Political Parties

Effective third party candidacies for president. According to Wikipedia there have been only 2 significant ones in the past 100 years. Sadly I have to disagree as we will see.

Bull Moose Party



Actually the Progressive Party was the real moniker of this 1912 attempt at the presidency. But since America love's nicknames, the Bull Moose Party became the popular name.

Essentially, Teddy Roosevelt was ticked at William Howard Taft. That's really about it.

"Theodore Roosevelt was president of the United States until 1909. When he left office, William Howard Taft was chosen to run and won the presidency for the Republican Party. In 1912, Roosevelt was unhappy with Taft's time in office and put his name forward to become the Republican Party's nominee again. The Party chose to stick with Taft. This angered Roosevelt who walked out of the convention and then formed his own party." (americanhistory.about.com)

See, I'm not lying.

Then again this is a guy who just 3 years prior to becoming the president of our nation literally charged a MACHINE GUN NEST in the Spanish American War. Walking out of a convention was not a tough decision.

A hilarious anecdote:
"Roosevelt personally led the attack but paused after charging a few feet with only a handful of men following. He turned around and inquired why no one had followed."

Platforms Included:

"women's suffrage, social welfare assistance for women and children, farm relief, revisions in banking, health insurance in industries, and worker's compensation. The party also wanted an easier method to amend the constitution."(americanhistory.about.com)

This guys resume reads like a Progressive and a Maverick at the same time. Somewhere Glenn Beck is very confused.

Reform Party
The reform party was the result of the 1992 Independent Candidacy of Billionaire Ross Perot.

18.9% of the vote in 1992. 9% in 1996. In the three elections since no 3rd party candidate has broken 5%.

His candidacy was described by the New York Times as "starkly pro-business like a republican", yet "arguing for a level of regulation normally identified with liberal democrats."

But I don't think most people got past these soundholes growing off the side of his noggin.




And finally the dark side of recent American electoral history.




Personally I find the white shading of these states ironically appropriate.

Those four states voted for a man who only 5 years previous had said:
"segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever" - George Wallace



And apparently less than 20 years before I was born a significant amount of the U.S. population still agreed with him.

The coolest thing I've ever seen

Sit back and let that blow your mind

Additionally:





Interesting, a celebrity willing to satirize his own existance. An edge we've lost as a culture?

Spring Break Blog Entry

No beaches. No booze. No fun.

Not necessarily.

Zihuatenhjo. Mexican city on the Pacific coast. Mexicans say the Pacific has no memory. That's where I will be spending some time in the future. No throngs of students. No tourists.

Pitching again. Or at least I am emptying the contents of my athletic bag by tossing baseballs into a fence. 26 tosses a round, and about 5 rounds.

I even bought a Jair Jurrjen's necklace. Sometimes it's all about looking the part.


I've been turning in some serious Waffle House time as well. At least 4 to 5 nights this spring break. During these study sessions my Blackwater book has been highlighted relentlessly. I know I'm interested in what I am reading, or maybe infuriated, when virtually every word in the book has been turned neon yellow.

I have also learned that urine can smell like coffee.

History of Political Thought

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

American Idol, Hot dogs, and Apple Pie. (i.e. Which Television Show Best Represents American Culture)

Following are two broad categories of Reality Television, and I recognize that the motives of watching any of these shows are not purely negative or worth criticism. This post is written in the spirit of the assignment.

Disclaimer out of the way, let's go.

Train Wreck Television.
That's how I refer to television shows like Cops, The Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown Downward Spiral Hour, and game shows which feature people performing demeaning stunts or eating disgusting food for money or purely just to be on television. It's acceptable to make a fool of yourself as long as you profit or a lot of people learn your name. Afterward, bide your time and accept your guest slot on Rock of Love or the Bob and Tom show. With some luck and a well timed publicity stunt you might achieve enough fame to or infamy to be on one of those C-list celebrity house shows.

Idol worship.
Dancing with the Stars, Newlyweds Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson, The Hills, Real Housewives of(insert city here) etc. Although I think a more appropriate title would be "Really Successful Gold-diggers of...". Denise Richards??? Really?

This is the art of combining voyeurism and consumerism. Watching celebrities. Living through celebs. The benefit of feeling like you are involved in the daily personal life of someone who's existence seems more interesting or desirable. Even if your not that interested it's like the super bowl in that the shows are almost like a social exercise and no one wants to be left out.

Only one show combines contemporary America's desire to both live through celebrities and mock the silly people who are beneath us. This is the one show which provides us with a buffet of flavors in a single dish. The Creme de la Creme.


American Idol


As such, I submit that American Idol displays the current symphony of flavors and preferences that currently encapsulates American culture.

The opening rounds are train wreck television. The three judges visit different cities looking for "talent". We get to laugh at the clueless folks who can't sing and just need to realize how pathetic they are. We get to gawk at the people who wander in with a bizarre gimmick.

It's a modern day Barnum and Bailey Circus. And according to the neilsen ratings, suckers are still being born every minute. About 30 million or so.

The proof is in the pudding. And the pudding is the ratings.

It is in this segment of the show that I am reminded of the Bob Dylan song Ballad of A Thin Man:

You hand in your ticket
And you go watch the geek
Who immediately walks up to you
When he hears you speak
And says, “How does it feel
To be such a freak?”
And you say, “Impossible”
As he hands you a bone

Is the sucker the one on television dressed like a banana singing purple rain or the person who enjoys watching others do this, and then buys the products he or she is hawked during the commercial break?

But I Digress.

Once the auditions are over singers selected the idol worship portion begins.

It's in the word American Idol. Idol

Here is where the other American hunger is satiated. A "idol" is selected, and on top of that, we get to do the selecting. A facet of the "democratization of celebrity." We get to crown someone as being worth our admiration and affection. And in a way, if the contestant you voted for won, you won too. Albeit your own life won't change yet the winner receives instant celebrity.

SIDENOTES/BONUS
1. The capitalist aspect our culture is also on display from the onset of the season. There are winners and losers. Losers go home and winners get a record deal.

2. We like to build up public figures and tear them down. Don't worry, now that this person is famous any embarrassing details of their now public private life are free for scrutiny.

HARDER BETTER FASTER STRONGER AT THE WINTER OLYMPICS



Those four words epitomize the development of athletes over the past 25 years. With modern equipment and advanced training they are just that: harder, better, faster, and stronger.

I remember in the mid 1990s when Pete Sampras's 120mph serve was intimidating. Now Andy Roddick regulary clocks in at over 140mph and tops out at 155mph. In fact, 20 of the 23 fastest tennis serves recorded were performed after the year 2000.

In baseball we watched home run records not merely be broken, but shattered. Albiet steriods were involved.

Sometimes I think we pay a price for always feeling the need to one up a previous record. Especially when it not just the human body involved, but human engineering used to artificially inflate records or force barriers to be broken.

It's in this vain that I bring up the death of 23 year old Nodar Kumaritashvili, a Georgian luger who was killed during practice run at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver on February 12.

Kumaritashvili died on a track that had recieved previous complaints. A record speed of 95mph had been recorded in late 2009 by another luger. In response to the speeds being posted on the Canadian track, the President of the International Luge Federation (FIL) to say that it "made him worry".

Nevertheless runs went on, and why wouldn't they? Olympic officials' had the worlds best emergency medical care available at a moments notice (Nodar was surrounded by medical personal within seconds of his fatal crash) and no lugers had died since
1975.

Then Kumaritashvili had his fatal accident. And despite the olympic commission and FIL's findings that the fatal accident was not due to "an unsafe track" modifications were made to reduce speeds.

This is an example of a reactive approach.

NASCAR, after the death of Dale Earnhardt, took a proactive and prememtive approach.

The limits for what a human being can pilot have not been reached. The limits for what the human body can take in an accident have. As such NASCAR took to installing "safer-barriers" i.e. a softer wall which gives and absorbs the energy from the impact of the automobile instead of forcing the car, and subsequently the driver the from feeling the full impact of a high speed collision.

NASCAR then made the "Car of Tomorrow" a car with several modifications which would increase the safety of the driver.

NASCAR recognized that man and machine had two very different limits. Man could build a car and track that was beyond the scope of what man's body was engineered to handle. As such they took a premeptive approach. As a result no driver has been killed in the last 9 years.

Not bad for a bunch of hicks who turn left for three hours.

However, *&^# still happens. And it is awesome when no one is hurt. Note the 197mph speeds being run.

Fast Food

The negative health effects of the consumption of fast food have been widely documented and long discussed.

On that note, sometimes a picture is truly worth a thousand words. Or at least a gaping open mouth stare.





Don't tell me you can't see the resemeblence:


It is important to note that not all fast food dishes were created equal. The dietary implications of eating a Hardee's monster thickburger versus knocking out a entree from panera bread or subway are quite different. I will never forget the sight of two test tubes full of lard, a visual example of the amount of fat consumed after eating one of the aforementiod thickburgers. I guess the thick in thickburger is not a misreprestention. No lawsuits for false advertising coming anytime soon. Considering an image like the one above I find it difficult to comprehend how cigarrette packs have warning labels and fast food doesn't.

I generated this one at warninglabel.com





The negative effects of fast food go beyond the health of the consuming individual however, and as such I submit that we focus on ourselves too much. Let's look at the effects our habits have on our fellow humans.

We don't exist in a vaccuum. Our actions, even the seemingly meanial ones, have repurcussions in our community, country, and world. Who now thinks that the simple act of filling the the gas tank of a car doesn't have geo-political implications, not to mention environmental ones?

It is well known that the United States is a prolific consumer. Maybe even THE prolific consumer. The U.S. consumes 24% of the total worlds energy. 2007 oil consumption figures show that the U.S. alone consumes more than 2x the number of barrels of oil per day than second place China.

On average, one American consumes as much energy as:

2 Japanese
13 Chinese
128 Bangladeshis
370 Ethiopians
(Paul Erlich and the Population Bomb)

As tired a joke as it is, we are number 1 indeed.

Where does American consumerism come into play in the topic of fast food?

Well, all that food energy has to come from somwhere. If we want to eat the food we first have to grow the food or set aside the land and resources to raise the livestock.

Consider these U.S. statistics: (from Population Bomb)
Eighty percent of the corn grown and 95% of the oats are fed to livestock.
Fifty-six percent of available farmland is used for beef production.

Most importantly to me:
It takes an average of 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat in modern Western farming systems. It takes 5,214 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef.

And yet at the same time:
The average individual daily consumption of water is 159 gallons, while more than half the world's population lives on 25 gallons.

So we are feeding cattle what humans in parts of the world die in need of.

Make your own conclusion as to the ethicacy of that practice. Yes, cows need water and food. But do we need that many cows?

From the above stats we can infer that we are generating a sizeable percentage of our own food energy needs. And thats good for us considering that Americans consume 815 Billion calories per day, about 200 million more than needed and enough to feed an extra 80 million people.

The point is that the more we consume the less there is for others to consume. We are giving the excess back to our animals to perpetuate the cycle. As population grows and resources become strained we must make adjustments to our own consumption habits. Or else the earth will correct for us. And that will be much more painful.

See the negative effects of deforestation.

I have not eaten fast food beef in three years, since I found out that the main reason for the deforestation of the amazon rainforest was to clear land for cattle ranchers. I decided that as much as I love a hamburger, it would make me a hypocrite to say "Save the Rainforest" and then eat a beef patty from a cow raised on clear tropical land.

I WOULD LITERALLY BE EATING MY WORDS



Even excluduing beef I don't eat a lot of fast food. I make a concerted effort to frequent dine-in and other places. It's a way to make a difference without needing to endorse legislation, join unicef or travel with green peace. None of which I mind doing, but until I am in a position to activate what I would consider positive change, this simple curtailing of my own habits will have to do.

P.S. Those stirring straws from starbucks are made rainforest materials as well.
So just use your damn finger or something.

Geography of Natural Mummies

If you believe the bible, then this is the face of the man who would have spoken to Moses.

Source Material: The Scientific Study of Mummies by Arthur C. Aufderhiede



I have been fascinated with relics of the past my entire life. I look at archeological sites and objects like a portal to the through time connecting me with countless generations. When I watch antique roadshow I am not concerned with the appraisal value, and it has always frustrated me when I sense that a person is waiting through the explanation of the history of the object in their possession only interested in its market monetary value.

As such, what could possibly be more of exiting prospect to someone like myself than having the chance to peer into the face of someone who lived and died centuries or millenia ago. Their existence alone tells a story, represents a direct physical connection to a time gone by like a wormhole in space connects vast distances in the cosmos.


Faced with images like these I am forced to put my own existence, plans, problems and desires in perspective.

THE SCIENCE/GEOGRAPHY

Mummies have been found in North and South America, Europe, Asia, and North Africa. Mummies created via natural processes have been found in all of these continents as well, but the highest frequencies of natural mummies occur in East Asia (i.e. Mongolia and Siberia) and South America.

Obviously if you die encased in ice your going to be preserved. It's cryogenics except without the $100,000 fee, and minus the chance of being reanimated considering that your frozen cells have expanded and exploded, sorry Brendan Frasier.




See Otzi the Iceman and Mammoths.

I am going to focus on locations conducive to the natural processes result in preservation of organic remains.

The most frequent finds of the best preserved natural mummies occur in either extremely cold or dry climates, or a mixture of the two. High elevation does not hurt chances of preservation either.

The most popular well preserved bodies are of those of the individuals preserved in the peat bogs of Northern Europe, Britain and Ireland.

Tollund Man died around the year 300 a.d. Note the preservation of facial features.



In these bogs a combination of acidic water, cold temperatures, and lack of oxygen are enough to preserve the tissue, essentially pickling the body. (sciencebuzz.com)

These wet conditions of preservation are the exception however, not the norm.

A goldmine of mummies is the Atacama Desert in South America.




The Atacama desert of Peru and Chile is the driest place on earth. From 1570 to 1971 it received no measurable amount of rainfall. That's 401 years without rain.

As such it operates like a time capsule. Clothes of the deceased retain their vibrant colors, appearing as though they were were sewn yesterday. The 7 year old boy below died in his sleep 500 years ago.



The cold, dry climates dessicated the remains of mummies found here and preserved hair, blood and sometimes the contents of the stomach. (sciencebuzz.org)

THE ICE MAIDEN: A sad, but moving find
Facts: Age 12-14
Death: 1440-1450
Location: Peru

Mummy Jaunita, or the "Ice Maiden" died in a ritual sacrifice. Voluntarily. She would have been selected for sacrifice shortly after her birth and would have lived her entire life knowing of her inevitable fate. Her body was discovered at an elevation of over 20,000 feet. Her trek would have taken her over several hundred miles of some of the most inhospitable land on Earth and analysis of her body showed elevated levels of cocaine, indicating that in order for her to survive the arduous ascent she was made to chew coco leaves for energy and was suffering from altitude sickness. In her final moments she would have been made to drink chicha to induce intoxication. Her death was caused by a blow to the back of the head.




All of these remains invoke thought. Each of these individuals breathed the same air and looked at the same sun as we do. The times were different but the species, the human link, is exactly the same. These treasures are beyond monetary value.

Social Networking Sites

THE THINGS YOU OWN BEGIN TO OWN YOU.
Yes, this includes social networking sites.



UPDATED VERSION 2010
You are not how many friends you have on facebook.
You are not your twitter account.
We are the all singing all dancing crap of the world. And apparently that's how we like it.


I am sorry to say that currently I am not a responsible member of global society. I have not a single facebook, twitter, or myspace account.

As such I have found myself to be out of sync with student culture.

Additionally my absence from the social network realm seems more than merely incomprehensible to people. They literally CANNOT believe it. The capability of incorporating my facebookless status (is there a word for not having a facebook account?) is beyond them.

Having an online personal profile is becoming like having a government issue I.D. I guess I am without my standard issue facebook account. It's like not having a cigarette lighter in your car or a cordless phone.

Friend: Did you see my facebook status?
Eric: I told you - I don't have a facebook account.
Friend: Oh yeah. Hey, did you get that facebook message and group invite I sent you?

I did not get rid of my account for security reasons. When I had one it was open to all schools and all non-friends. For me that seemed like the point of "social networking". In all reality all I used it for was to keep in touch with friends. It was and remains a great way to keep in tabs with people. Nor did the endless applications get to me. I don't run the site, and if I don't want the app I don't have to use it.

I deleted my account as an experiment. The experiment then became the norm.

Let me explain.

We are all old enough to remember a time before the proliferation of cellular phones. If someone was not home when you called, you weren't going to get hold of them until they got back. Now it seems inconceivable not to have a cell and to not be able to get in touch with someone and receive a status report at any given time.

Imagine no cell phones.

It was the same way with my facebook account. Until 2005 we were all in the dark. Some of us had myspace accounts, but that was more of a novelty, a toy.

Flash forward five years, and check out the almost accessory-like status facebook has taken in culture. Facebook a borderline personal asset. Soon it will be a tax-write off.

Imagine if you could tally up the amount of time spent staring at a facebook screen doing nothing productive. Essentially goofing off. You could have been studying, building a box kite, or talking to another person face to face.

I have all that back now. It's really quite fantastic.

Marijuana Laws

"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use..." - former U.S. president Jimmy Carter

Quite frankly the debate on the ethics of pot usage is, well, tired in my opinion. On social level, at this point it is only misinformation that keeps marijuana illegal in this county, a negative, and undeserved stigma leftover from the propaganda brought to us by proponents of the "reefer madness" phenomenon. The current almost draconian punishment and illegality stem from a stubborn refusal to change perspective on the part of opponents.

Many, in fact countless numbers of intelligent and well informed people have spoken about their feelings on the legality and penalties involved with marijuana possession and usage. People far more impassioned about the subject than myself.

As such, I will attempt to bring a detached pragmatic perspective to the drug debate.

As far as marijuana being a "gateway drug" which leads to usage of harder and more dangerous drugs by the individual. Well, the scientific data, 12 years worth in one study, has shown that not to be the case.

Scoreboard: Legalize Pot 1: Keep it illegal: 0

Health implications:

"In 1995, based on thirty years of scientific research editors of the British medical journal Lancet concluded that "the smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."

I am focusing on long term effects. The short term effects of many substances can be described as negative. Frankly, if given the choice of feeling the effects of marijuana intoxication, or those of coffee jitters or brain freeze from cold food, I have a hunch that a lot of people would prefer being high.

Marijuana 2: No weed: 0

If you are a fiscal conservative and at the same time oppose the legalization of marijuana, then think there are some statistics that you may want to take into account. High Times estimates the marijuana prohibition cost at approximately 42 Billion dollars a year. The lowest figure I can find is about 8 Billion dollars. The truth is probably somewhere in between, and either way that's a lot of money.

Especially when you consider the potential revenue incurred by legalization and regulation:

"Statistics say that the legalization and tax of marijuana in California will result in about $1.4 billion in annual revenue towards the state deficit" (Marcus Wholsen AP)

Besides, how can you deny this kind of hilarity?

Barack Obama's First Year

The Barack Obama era started well before he took the oath of office on inauguration day 2009.

Remember the "Wear Black November 5 to Mourn The Death of our Country" day. I do.

The main story of the first year of Barack Obama's was the rumors, misinformation, and social and political movements movements that dominated headlines, like the tea partiers and birther movements.



From day one of the Obama administration, it was not the new policies that were being sold. It was still Barack Obama the man. The campaign continued, except I don't think Obama was aware he was still actively campaigning just for the right to lead this nation in the eyes of many who had not voted for him.

The election had become some kind of coup. A takeover that had to be guarded against by "patriotic" Americans like the Tea partiers and birthers.


Notice the initial slogans were "Stop Barack Obama" not "Stop health care reform." The two concepts became synonymous. If a person believed Obama must be "stopped", then an effective way of doing so was opposing any legislation submitted to congress with his endorsement.

But never in recent memory, and I doubt in American history since the election of Abraham Lincoln, has the losing side of an election been more adamantly opposed to even acknowledging the legitimacy of a candidate, and more importantly, less willing to work with him. He wasn't just a threat to our civilization, he wasn't even a citizen. And for any conservative congressman, being seen as working with Obama on any given issue became tantamount to treason.

Obama overcame the racism, paranoia, and lies encountered on the campaign trail only to believe that these issues were resolved once he assumed the presidency.

They talked policy. Opponents talked about "reverse racism" "socialism" and "death panels".

It is important to note that, unlike the "9/11 Truther" movement, these are not fringe groups or people propagating these concepts. Sarah Palin, Rush Limbuagh, Michelle Bachman, Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck are notable people firmly entrenched within mainstream culture. These are elected politicians and radio/television pundits whose opinions and opining are widely subscribed too. If the fox network thought that significant members of their viewing audience would not stand for what is, quite frankly, gossip reported as legitimate news issues, or if Michelle Bachman thought a significant number of registered voters would overlook her as a viable candidate these thoughts would not have been thrown out as conversation fodder for the masses.

In light of these dynamics, I attribute the failures of the first year of the Barack Obama presidency to a poor job of marketing and public relations.

If indeed it is Obama that the American people bought in the 2008 Presidential Election and not necessarily his political positions, then maybe the answer to improving views on the effectiveness of his Presidency, and at the same time passing legislation that he and his supporters would consider positive, is to once again sell "Obama" and by doing so sell the legislative "goods" of his administration.

I hate the phrase "the end justifies the means." In most cases I don't believe the end justifies the means at all.

However, in this case, if backing away from discussing the merits of health care reform, war, and fiscal policies of the Obama Administration and instead hawking the Obama product in and of itself succeeds in passing various reforms. Well, so be it.

P.S.
Note the photo below and its portrayal of Obama. The cigarette, the facial expression. It is reminiscent of South American Political Leaders and Military Dictators in the 1980s. The effect is subtle and subconscious, but still effective. If this photo expresses accurately a person's perception of Barack Obama the man, how does this bode for them to consider his policies from an intellectual, neutral perspective.

Constitutional Law

"The Supreme Court has made their decision. Now let them enforce it" - Andrew Jackson



Well not really. In my research I have found that President Jackson never said those relatively famous words in regards to the Supreme Court Decision in Worcester v. Georgia. The famous decision declaring that the state of Georgia had no right to force the Cherokees off inhabited land.

What he did do was say something along the lines of the supreme court having no power whatsoever to force the state of Georgia to yield to its mandate. And did absolutely nothing to ensure that the state of Georgia paid any attention to the supreme court's decision whatsoever.

This situation, the only one I can find where a president blatantly disregarded a decision of the high court, illustrates an important point:

The Supreme Court does not have the authority to enforce its decisions.

They are respected due to the "power of persuasion"

What can the court do:

"The Supreme Court acts as the interpreter and arbiter of the Constitution. Neither the president nor Congress has the right to do this. The Supreme Court is the only body that has the right to interpret what the Constitution means."

However:
The Supreme Court does not have the power to initiate its own cases." This means that a particular justice of the court cannot select a policy he or she disagrees with and bring it up for judicial review.

And:
"The greatest limitation to the Supreme Court are the politicians themselves. As the Court cannot enforce its decisions, it relies on the Federal authorities..."