At Stake is No Less than the Future of Everything

Recently I have blogged about political pundits and about abortion, both of which came in response to blogs that CapeTown wrote earlier. Now I realize that posts bring more posts, often about the topics of those prior posts. Take for example Virginia's response to my earlier post, asking me to propose the actual laws setting the actual limits for things like guns and abortion. Well needless to say I'm not going to do that since I'm pretty sure it requires studying a lot of information that I have neither the access nor the time nor the inclincation to answer to. Instead I would like to call out Virginia to talk about some stuff and offer some opinions on this blog for the first time in what's it been, like a month? That's right, I'm lookin at you, fella.

If you're like me, sometimes you think to yourself: "when are these pundits going to shut the fuck up about abortion and gay marriage, and while they're at it, why are we talking so much about the environment and immigration and terrorism, and guns?" I'll tell you why. Because they're sexy.

Splendid! This calls for a sexy party!

That's right, it's because they're sexy. The news is in the entertainment business and it shows through the things that get put there and the things that people talk about day in and day out, over and (oh I fell) over again. Well I can tell you what isn't sexy and what I want to hear discussed here, despite the fact that I don't see it covered so much in the media. I think that Virginia will agree with my suggestion that education is quite possibly the single most important issue facing this or any country. I mean come on, it's so simple, you fucking idiots!

The importance of education is so obvious that I don't even feel the need to make a single statement explaining it. I mean seriously, if you are not angry at the infrequency to which this issue comes up in proportion to all of this other stupid shit people are talking about I think there is something the matter with you. However if you are like me, you are wondering, isn't anyone going to talk about education? Anyone?

Anyone???!!!

This is why I put it to Virginia, an unsexy man in an unsexy world, to tell us about education. I would do it myself but I don't know as much as he does. Educate me!

In your letter to Steve Jobs, you seemed to say that nothing can change until more money is put in to raise teacher's salaries and that was really the only way to fix things. Is that, is that true? Will raising teachers salaries be a panacea, or at least the catalyst for change? What about other ways to get teachers to go and to stay at public schools? How do you feel about the quality of teachers and why is it the way that it is? What about the quality of administrations? I know how you feel about parents! Also I couldn't really tell whether you supported administrators being able to fire teachers at will, or whether you even consider that important. Also while we're at it, I didn't get where you said "either raise taxes or quit bitching about the public schools," since wouldn't most of the people that are bitching about the public schools also be in favor of making taxes? Isn't that like saying "put Arrested Development back on the air or quit bitching about shitty TV shows?" What do you think about this New York Times article that I read the other day saying that what we most desparately need are middle school teachers because nobody wants to teach middle school and because it is a vital stage in the social and intellectual development of children. What about all of those articles about how much better girls are doing than boys? Is it just testosterone getting boys into more trouble, or does it have something to do with how the schools are treating the genders? Regardless of my questions, what do you think are the questions we should be asking, and where are we to look for the answers?

Given the importance of this issue in regard to the future of this country and world, I think we're entitled to answers.

Encyclopedic Knowledge Part II: You’re an Encyclopedia and You Didn’t Know It!

My previous post was really all I wanted to say about internet encyclopedias. I was supposed to get that off my chest and be able to wash my hands of the matter and get on with my day. I was looking forward to it. Then this happened.

If you are reading my post, you’ve probably read the CapeTownDissenter’s post which mentions the new Conservapedia, a Conservative Christian version of Wikipedia. Now, after having read about how much I hate the original (and utterly useless) Wikipedia, you can probably imagine my disgust when I learned that some lunatics made another one of these things. At first, there was no consoling me. No sooner had I (quite rightly and eloquently) pointed out how ridiculous it is that we even have Wikipedia in the first place (and I did so quite ingeniously, I might add), than the amount of Wikipedias in the world doubles! I mean I was pretty angry. First I considered putting my fist through a wall, but then I remembered that the walls in my apartment are load bearing walls, which means that it was going to hurt me more than it hurt the wall. Next I considered inviting the creators of both Wikipedia and Conservapedia to a cocktail party at my apartment where I would sit them down and, – like a high school football coach who yells at the team after screwing up a big game – after giving all of them the verbal tongue-lashing that they so desperately deserve, I would then stare silently at them for a few minutes, and finally try to give them a motivational speech about how to pick up the pieces of our previous, blissful Wikipedia-free world which they so carelessly smashed to…um, pieces, and try to start anew. Next I considered making pages on both Wikipedia and Conservapedia called “Useless Wastes of My and Your Time” and then explaining (quite systematically and compellingly) exactly why we should all be ashamed of ourselves that we even know that these things exist.

After a couple of deep breaths and one beautiful little ditty by Julieta Venegas (WBUR, you never fail to comfort me during my darkest and most troubled hours) I calmed down. I started to think about it a little bit. First there was Wikipedia, I thought. Well, no, I corrected myself (politely), first there was Google’s “I’m Feeling Lucky Button.” Then there was Wikipedia, a shameless rip-off of Google. And, thanks to the CapeTownDissenter who (unforgivably) broke the news to me the other day, now I know about Conservapedia. I was pretty incredulous as to the fact that not only is the original Wikipedia still in existence but that imitations are now springing up, so I went to the site just to see if I wasn’t having a terrifying nightmare (the test is that the internet never functions properly in a dream – it always takes too long to load and every link takes you to the same web site no matter what you are trying to access).

So I visit Conservapedia’s web site and it turns out that Conservapedia is the exact same freaking thing as Wikipedia except they recently started it from scratch whereas Wikipedia is about six years old and about a billion times bigger. I mean they didn’t even try to make it look different, or even change the name (they only changed half the name?! From “Wiki” to “Conserva”?!). Then I realized that Conservapedia means Conservative Wikipedia, which I guess is a Wikipedia for Conservative Christians who want to write these articles instead of whatever bozos are writing them for Wikipedia. Honestly I had no idea that Wikipedia was biased against Conservatives and against Christians (I thought it was just useless), but in any case we now have (an equally useless) one that takes an explicit effort to be biased in favor of these groups.

Now, unlike some of my co-dissentators, I don’t consider myself a member of either of America’s two main political parties, which I guess makes me a (hey voter voter voter voter) swing voter. To give you an idea of my moderateness, I often find myself farther to the right than many of my liberal friends, and I often find myself farther to the left than many of my…actually, wait…I’m not sure if I even have any conservative friends (they don’t call me the BostonDissenter just because I also happen to throw a glorious tea party). So, as a moderate open to all views (except those in favor of these ridiculous web sites existing), even I found this web site over the top. At first I was upset, I thought the “Anti-America bias” of Wikipedia claim was something of a stretch, and that maybe they should call the site “Psychopedia” (even a psycho would admit that name sounds better than Conservapedia (also conservapedia I believe is Spanish for “a whale’s vagina”)).

Then I realized something pretty amazing which totally turned me around on this Conservapedia. I did a little investigating and found out there was like nothing on it. Now, I realize it is just starting up, so this might not be true for much longer, but currently we are living in a golden age where – if we are willing to accept this thing as an encyclopedia – we know more than an encyclopedia. To give you an example of your encyclopedic knowledge, let’s start with a simple one. How about the country Spain. Conservapedia says:

“Country located on the Iberian Penninsula. Borderd by the Alantic Ocean to the west and the Mediterranean on the east. Portuagal is located on the same penninsuala. Is the same country as was in the medieval times. And known for its famous explorers.”

Now if you already knew all that, you have encyclopedic knowledge: the person searching should have just asked you! You maybe even know more! You maybe even know how to spell the words “peninsula,” “bordered,” “Atlantic,” and “Portugal!” Now I know this thing is supposed to favor America so things like countries, oceans, peninsulas and borders don’t really matter, but if we are supposed to be smarter than people from other countries, we should know more about their country than the know about America, which is hard to do post-Borat. So let’s try another country, Germany:

“A country in central Europe that was blamed for both Wolrd Wars and claimed to be the dominate race of mankind.”

Again, if you knew that too, you are as smart as an encyclopedia! And you probably would have called the “world” a “world” instead of a “wolrd!” I mean what is a wolrd anyway? I tried to look it up, but there wasn’t an entry for it. Then I looked up “world,” no entry for that either. Honestly I looked up “earth” and all the page said was “Mostly harmless.” Again if you know more than that about the earth you have encyclopedic knowledge. Now I know what you’re thinking: Conservapedia is pro-America so it really doesn’t matter whether there are articles about the wolrd or the world or whatever the hell that thing is that you were talking about. Well that’s why I looked up some American stuff as well. Now I know what else you’re thinking, you’re thinking what if you didn’t know as much as Conservapedia? For instance, what if you didn’t already know that Spain “is the same country as was in the medieval times”? Well don’t worry because to persuade you that you really are smarter than an encyclopedia, I have found a bunch of things that have no entry at all in Conservapedia, so if you have heard of even one, you have encyclopedic knowledge and you should start charging people to access your brain instead of those charlatans at Wikipedia and Conservapedia and whatever hell-spawned pedia’s that spring forth next. So those items are:

1. Alan Greenspan
2. Drudge Report
3. Rush Limbaugh
4. Argentina
5. David Brooks
6. John F. Kennedy
7. Supreme Court
8. Iraq
9. Mao Zedong
10. Taepodong
11. Ari Fleischer
12. CNN
13. Rolling Stones
14. Rice
15. Boston
16. Brain
17. Condoleeza Rice
18. Garth Brooks
19. Franklyn D. Roosevelt
20. London
21. World Bank
22. Wal-Mart
23. Jon Stewart
24. Harvard
25. Michael Jordan
26. New York Yankees
27. New York Times
28. Liberty University
29. Wall Street Journal
30. Education
31. Arnold Schwarzenegger

Incidentally, I don’t mean for this to be a contest between which of these two useless web sites is less horrendous, but I did find it noteworthy that while Conservapedia has no entry on the Taepodong, Wikipedia has three different Taepodongs in their encyclopedia.

In closing, I believe I’ve (quite nimbly) proven my point – that you are an encyclopedia and you didn’t know it. If for some reason you still haven’t heard of any of the above items, and you are still on equal footing, knowledge-wise, with Conservapedia, I will tell you something about Argentina. So to be smarter than Conservapedia (no one’s ever accused me of not making my readers smarter (than Conservapedia)), all you need to know about Argentina is that it gave us this.

Two Comedians, a Senator, and an Aging Institution

As a presidential candidate, Senator Obama, like Robert Kennedy before him, stands apart from the field of hopefuls by his easy and sincere ability to connect with young America. It only takes a moment to compare his campaign website, complete with social networking and a blog, to that of Senator Clinton or of Senator Edwards; Senator Obama mixes effortlessly with the Web 2.0 crowd, and more conspicuously, he seems equally at ease on the cover of fashion magazines (Men's Vogue) and the couches of our late night talk shows (Conan and The Daily Show). It is this natural ease that inspires both overblown praise and masked and bitter skepticism from the journalistic establishment (see Dowd below), as well as bewilderment, envy and careful praise from his fellow politicians.

Much in the same vein, the mainstream media display a similar uneasiness regarding Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. It’s getting hard to listen to NPR (for some of us, it has always been difficult) without hearing one of its many deadpan hosts invoke a quotation or clip from a recent Daily Show or Colbert Report. Whatever keeps “Fresh Air” fresh, I guess. Their forced and awkward (the type of awkwardness found only in the slew of movies depicting old white women dancing and/or rapping)deference toward Stewart and Colbert only betrays their total cluelessness for whatever it is that the kids are listening to these days. You know, they’re like totally clueless, dude, and so un-rad, man. Like whatever, Pops.



For simplicity’s sake and for that of my argument, let’s narrow the aging mainstream media and their frustration for their own ineptitudes to one journalist, Maureen Dowd of The New York Times. Dowd was given the recent cover story in Rolling Stone, featuring an interview with Stewart and Colbert. And it may just be that I was not picking up on her deft ironic tone or her comedic wit, but her opening lines are retarded:

"I thought Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert might be a little nervous to meet with me. I was the real news commentator, after all, and they were the mock. They threw spitballs at presidents; I interviewed presidents before throwing spitballs at them. I had crisscrossed the globe to cover news stories, while these guys just put on dark suits and threw up imported backgrounds on a green screen."

Yeah, I guess, Maureen.

Again, if you, the reader, are trying to grasp the moment that you felt such a similar sense of uneasy embarrassment for another person, please see photo above. Dowd follows this with what is either a carefully thought out and philosophically taut opening question, a joke that falls painfully on its face, or just a bad question:

Dowd: A fake news show, "The Daily Show," spawned a fake commentator, Colbert, who makes his own fake reality defending the fake reality of a real president, and has government officials on who know the joke but are still willing to be mocked by someone fake. Your shows are like mirrors within mirrors, using a cycle of fakery to get to the truth. You've tapped into a sense in society that nothing, from reality shows to Bushworld, is real anymore. Do you guys ever get confused by your hall of mirrors?

Stewart: I didn't know we were going to have to be high to do this interview.

Her interview style, which seems ripped from the stuffy 1960’s journalists who used to ask Bob Dylan what his message is. She ranges from broad personal opinion, “Do you think the country would be better off if the Republicans or the Democrats were running it?”, to moments that reveal her deeper anxieties as a journalist: “Is there any way to bring young people, or all people, back to news?”. Dowd displays a similar approach to her Times column when, as she often does, she discusses Barack Obama – both condescending and awed at once – clearly fixated, but still able to bestow upon him such nicknames as “Obambi” and “Legally Blonde.” How cute! You really tapped into some happening pop culture puns there, Ms. Dowd. Maybe next time you could go with Ally McBama or wait, wait, wait…90210bama; that’ll sure grab the youth’s attention.

The walls are closing in for Dowd – the next two years she will be forced into writing about the Senator’s campaign while she and her colleagues pay increasing homage to Stewart and Colbert. In a moment that must have been both sheer terror and masochistic ecstasy for Dowd, these three figures that light the way to her oblivion are discussed at once during the Rolling Stone interview, when she asks, “But wouldn’t, say, a President Obama be harder to make fun of than these guys [the Bush administration]?” Luckily, we have Jon Stewart to return the question with the one I would like to ask her: “Are you kidding?”