Unacknowledged Innovation

Innovation happens so suddenly and unexpectedly that we really don't appreciatively think about it. Take, for instance, when people come over your house and you're giving them a tour and you say 'here is my couch, our lamp, and our computer over there' as if their all of equal significance and innovation. 'On that one I can lie down and on that one I can find out what was going on in the 15th century.' The couch was probably constructed when people first began domestically living and the computer was constructed like 20 years ago and has exponentially become more capable and powerful each subsequent year. 

But we don't appreciate it. People say that we haven't had any significant innovation in the last decade but think of what was going on in 2000. The internet wasn't nearly has pervasive as it is now and if you had it it was interconnected with your telephone line which had to be stifled to get on it. Now, we have wireless connection where you can buy those Wi-Fi ports if you want and you can get hooked up wherever you are and just to mention the cell phones that are basically mini-computers now. And to mention (Saying not to mention makes it sound like that should be the end of the sentence) the fact that we basically exchange currency through intangible means (i.e. debit cards, credit cards); paying for things through swipes.

 But what's the discernible importance of this? Well, being able to utilize the internet, which otherwise would be impossible, builds general knowledge. Historical events are documented and summarized on multiple sites, especially the newly innovative and founded Wikipedia. The American Revolution understandably failed to resonate with most people in elementary school. Now we can relearn it by opening up a computer. 

Furthermore, because of modern technology, diplomatic communication is far easier and substantially more used. Obama and Bush together have gone on countless excursions because of modern communication and transportation to foreign nations. Because of communications effect on diplomacy the means for solving disputes is less and less likely to be solved militarily. 

The internet also has made democracy more sustainable. People can interact with each other from the other side of the country and voice their opinions. Obama held his first Twitter conference the other day, where he took questions from diverse twitterers from across the country. The internet and TV has made the news more transparent and accessible. NY Times is readable throughout their Website for no charge. Journalist now have blogs that they frequent. Ezra Klein, who I follow, posts so frequently I can determine the exact hours that he must be sleeping. 

Americans have become immune to acknowledge the significance of recent innovation, and understandably so. Things have been happening so quickly in recent years that we haven't really had time to appreciate it and remember what it was like "prior to." What it was like prior to the invention of the internet. What it was like when nations had to communicate through messengers and letters. Let us appreciate our technology, and then, make the best use of it. 

The Tyrant of Harry Potter

I just watched the final installment of the harry potter series and on some level I feel really sad. And not because the series specifically is over, but really the time period it represents pertaining to me and my generation. Like Harry Potter, my generation is through with our childhood and have commenced our adulthood. We are no longer ignorant little retards running around mindlessly with our only hope of survival being constantly reprimanded and directed by our parents. We are now adults ourselves, and the thought, to many of us, of entering adulthood is fucking scary. Finding a job, starting a family, taking full and complete responsibilities over our lives, becoming the reprimander, etc. Now that Harry Potter is over, the stark realization that it galvanizes is our childhoods' are over as well. It is time to grow the fuck up. And that is scary.

On a different subject, the Deathly Hollows gave us a clearer picture of the ruthless and evil dictator, Voldemort. It is a bit odd to talk about a fictional character in an intellectual sense, but the characteristics inherent in Voldemort are similar to that of actual evil leaders. For instance, Voldemort, like Hitler and Sadaam, exploited peoples' emotions and prejudices. He appealed to people that wrongfully fantasized they were of a superior race. And to live alongside their inferior counterparts would be absurdly demeaning and eventually lead to their decline and destruction.

As was made overtly clear in Deathly Hollows, Voldemorts advisors and supporters were in fearful awe of their master. They never questioned him or told him something that he did not want to hear. And if they started to, they would immediately stop mid-sentence and evaporate back into the crowd. One can see the danger in being in awe of their master. Advisors would be reluctant to be honest and truthful to their leader. For example, Sadaam actually believed that he could take on the US military in 2003. The strongest military probably ever to have been constructed by a nation, Sadaam thought his minuscule-comparative Iraqi army would have a chance. The US ousted Sadaam in three weeks. This was the result, partly, of his advisors not being honest with their leader. They didn't want to tell Sadaam something that he did not want to hear. They feared his response. Like Sadaam, Voldemort's advisors were merely sideline bystanders quietly sitting in the stands. Harry had support from his ally's who were not afraid to take initiative and be honest with him. Therefore, Harry was not fighting alone, whereas Voldemort was, and to his detriment.

Obama v. Democrat

Tim Pawlenty was on Meet the Press this morning and I think that he has already failed to get the GOP nomination. The problem with Pawlenty is not that he hasn't necessarily distinguished himself from the other potential candidates. The problem is that he has. Pawlenty, to his detriment I predict, bragged about shutting down the Minnesota government when he was governor. I believe he was trying to portray himself as a hard-line, non-compromising, tough candidate. That may have been politically satisfying at another time, but right now America is facing, because of its polarized political leaders, defaulting on its debt, which would be unprecedented if it were to default.

The American people, generally, just want their representatives to reach some sort of deal that doesn't hinder economic growth in the short-term and sustain economic growth in the long-term. As a result, bragging about shutting down the government, or even bringing it up for that matter, is politically damaging for any candidate at this time. The advantage of a nationally little known candidate is that he or she can refrain from mentioning politically unpopular things that they may have done in the past. Tim Pawlenty, for whatever reason, felt that this was the opportune time to boaster about shutting down the government to a national audience.

The problem with Tim Pawlenty, and for most of the Republican candidates, is that they are not representative of an ideal president. An ideal American president is one that can mitigate the polarization of political parties, and, as a result, devise the best solutions on whatever issues. Conversely, the Republican party has projected a catch-22 scenerio on their presidential hopefuls. In other words, if any Republican candidate deviates from the party's positions, like Paul Ryan's budget plan, they will be lambasted and deemed irrelevant, like Newt Gingrich quickly found out.

Newt Gingrich rationally said on Meet the Press that any kind of radical social engineering is not good for the country. After he got verbally abused by every Republican in the country, he began to clarify his statement by saying what he said was a falsehood. When that did not work, he clarified his statement again by saying that any kind of social reform that was not supported by a majority of the American people may not be a good thing to do. He said that if you cannot convince the American public then the government has no right to force an unaccepted government act onto the American people. Even as logical as that sounds, it was too late. Newt had bet neutralized.

To reiterate, an ideal, modern American president is one that can transcend the political polarization of domestic parties, understand what the right solutions are, and figure out ways to persuade each party to come to the best possible compromise. When a political party becomes a  party that does not compromise with the other party under any circumstances, even if the other party puts forth that party's ideas, that party will become politically unsuccessful.

I think Obama is vulnerable. And not just against a Republican candidate since all are trying to portray themselves as so extreme that they feel all they have to do is say that they don't support cap-and-trade, which affects all Americans adversely and only benefits corporations, which makes as much sense as something that makes absolutely no sense. Obama is vulnerable to a Democrat. All of Obama's shortcomings have to do with Democratic ideals. Obama has done little to improve the housing market and keep relatively poorer family's inside a house. He merely instituted a housing plan that substantially benefited lenders, which negligibly benefitted the lent. You see, Republicans do not have the leeway to criticize Obama's tantamount vulnerabilities. They can't say that Obama's not a sincere president for continuing the Bush tax cuts, or being too lenient on Financial Reform because that is what Republicans wanted. They can't say that Obama's a hypocrite for maintaining a significant amount of the Bush-administration staff because that is what they wanted. Obama is not only beatable by a Republican in this upcoming general election, but he is also beatable for the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination.

Infinite Jest

I just finished reading Infinite Jest. I thought the book was incredible and incredibly frustrating. Unfortunately, I still have little understanding as to what happened mostly because the book wasn't written chronologically and it took me about 2 months to read and therefore have not constructed the chronology of it. I now kind of wish that I started reading the book in the summer where I could have read it faster, which would have given me a fresher picture of the story to make it more coherent. I now think I am going to have to read somebody else's critique of the book to give me some closure. Nonetheless, the book was fascinating and I believe it has resonated with me to the point where I am going to recall instances that relate back to the words that David Foster Wallace wrote in Infinite Jest.

Casey Anthony Infatuation

I wonder if every news station in America is aware that their competitors are airing the Casey Anthony trial live as well. I heard Nancy Grace on one of the news networks (I cannot remember which one it was because in the past two weeks or so not one has been able to distinguish themselves from the other) voicing her anger saying that Ms. Anthony has the power now to make money off of this case by selling her story to documentary film makers or for a screenplay to shoot a movie. But have we not already been watching the Casey Anthony documentary? They have been filming her complete trial on all the major networks. We already know what went on inside the courthouse. But, to say that having 24-hour news networks is a good thing is absurd. They clearly cannot handle that much news syndication. We have been watching this trial not because a majority of Americans are interested or want to (speculation, I have not ready a poll that supports this but still pretty confidant in saying so), but because the media has to constantly seek sensationalist stories to cover their daily news. Unfortunately, these sensationalist stories usually have no relevance to most of our lives. What is important right now is the debt negotiations that are going on in Congress. I just heard from Ezra Klein's blog that Obama may be striving to cut 4 trillion dollars in the budget reduction negotiations. 4 trillion dollars is an incredible amount of money to cut and the media should be doing their job to figure out the authenticity of Obama's intentions, as well as the House leaderships'. But not this morning. Every single news network was showed the Anthony case live even though she had already been exonerated for the reason why this story ostensibly got constant coverage - for killing her 2-year old daughter - and they are only charging her for perjury this morning. This is why it is laughable when I hear Wolf Blitzer of CNN say that they don't like 'covering stories like this' and how much of a 'distraction' this is when speaking of Anthony Weiner's scandal. But what about Casey Anthony. How does Wolf Blitzer explain CNN's coverage of the Casey Anthony case? It is not that they "wish they didn't have to cover story's like this" because if they didn't, they wouldn't. Is there some media God that is forcing this network's to cover these irrelevant stories. No. Their problem is that they hire unfit news commentator's who don't have the proper journalism skills to run a credible news program. Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, and maybe a few others, are the only commentators who, my opinion nonetheless, run serious journalistic shows. Anderson mentioned the Casey Anthony case for maybe five minutes in the middle of his show while all other news shows leaded with the Casey Anthony case and allotted about half their time to it. We need capable news commentators on our networks. Because lets face it. Sean Hannity and Lawrence O'Donnell are not properly informing their viewers about the underlying facts about the complicated issues that are facing us today. Dedicating a whole hour about how the other side is run by Satan is not helping America stay competitive in the 21st century.

The Un-Empathized Unfortunate Class

Feelings are abstract emotional stimulations. They are felt unexpectedly at times and always uncontrollable. They are instinctive reactions to something that you may hear, or see. Hearing of another's shortcomings or seeing another's unfortunate situation brings cognitive empathy. For instance, if you were to see a persons' home, which consisted of a shopping cart, a few belongings, and a sleeping back in between two near-attatched apartment buildings, you would have a moment of heartbrokenness, because it is disheartening to see a fellow human being suffering. Suffering or to suffer, the distinction being one is in the present, the now, the simultaneous, while the other is the past, the then, the once upon a time. But to say that the suffering is a failure of a society, or a political system, is to say that we have failed as a national human sect. Yes, some people are frustratingly lazy. These people work incredibly hard to not work. They seek unemployment when they are not seeking a job. But that is their problem. If they want to live a meaningless existence, leave a legacy of unemployed longevity, so be it. There are too many people who have tragically subjected themselves to the irrevocable addictiveness of drugs, which led them to be a drain on the economy, a non-contributable despondent mutant to society. And there are too many people who have just been unlucky. People who were unfortunate enough to be born into an economic class that was without a proper education system; That was unable to provide their children with the latest material attraction; That imposed ill will on their parents so much so that they neglected their children for the feeling of happiness that could only be derived from external alcoholic beverages; That gave their people a low likelihood of social mobility; That statistically showed that the chances of them moving up in economic class were the same as commercial expeditions taken the moral road and coming out with more substantive artistry instead of reality shows (as an example). This may be proof of a failed political society to tend to the shortfalls of capitalism. Yes, their are winners and losers in capitalism; That is what we give for societal progression and innovation, they say. But when the losers have already lost before they had a chance to win, it is unfair to a disheartening degree. 

Thoughts on Blogging: Unedited

Publicly writing through a vehicle such as a blog garners some degree of pressure. For one thing, a blogger is aware that other people are going to be able to see it. Thus, when one is writing he or she may think for a moment 'another person might see this', which then furthers the writer to think what their writing may cause the reader to think about. This concept is called active reading, which is a theory that states a reader is not merely analyzing another's writing based on the writer's rhetoric or content, but also what the writer intended the reader to think about as well.

Furthermore, writing on a blog is very similar to public speaking, or stand-up comedy, in that a blogger, or comedian, must think of, beforehand, how he or she wants to deliver their message or punchline to the audience. They have to interpret what characteristics that they're audience has, as well, such as their level of education, income, politics, age, etc. Accordingly, a blogger must figure out how to deliver their message in a written format. A written format is different from a conversation, where spontaneity is prevalent. Spontaneity in writing is not. Writing, or blogging more specifically, is a format where the response has to be predicted. There is no certitude on how the readers are going to respond. Therefore, the writer must try to make their best presumption with how their readers are going to respond, which is difficult and never certain (redundant). This is why I hate it when people say writing is a lot like talking, you just need to find your own "writing" voice , which comes with constant practice. But writing is not like talking. When have you talked in paragraph form with a thesis and three supporting arguments? Never.

Writing is a form distinct from all else. It's not like public speaking in that the sheer engagement that a speaker has to initiate and maintain with an audience that may find an ant scuttling across anothers table amusing for some period of time. The distinction between a public speaker and that of a writer, because a writer too has to keep people engaged, is that they have to cultivate their engaging voice through words, interesting facts, additional anecdotes when necessary, and with an original argument instead of rhythm and inflection. But writing is so powerful. I am a believer of active reading. It is a workout for the mind. It sharpens it. Focus is a necessity. Passivity is impossible. That is why blogging is powerful because average people can interact with each other through their writing, where honesty is bred.