Alright so this, admittedly, will be a long entry but go ahead and read the whole thing because, what else you got to do?
Empathy: The word is described by the American Heritage Dictionary as "Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives." which is different than sympathy "A feeling or an expression of pity or sorrow for the distress of another; compassion or commiseration." In any case I have a feeling that most of reality TV could use a good dose of empathy. I think that if it were to happen half of the shows would go off the air. Why does America revel in other people's misery? Don't get me wrong the occasional smile does pop on my face when I see a cop pull over a speeder but seriously do we really need to see people make fools of themselves on American Idol, Supernanny, WifeSwap etc? I think that if those at home watching these programs decided to go on them then their reaction would be quite different. Yes I understand that each individual wants to go on the show and signs several release forms I'm sure but you don't think that the producers and editors get to have a field day with the final tape? I just think that there's some decent TV out there that would teach, inform, or even make you think a little but there's too much humiliating crap out there that will take up the time slot.
A Luxury Tax: In sticking with the "reality TV" theme I have a new idea for a tax. Yes Dad I did say a tax and no I'm not a "tax and spend" democrat. Anywho, I'm sick of these shows on MTV, Fox, VH1 and plenty of other networks that show us the lives of the rich and famous. Here's my thinking and reasoning behind it. Anytime someone purchaces or is given some outragous amount of a gift or is given money they have to not only pay a luxury tax on that item but give time to charity to give them said money. For example on MTV's "Sweet Sixteen" show fathers are often seen giving their daughters very expensive cars that they have no real business driving or receiving. (The other night it was a $96,000 Jaguar) So in order to receive the car they have to give oh I don't know let's go with 5% of the value to a soup kitchen in the area. So that's $4800 to a soup kitchen and then they have to spent .05% of the value in minutes at the soup kitchen so that's 480 minutes or 8 hours in that soup kitchen. At the very least Daddy could right that off as a income tax write off at the most the individual would learn to appreciate the gift they received and the true value of the work it took to get that.
Heartbreak: Alright this one will be brief. Two words; Missouri Tigers. Seriously every year, every sports, they look good, they play well, they tank. I guess that's why we watch though, right? (For more information regarding this one I difer to Tigers' basketball in the BigXII and the Tigers' football in their SunBowl bid)
Finally, who needs branches? So I saw this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16668110/) article online today and I'm just wondering does the concept of Checks and Balances mean anything to these people? Yes the judges are supposed to be nuetral but can anyone in the administration find any opinions that aren't backed by the validity of law? Seriously Gonzales is saying it weakens the judicial by letting the executive walk all over them. Can you be serious? What the hell? I know that the Bush administration has been trying to pull this stuff off for a long time but seriously! What's so bad about breaking up responsibilities and checking the other branches? One of the things I've learned in all my schooling and (what little according to prospective employers) experience I have is that "process protects." Yeah it's so horrible to get the process right. Let the judges judge based on the law, the president has been declaring and deciding without the convience of truth so why not let the judiciary throw some logic and law into the mix, it doesn't seem to stop the legislature from legislating (reference the ruling on military courts for prisoners) nor the "decider" from deciding. Come on! George's administration is giving us plenty of cause to refer to him as the previous "joke" of King George II!
No comments:
Post a Comment