I should go see some baseball – maybe Mississippi Braves or something – let me go see their schedule . . .
ok – 7P game tonight; nothing to do; MS Braves it is!
I am a bit bored with no immediate class for which to prepare
July 30th, 2009WOW! It’s OVER!
July 29th, 2009Not the entire bunch of coursework, but the summer semester, anyway. When I was in undergrad, I could sleep through 12 hours in the summer and swing a 4.0. I could take 21 hours in a regular semester and be bored. I worked my butt off this semester.
I should be good with a 4.0, so the work will have paid off, but DAMN I am glad it is over!
RAIN!!!! DAMMMMMN YOU!!!!
July 28th, 2009Actually wind, I guess – blew my eggplant off the plant ledge and onto the ground! Doesn’t look like it broke the plant up or anything – completely annoying and uncalled for, however.
unintended consequences of actions
July 27th, 2009I find it so interesting for people to vote on polls at Facebook, or anywhere else those types of polls may exist. One “votes,” usually regarding an incendiary topic, and the vote is proudly displayed on his or her page for God and everybody to see. The action must partly be out of narcissism; people believe their thoughts are so highly regarded as to tell everybody. That is why I have a blog, obviously.
The voting part doesn’t interest me so much, but the topics and choices are supremely interesting. I have seen a poll appear a couple of times in the past couple of days asking whether people should be drug tested prior to receiving public assistance. A lot of the people have voted “yes.” While I sort of understand the sentiment, in that if a person is living on government assistance, that person should not be using illegal drugs. Honestly, whether I morally agree with someone’s recreational habit is not my business; if a drug is illegal, a person should not do that drug because to do so would break the law. That is not the part of the argument I find interesting, however.
My argument against that is three-fold:
1) a government sponsored drug test would be a bit like to the government installing a camera into my apartment to check and see when I am getting up, what I am eating for breakfast and lunch, what I am saying or doing, etc. My sense of personal liberty would not deem that an acceptable use of police power. The same holds true for drug testing someone prior to receiving a government assistance check. The only reason I or anyone should be searched for anything by a police official is due to a quaint little notion called PROBABLE CAUSE!
2) Who is going to pay for this drug testing? It s likely that to drug test someone already receiving government assistance would be the financial responsibility of people paying taxes. The testing would probably cost an additional 10% on top of the assistance – that dog won’t hunt.
3) If it is solely about breaking laws, assign an IRS official to each business to make sure that all businesses pay their taxes properly. Waitresses no longer can fudge on tips, strippers pay all of their taxes on money, start taxing drug dealers, prostitution, and illegal gambling income – even better, audit EVERY tax return to make sure people aren’t breaking the law. No, we won’t do that because it would a) cost too much; b) flies in the face of personal liberty (just like a urinalysis for a government assistance check would); and c) it would affect affluent people and not just the poor.
It is very likely some just answer and post their answers to be ironic and obstinate. People tend to look before they leap, and fail to consider the unintended consequences of their actions. Odds are that if people (lawmakers) considered the latent affects of government assistance, there would not be as much need for government assistance, but that is for another time and another blog post.
considering The Internet’s impact on media
July 26th, 2009Academically, I have had a very intense, but interesting summer so far. Interesting personal life, too, but that is for another time and another blog entry.
I am wrapping up WAY too much work in a short amount of time – I will not take 12 hours of Ph.D. level classes in a summer semester again, I can assure you!
The paper I am finishing today was in a class that examined The Internet and the impact on journalism through gatekeeping; agenda setting; monetary influence; and “citizen journalists,” or self-publishing writers through social media (anything from Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, to standard WordPress blogs like the one you are reading now).
I came into the class with the thought that the democratization of information in the so-called marketplace of ideas is a good thing in that people get to see all information, have the chance to test or check the veracity of the information, and come out the other side with their own notions of what is truthful and correct for him or her in the circumstance. I do not know that my thought has changed much. I am concerned about everyone having the access to the available information. Once again, the social structure of the US will determine who gets to see ALL of the information and who ends up having to make a decision based on limited information.
Here is an example of my thought: in the debate over reform of health care in the United States, the stakes are quite high, and the argument is much more than a simple “no new taxes,” “it costs too much,” they are taxing sodas (?),” “I want to choose my own doctor,” “it is a slippery slope into Communism” and many other specious and one-sided arguments. If you are interested in the argument, and have 1) the tools and access to search all of the information available (newspapers, government documents, legislator’s opinions and arguments, etc); 2) the intellectual ability to remain objective until you have information from all sides; and 3) a vested interest in the outcome of the legislations, you can make an informed decision and call or write/email/tweet your legislator and urge support for one of the competing bills, which is the only way to get heard and have a say. If you are interested, but only have access to a limited amount of information, let’s say what is reported in the cable television news channels; have a limited educational background and limited logic skills; and have no interest in the outcome from a monetary or personal position, you probably won’t make any decision except the one that is beat into your head by ridiculous arguments about taxes on soft drinks, being denied care, and choosing your own doctor.
In following that, the base is force-fed the superstructure’s argument,perpetuating the status-quo. If people are educated, and have access to all information to make a rational, informed decision, I may disagree, but have no issues if the final outcome is adverse to my ideology. If the superstructure controls access, education, and offers no ability for people to make a rational decision, where does that leave us? Dumb proles in which the only glee arises from football games and Victory Gin.
New design
July 26th, 2009WordPress is easy and requires less steps than using the iWeb template I was using. I guess I am a slave for easy.
I will be posting a CV, some of the research I have performed over the last couple of semesters, and also re-posting the other posts I had, because I like some of them.
For new viewers, welcome; for old friends, hope the change doesn’t freak you out, man.