem to bring down the hierarchy and the well-defined class structure of the circus. The whole circus system paralleled the division between the privileged and the destitute during the great depression and helps explain much of the unrest of the thirties as well as how movements like socialism and communism gained much more appeal during the 1930's than at any other time in our nation's history. I thought the novel portrayed these elements of the era in a very original and satirical fashion. The circus was structured in terms of economics, who got paid and when and how much. It functioned like a government, certain people made decisions, others couldn't. Certain people had a voice in those decisions, others didn't. One side had the power, the other side was expendable. In the end, morality and virtue prevail over greed and power, and that is the true message behind this story.

The Primal Consumer

This week we watched The Hidden Persuaders, a documentary on the advertising industry. Two people from the video that caught my attention were Frank Lutz and Clotaire Rapaille. Being a small business owner myself, as well as a poet, I'm very interested in the emotional and psychological aspects of advertising and how they interrelate with words and phrases. I want to know what my customers want to hear and what they don't want to hear. I want to know what they want from me and what they want from my products and services. Most of all, I want to know what pulls their strings, and what will motivate them to buy my products.

Specifically I'd like to learn more about reptilian hot buttons and the language of advertising. In other words, which words to use, and which words not to use to appeal to customers and draw them in. Unfortunately I can't afford to be "on code", but the video gave me a basic framework for appealing to customers and communicating with their reptilian brains. I now understand that as a marketer, I need to appeal to people's basest vices. Hopefully I'll be able to find more detailed information about how to do so online.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/main.html?pkg=2303&seg=1&mod=1

Green Eggs and Spam

Should Schools remove controversial books from their libraries?

It's a very difficult question to answer. If the answer is yes, then how do you determine what should be removed and what shouldn't, and how do you justify the artistic, moral and constitutional infractions made against the authors of these books? If the answer is no, then how do you deal with the negative consequences of that decision?

In a practical society, there should be some sort of balance between the two sides. In my opinion, the ideal route would be to let the individual schools, school districts, and PTAs decide what should be removed and what shouldn't. Parents have the right to censor what their children are exposed to, and so it's perfectly alright to remove a certain book from a school library if the majority of parents feel it is the proper thing to do. After all, if a parent feels that their child should be allowed to read a controversial book, they can go to a real library and access it.

I'm usually strongly opposed to censorship because I am a highly controversial artist myself, but this is one case where I have compromised my beliefs for the sake of a greater right.

http://title.forbiddenlibrary.com/

Don't Judge Me By My Lover

A large part of what condemns a book to stigmatization is the audience who's reading it. A perfect example would be Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. For American readers The Da Vinci Code is blasphemous and heretical. However, what many Americans fail to realize is that American Christianity is far removed from Christianity in its original form. Many texts have been watered down, sugar coated, filtered, altered, and in many cases completely left out of the bible altogether to suit American and western European ideals.

In a country like Ethiopia, The Da Vinci Code is merely reiterating beliefs that are thousands of years old. These are theologies that have been part of Ethiopia's doctrine since Christianity's inception. In Ethiopia, the views expressed by The Da Vinci Code represent the complete opposite of blasphemy and heresy. Either way, Banning a book for "inappropriate" religious convictions is ironic and moronic. We are not only promised freedom of speech by our constitution, but we are also promised freedom of religion.

I believe there are a few extreme cases where the government should be allowed to ban books. For example if a serial killer decides to publish a how to manual on how to rape and mutilate a victim, or if a terrorist decides to publish a how to manual for blowing up skyscrapers. Other than that, banning books is censorship, it's unconstitutional, and it's wrong.

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15226&t=Ethiopia+celebrates+2000+years+of+Church

Gay Marriage Sucks Balls

Recently, California's supreme court overturned California's ban on gay marriage. This was a serious error made by the court, and one which will have many negative repercussions in the future.

What makes gay marriage wrong is the fact that it directly defies the morals and values upon which the ritual of marriage was originally created. Gay marriage defies the sanctity of marriage as a religious act because the bible clearly and strictly forbids homosexuality. It's like a polar bear living in the equator, or an ice cube in the refrigerator. It doesn't make sense, and is extremely ironic. It's literally contrary to what marriage was intended to be.

Another aspect which makes gay marriage questionable is its propensity to deteriorate the moral fabric of our society. If a man is by law allowed to marry another man, or a woman is by law allowed to marry another woman, then where do we draw the line? What's to stop our government from allowing a man or a woman to marry a horse, or a corpse, or a video game console? Homosexuality is a sexual deviation and abnormality, and should not be socially acceptable.

I believe every person has the right to do whatever they want to do as long as its free of malicious intent and doesn't harm themselves or anyone else. So if a consenting man wants to have sex with another consenting man, or a consenting woman wants to have sex with another consenting woman, that's their business, and they have every right to do so. However, I also believe that it shouldn't be made legal or politically acceptable because homosexuality is a moral and religious abomination.

Though marriage has evolved into being more of a legal institution than a religious one, this is one case where church and state should not be separated. Marriage continues to remain a religious practice which abides by religious laws, and the state should not contradict those laws.



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,0,6182317.story

History Repeats Itself

I just watched Good Night and Good Luck. Earlier films have dealt with the communist scare and America's anti soviet cold war sentiment. Good Night and Good Luck comes as a welcomed addition, and compares favorably with films such as The Front and the television movie Fear on Trial. Although on the surface Good Night and Good Luck appears to be a dated story about the cold war, it's actually a commentary on the role mass news media plays in shaping the public's perception and our political climate.

The parallels to our current political climate in this film are quite clear. The only difference is that today it's the middle east and terrorists, instead of communists, as well as homeland security and the patriot act instead of blacklists. We should also remember that Afghanistan was a major battle ground between the Soviet Union and the U.S. toward the end of the cold war, and many middle eastern countries such as Iraq and Iran relied on the Soviet union as their black market arms supplier. So our current problems in the middle east stem directly from the cold war and our past tensions with the former Soviet union.

I think Good Night and Good Luck's subject matter is actually more relevant today than it would have been in the 1950's. The reason is because our modern society is much more electronically equipped and media driven than it was in the 1950's. In the 1950's, television was just starting to develop a market. Back then, most average citizens didn't own a TV. They mainly relied on newspapers and radio to receive their news. Today, almost everyone has a TV, unless you're homeless or live in the woods. And even then, you still have access to television in public venues. In addition to television, we also have computers and the Internet, which boasts just as many users as television, if not more.

Murrow's formal speech, which begins and ends the film's story, is itself a prophetic and sobering commentary and condemnation of the possibilities of television and media, and foretells the future with stark accuracy. It shows the influence of media and its ability to make a difference. If you're a politician, the media has the power to build you up or tear you down at will, and often poses a greater threat to our national security than the foreign "enemies" it reports on.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_R_Murrow