Lego-my-Eggo

A meander through HEB revealed an exciting surprise: Lego-my-Eggo Waffles. A warm, good-natured smile came across my face as I remembered my rich, Lego-filled younger days. And you can even stack them!

The NY Times is NOT a branch of the US Gov!

The New York Times thinks it's mightier than God...or the US Government, for that matter. Journalists, who are unelected, took it upon themselves to divulge a secret monitoring operation that sifts through national and international banking transactions. "But we're the counterbalance to a government who thinks it's above the law." Really? Oh, I thought the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress was the counterbalance in a government style with three branches. Maybe the people at the NY Times are so ignorant that they forgot the government class they took in high school (which was probably worthless because the entire education system is run by people like them).

Or maybe the NY Times will say and do anything that justifies what they do, which therefore makes them die by their own sword—there are LAWS against divulging secrets of the U.S. Government, and they broke those laws. It's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. This, even when previous presidents have done much farther-reaching things during wartime, such as IMPRISONING people who threaten critical government operations. You see, the NY Times doesn't believe it is wartime—at least, not the war against Islamic terrorism. To the NY Times, the war is against an "arrogant" administration that "flouts" the law at every turn.

But one second. Who appointed or elected the NY Times to become members of Congress of a member of the U.S. Supreme Court? Nobody. Congress KNEW of these programs, including both sides of the aisle. Open to abuse? Of course! That's why there are 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. If terrorists are able to get past US financial safeguards and surveillance because of the NY Times, all the editors who signed off on the article should be tried for treason.

The trouble, again, is that the folks at the NY Times do not take the threat of terrorism seriously. That's what it comes down. People think we're safe. But guess what folks? The only reason there hasn't been another attack is because the government is doing whatever it can to protect us. The NY Times doesn't care about security, which is ironic given Sept 11. They will be singing about their rights until a suicide bomber lights his or her fuse right here in the US.

"But what about our rights?! Our rights are being trampled by THIS ADMINISTRATION!" Really? You know, every operation the government runs has been told to Congressional leaders. Ever think about that? Ever heard of the Senate Intelligence Committee? YOU’RE NOT ON IT. If there was a problem, those people are the people who launch investigations. But they haven't. Yes, there is always the possibility of abuse. Yes, these secret operations should be overseen by the secret court system. So be it.

BUT THE NY TIMES IS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY. I'm so sick of it. They are not above the law, and neither is Bush. The NY Times is a complete and utter disgrace to journalistic integrity. They are not the people, they are the media. Never confuse the two. I got out of journalism precisely for this reason: these are self-appointed “experts” on policy and legal matters, when they really aren’t. They do the “homework” on stories that fulfills their point of view, not a balanced point of view. It’s lazy, it’s arrogant, and it’s shameful. It's also insane.

ePopulism and the Internet

Part 1

Populism often evokes the picture of a large, belligerent crowd comprised of middle-to-under class individuals who, by their own design or at the whims of unsavory political types, attempt to obtain more control over their political and economic future by attacking, through both violent and nonviolent means, a system that is seen as either corrupt or designed to limit the success of what we might historically consider “the lower class”. Populism, however, while continuing to reveal itself in various political manifestations across the globe, has evolved and expanded substantially into a less-studied area of humanity in our modern age: the Internet.

In the famous comedy Seinfeld, Jerry has an acquaintance called Newman, an extraordinarily undesirable postal employee (played by Wayne Knight) who once made a rather astute comment about his job: “When you control the mail, you control…information.” Just as the flow of mail is sent through major “hubs” around the world and distributed far and wide, so is the Internet a network of connections and “nodes” that distribute information in a similar, albeit much quicker fashion.

This instant flow of information, coupled with the ease of connecting to the huge network, has brought the rich man, the middle-class man, and the poor man together for electronic tea and cookies. Weblogs, known commonly as “blogs”, have created a relatively free, instant way of self-publishing, bringing any person, regardless of sex, race, color or creed, straight into the homes of anyone that clicks on a link to their blog. With enough website traffic, of course, blogs can turn into human networks themselves, where people who share beliefs and values (or perhaps simply interests) can talk, discuss, coordinate and plan. The explosion of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) is likely linked to the rapid augmentation of the Internet, as it has created a place for all people to go and to gather.

But there is more to ePopulism than discussion and networking. Although Microsoft, Sun Microsystems and America Online pioneered many aspects of the Web during the 1990s, a resurgence against these companies, largely at the “grassroots” level of Internet users, has occurred in tandem with a surge of public discontent with big, established U.S. companies. Microsoft by far is the prize to be won—or at this point to be challenged seriously. Google and Mozilla Firefox are the biggest players in a fight to dethrone the corporate monstrosity, and have been surprisingly successful at producing content and software that consistently outstrips the offerings from Microsoft. Likely, again, this has occurred both because of a grand effort by investors to offer something different in the marketplace, but also because of a pointed public willingness to try and use something besides the old and the established (i.e. Microsoft).

This societal phenomenon isn’t only limited to the Internet realm, either, where a desire to embrace “different and new” extends to everything from architecture design to food, from buying Saabs and Volvos instead of Fords and Chevrolets, to popular rejection of traditional American culture and values. The Internet, however, has augmented this social transition by aiding the spread of new and unconventional information and ideas throughout the public. As a result, people are less secure in their background and beliefs, less comfortable with their government and its policies, and more willing and able to create “movements” and promote change.

The classes, like no other time in the history of the world, have begun to break down as a result of an experimental U.S. Government program. Karl Marx would be proud.