Recent Posts
I have a confession to make: I'm a musical polygamist. Rock, pop, metal or hip-hop, it doesn't matter; if I like a song, I put it on my iPod, genre be damned. Once they're in there, I'll listen to them over and over again.
Music, for me, is not some throwaway gag; every song I own meant something to me when I heard it. Do I get tired of them? Occasionally. But these songs, motley as they are, have been invested with so much emotion that I'd never dream of deleting them- at least, not until today.
The song in question is a lovely thrash-metal piece entitled "Save Me." I liked it for its crunchy power chords, simple drums, and, of course, the lyrics, which I felt reflected my own sense of being consumed by my bland and wholesome surroundings. School was trying to turn me into a middle-manager, a government stooge; I wanted to be more than that, but it seemed as though I was trapped in college, almost as if I couldn't get anywhere in life without it. I needed someone to "Save me/from this disease/ that's feeding on the better part of me." That song fed the spark of defiance burning in my heart, stoking it to a flame. I loved it for that... but it betrayed me.
Today, I was listening to my iPod while writing an essay for class- thirty pages, due that day. I was exhausted, and needed a break. My mind was just about melted from all the work I'd done, so, as usual, I flipped through the menu looking for my favorite song.
I was in a bit of a stupor at that point, I'll admit. Sitting in my uncomfortable chair, slouching a bit, I stared at my Grand Prix poster wishing I could be somewhere else. My eyes wandered aimlessly across the detritus of my life: a glass Coke bottle from Mexico, the globe-shaped Indonesian bookends in their cherrywood stands, stained textbooks and dirty plates, symbols of the man I was, and the man I longed to be.
My head was empty. All the thoughts, all the emotions these images conjured, had been used up. The pain had drained away; all that was left was the desire for escape, echoed in the singer's cry. That man, at least, was a kindred spirit; yet I felt as distant from him as from anyone else. The symbol of his band was a mystery to me, as was its name. Why "Burn Halo"? I didn't know. The answer could have easily been found, but what was the fun in that? I took more pleasure in the contemplation of mysterious things- speculation and guesswork were the spice of life. I wanted the answer enough to seek it, but not enough to surrender the journey, the intellectual stimulation that I loved, and that college lacked. And so I sat there, turning the problem idly in my mind, eyes closed, resting. Burn Halo. Save Me. Longhorn Skull. Guns. Burn. Halo. Save.
At last, something clicked. The answer had been there all along, staring me in the face: religion. That's what the song was about. That's all it was about.
I felt violated. All along, I had thought I was in the presence of a superior mind, a fellow seeker-after-truth. The song had come to represent something universal, something I cared about more deeply than anything else. But it had all been a lie.
Don't get me wrong- I don't hate Christianity. In fact, I like it in the way that most Americans do, as a place to socialize and, occasionally, attain a kind of peace. Traditional church music is restful; it has been around for thousands of years, and I love the way it sounds. But contemporary church music makes me want to hurl. It's cheap, corny, and fake, a dishonest way to get unsuspecting bystanders through the door and past the Pearly Gates. I hate it with all my heart and soul.
In today's America, religion is mass-marketed like anything else. Something which used to be unique and personal has become a commodity good, with all the compromises that implies. My ancestors, the Germans, built massive cathedrals out of stone, chiseled by ill-paid craftsmen over decades until they were fit for use, than filled with beautiful Latin music. Nowadays, new churches are built from metal. It's cheap and durable, which means that more churches can be built, and thus, more people "saved." This new music is exactly the same; it's a cheap emotional high, perfect for getting pleasure-seeking teenagers addicted to faith. Justifiable? Maybe. But I refuse to be part of it. That's why, as soon as I've finished writing this, I'm going to delete Burn Halo from my iPod forever. They deserve no less.
In this country, the freest on earth, there are certain things you arent allowed to question Opposing them will get you labeled as a cold-hearted bastard. Your reasoning wont count for anything- there are simply some causes that the American public inevitably condemns. Going against measures that improve peoples lives in a direct manner will tend to do that. Its not for the faint of heart. Thats why I wrote this paper, an in-depth examination the questions most Americans wouldnt dare to ask: is democracy working? Why? If you havent stopped reading by now, sit back and enjoy the ride.
Most of our politicians are faint of heart, and that often leads to their making stupid decisions simply because it will increase their popularity. The liberal example is George W. Bushs invasion of Iraq. An intelligent Yale graduate pressured his subordinates at the CIA into ignoring established espionage procedure so that he could have a reason to give the American people what they wanted: vengeance. A despot in a similar situation would have waited until he was sure where his enemies were before launching an invasion, because a despots fortunes live and die with those of his country. Therefore, he is forced to make decisions that will ensure the survival of the state rather than those which will please the people.
A democratic leader, however, faces constant pressure from the public. The worst thing that can happen to a democrat is to lose the publics approval, because when that happens, you lose power entirely. This pressure often causes them to make poor decisions, such as the one mentioned above. By responding quickly and forcefully to the crisis, Bush made himself look proactive, a trait which most Americans associate with leadership.
Liberal-minded government officials are also subject to this pressure, and they respond in a similarly flawed manner. Case in point: the recent health-care law. The American people, as a whole, claimed that they wanted lower health-care costs, without raising taxes. This makes sense, because as everyone knows, most people always want a higher standard of living, a goal which is achieved by maximizing income or, as in this case, minimizing expenses.
Unfortunately, the American people did not agree on how they wanted this to be done, and, in addition to all of the contention arising from that disagreement, they also wanted a variety of other things as well, as soon as possible. This led to a lot of compromising and mutual backscratching. Before long, the health-care bill contained legislation for a lot of things other than health care, included in order to satisfy the restless constituents everywhere (thats us).
Naturally, this was all very expensive. To attempt to pay for it all, therefore, a number of other programs were cut- a great number of them related to defense (the demise of the F22 Raptor program, cutbacks in the development of an IED-proof Humvee replacement, etc.), science (NASA budget cuts, thousands of research grants reduced or eliminated when their products had no relationship to hot-button political issues such as global warming) and education (scholarships cut, art programs drastically reduced in size, money budgeted to higher education cut across the board).
Yet even all these cuts to programs so vital to the future safety and prosperity of our country were not enough to balance the budget, so the nation continued to plummet towards insolvency unchecked. To save face, the party in power blamed the party which used to be in power. Meanwhile, the party which used to be in power regained some of their might by pointing out that their opponents were just as incompetent as they had been. However, the American people had not entirely forgotten their incompetence, so the return to power wasn't complete. The end result is a governing body fundamentally at odds with itself, which will produce imperfect legislation because of the need for compromise. This makes decisive action even less likely, which is a shame because the national debt is only continuing to increase. Eventually, this mismanagement will compound, and our nation will collapse.
Strange, eh? If the government acts quickly, they make mistakes. If they dither, thats a mistake as well. This is a problem endemic to democracy. Other types of government, ruled as they are by people who seized power through strength rather than moral weakness, are not subject to this gradual wasting. Democratic governments main characteristic is that its strength diminishes overtime.
A despotisms defining features, on the other hand, are wholly determined by the nature of its supreme leader. It can be good and just (Augustus Ceaser), evil and insane (Adolph Hitler, Caligula), corrupt and decadent (19th Century Turkey, the Bourbons, the last of the Byzantine Emperors; such leaders generally lead to the downfall of their civilizations, as the above examples show) or any other combination of human traits. As long as there is one good, competent person left in the world, a successful and benevolent despotism is possible. When rulers are selected by birth rather than capability, however, it is inevitable that one person among the descendents of the conquering hero will be an ineffective or evil ruler. Therefore, to create a self-perpetuating benevolent despotism, an objective method of selecting rulers is necessary. In our modern age, such a method may well be within our grasp.
On the other hand, we have representative government, in which the people select their leaders based on personal preference. Political science tells us that people choose one leader over another for a variety of reasons, primarily related to the issues, the candidate, or the party. Decisions based on party reflect the human tendency to organize into like-minded groups, which is a phenomenon that occurs in every society no matter how leaders may try to oppress it.
Psychologically speaking, this is a useful trait, but it can also lead to oppression and errors, as one group asserts its dominance over another. Decisions made on the issues are similarly limited by human intelligence. Many people who are qualified to vote are not intelligent or informed enough to make good decisions on either foreign or domestic policy, which is a shame because the people who do make it do so only as long as they have the peoples approval. This can also work the other way: a group of intelligent people can manipulate others to serve their goals.
As for decisions which are based on a personal like or dislike for the candidate, they are also flawed. When we look at a person, we are not judging their intelligence, but merely their aesthetic appeal. Thus, if a candidate squints, or smiles to little or too much, looks mean, is bald, dumpy, old, etc., people may decide not to trust them when in fact they are more capable leaders than their young, fit, moisturized opponents. As to moral judgments based on candidate behavior, these are often flawed as well, as the incidents in question are frequently exaggerated by interested parties. In addition, standards of morality vary from person to person.
What Im trying to say here is that humans are fallible judges of character. When we meet a person, we can usually judge whether theyre being genuine when they say, pleased to meet you. Based on their appearance, we decide if we should like them, hit on them, or ask them for money. But as we all know, sometimes appearances can be misleading. The fact is, politicians are professional actors. Some are better than others at making us think theyre leaders, when in fact most of them just say what their advisors tell them to say. At least with ordinary people, have ways of knowing who people are based on what they say. But with politicians, what they say and what they think can be two very different things. Every move they make, every answer they give, is scripted and practiced by rote until perfection is attained, based on data from think tanks thats been compressed by professional speech writers into appropriate prose, based on what statisticians think the people want to hear. And as weve seen, what the people want to hear isnt always the truth. Comforting lies are often preferable to the truth.
Essentially, democracy is just despotism made over to satisfy the peoples need to believe that theyre in charge. The people we think of as our leaders dont actually lead; data leads. Kill the man in charge, and you wont destroy the forces behind him, the source of every bad idea for the past two hundred years. No, this isnt a conspiracy theory. I know (and I hope you do, too) that there is no man behind the curtain, no Illuminati pulling the strings. The president is just a cardboard cutout of the American people, dolled up with makeup so he looks good on primetime TV. We, the people, are the only thing behind him. Theres nothing intrinsically noble about that.
Not that Im saying that, since we have only ourselves to blame for the dire state of the country, we should sit back and swallow whatever the president gives us. That would probably result in a less-than-benevolent despotism ruled by an actor. No, what Im proposing is this: democracy as a system of government is a pretty stupid idea, so we should get rid of it; instead of idiots appointing a lot of other idiots to rule, lets use science to develop a way to pick the ten smartest people in the country, train them as problem-solvers, and then hand over the reins. If something goes wrong, we the people can take back control by force, because we would outnumber them ten million to one. Theres only one problem: the President just cut the science budget. Maybe these guys are smarter than I thought . . .
The old Cobra looked soft, but punched hard
In the annals of musclecar history, the 1996-98 Mustang Cobra remains something of a forgotten second son. It's not that it was particularly ugly, or lacked power- in fact, it had 305 horses, enough to propel it from 0-60 in 5.4 seconds and through the quarter mile in 14 flat. That's quick, even by modern standards. And the fuel economy wasn't particularly terrible either: 17/26 city/highway is respectable for a V8, especially compared to the gas-guzzling classics of the '60s. At a bottom line of $11,000 for a decent specimen, it would appear clear that this car's a steal compared with the similarly-performing 2011 Mustang V6.Objectively, then, it looks like the Mustang holds all the cards.
But as every enthusiast knows, a good car is more than just the numbers it puts out. That's certainly the case with this Cobra. On the road, it's nowhere near as good as the current car, especially around corners. The new Mustang has surgically-precise, nearly European handling prowess. This car. . . well, it's an old-school Mustang. Better than most cars, sure, but honestly? This car was built for the interstate, not the back roads. Understeer kicks in fairly early, but dial in the power and the tail swings out smartly. Suspension modifications might help to make it more neutral, but unless you're willing to pay to bolt on an independent rear suspension, this isn't going to be a very capable track day machine.
If that's what you want, though, this car has plenty of potential. The 4.6 liter modular V8 has enormous aftermarket support. With a few thousand dollars invested under the hood, you might just surprise an M3 or two down at the strip, not to mention the new Mustang V6. It sounds great too- put you foot down, and there's a deafening roar as the beast lunges for the horizon in a cloud of tire smoke. Pegging the rev limiter is easy and addictive. Burnouts? No problem. The Mustang will happily shred its tires to the rims all day long. Donuts are a little harder, but given a few tries, you'll get the hang of it. It's like riding a Tilt-A-Whirl, except that Tilt-A-Whirls don't make your ears bleed.
By now you probably understand that this is something of a hooligan's car. It's a blunt instrument, primitive, crude from the stone-age chassis to the plastic-coated interior. If your brain isn't fueled by testosterone, you'll probably hate it. By most rational standards, it is inferior to its Camaro/Firebird contemperaries. Still, I can't help but like the big guy. The Cobra has that primitive simplicity that we've almost lost in motoring. It's grunge metal compared to boy bands, the '90s versus the 2000s, proper masculinity instead of sensitive New-Age emasculation. The Mustang, with all its flaws, is totally real- American to its very core. That's why I love it.
Cheap, but comfortable interior doesn't look half bad in tan.
SPECIFICATIONS
ENGINE: 4.6-liter 32-valve V-8
HORSEPOWER/TORQUE: 305 hp @ 5,800 rpm/300 ft-lbs @ 4,800 rpm
0-60: 5.4 seconds
QUARTER MILE: 14.0
TOP SPEED: 152 M.P.H.
BRAKING, 60-0: 127 feet
SKIDPAD, 100 FEET: .89g
TRANSMISSION: Five-speed manual
FUEL ECONOMY: 18 mpg city, 26 mpg highway, 17.6 mpg test
WHEELBASE: 101.3 in.
OVERALL LENGTH: 182.5 in.
OVERALL HEIGHT: 53.3 in.
OVERALL WIDTH: 71.8 in.
CURB WEIGHT: 3,506 lbs
FUEL CAPACITY: 15.7 gal.
LUGGAGE CAPACITY: 7.7 cu. ft.
TIRES: 245/45ZR17
PRICE (NEW) USED: ($28660) Around $11,000/mint
In the world of executive luxury sedans, Jaguar has long been a forgotten marquee. Until the current generation arrived, with groundbreaking style, incredible driver involvement, and a more avant-garde interior, this was understandable. The old XJ8, despite having enough good points to place second (to a Lexus LS430) in a Car and Driver six-car comparison test, was simply too conservative to attract much notice. But, as often happens, six years of depreciation have brought this Olde World auto within the reach of the common folk: from the $10,000 base model 2004 XJ8s to loaded (and newer) $15,000 Vanden Plas ultra-luxury saloons, there's something for every purse and purpose.
Why You Should Buy: The cheapest good-condition examples only cost as much as a brand-new, stripped Hyundai Elantra, and the most expensive models are less then a base Toyota Camry. There's fine leather and wood inside, far superior to the aforementioned cars' sticky gray vinyl and rough cloth. Plus, the cockpit fits people more comfortably, because it's bigger, quieter, and actually has air conditioning (gasp
[ Click here to read more ]
School is tyranny- it's that simple. No other institution on earth takes in so many bright, hopeful minds, and over the course of years of didactic assignments and meaningless competition, crushes your will to learn, leaving behind only a vague craving for wealth and the freedom only it can bring.
Public schools are the worst. A distant government, guided by a desire to improve the general condition of humankind, disregards all individual differences in its desire to produce "well-rounded" individuals. Look at my school: science majors are forced to take classes in art, and literature majors classes in math and politics. The latter subjects are ones that, as a writer of dystopia and a political science major, destroy your belief in essential human goodness. What are we to make, for instance, of the fact that, over the last two years, funding for higher education has been cut in order to make it appear that congress is paying for the massive costs of public health care? Can it be that we truly value quantity over quality to the extent that we would cut scholarships for gifted, poor students of working-class parents just so that those same parents could live for an extra twenty years? What kind of culture are we fostering
[ Click here to read more ]
Let's say you're an average middle-aged, middle-management type of guy. You have around $40,000 dollars to spend on a car, and your main desires are swift performance, a creamy ride, luxury, and a badge that will impress the next-door Joneses. You could play it safe and buy a brand-new Toyota Camry SE; with almost 270 horsepower, a whisper-quiet V6, and the kind of highway ride that used to be associated with Cadillac, it would probably be the rational choice.
But such common, pedestrian appliances aren't for you. are they? You have style and taste, something a mere Camry could never satisfy. Moreover, you want to enjoy your drive, whether it's on four-lane Interstates or twisting secondary roads. You're the type of guy who's addicted to late-night Bond films, who lives vicariously through that silver-screen icon of dashing daring-do, all the while wishing that somehow, that could be you. What should you do
[ Click here to read more ]
In the past couple of years, it has become apparent that the American public needs an up-to-date source of information on used cars. This blog has been created to fill that need. It will provide performance specifications such as acceleration (0-60, 0-100) braking, top speed, slalom, and all of the other objective data you would expect from a new-car buyer's guide such as Motor Trend (r) or Consumer Reports, but with a more enthusiast-focused narrative structure like that of the former, rather then the dry, academic recitation of the latter. The main difference will be that this blog will be covering cars that are not brand-new, but are instead several years, or even several decades, old. This means that cars which were not competitive with their peers when they were new may have become bargains due to depreciation. In addition, topics such as the potential modification of these cars will be covered, in the hopes of better serving the needs of the enthusiast.
- Aaron T., Editor
You know what really grinds my gears? Pro-choice vegans. There's this really annoying dude at my university, has hair right down to the middle of his back and always wears hip-hugger jeans and baggy knit-wool sweaters so you can't tell if he's a guy or a girl. But that isn't the annoying bit. What I really can't stand about him, besides the fact that he shares my first name, is that he's both intelligent, pro-choice, and a vegan, meaning he doesn't eat animal products, such as eggs, cheese, and meat, for moral reasons.
Now, this seems a little bit hypocritical to me. My mom happens to be a vegan (because of food allergies) and goes to hip local eateries were she interacts with a lot of people who are philosophically against exploiting animals. She raised me to be tolerant, and this was one of the philosophies she exposed me to at an early age. Basically, I understand how very gentle people can react to YouTube videos and documentaries of slaughterhouses by rejecting meat and other animal products. However, combining this philosophy with that of a pro-choice activist makes little sense. Even if you don't agree that a fertilized human egg is equivalent to an infant human, it should at least be the equal of a chicken egg. Both can produce a living, breathing creature if brought to term. Biologically, they perform exactly the same function
[ Click here to read more ]
Greetings, all. Today is a glorious day in the history of the world; a day when the existing order, the establishment, the Man, and every other oppressor currently bothering the American people begins to be demolished. . . the day that I write the mission statement for my blog.
Generally, I wouldn't write a mission statement. Mission statements are a part of the system, and I'm not part of the system, man
[ Click here to read more ]
|
|
|
Add Comments
Comments (2)
Read More
Comment by Ronin11235
on About That Democracy You Ordered. . .
The Modern Cynic
Bargain Basement: The Ultimate Used Car Buyer's Guide
As to the nerve gas in question, it was not an immediate threat to our country, which was what the government told us. A number of countries buy nerve agents from the former USSR and/or have the scientific capability to refine gases that, if deployed in a civilian-populated area, could cause significant casualties. Remember, Mustard Gas, the first chemical weapon ever invented, is just chlorine. It's relatively easy to make (easily within reach of even the poorest third-world countries), and is very deadly when you don't have a gas mask handy. Many of these countries also style themselves "Islamic Republics," and have enough radical Muslims (it only takes one, remember) to deploy a biological agent very quickly. Iran even has its own nuclear program, the largest population of Shi'ite Muslims (typically more radical, and more prone to violent action, then Sunnis), and a government that continually threatens to wipe Israel from the face of the planet.
Strangely, though, we didn't invade that country, or Sudan (home of the Darfur genocide), or Oman (a known hideout for terrorist forces). Why? I have no idea. All I know is that our military was stretched thin with only two targets, recruitment was still fairly slow even after 9/11, and the draft is no longer politically expedient. That's the price we pay for being a democratic country.