Ask yourself, do you really trust the government, especially when it comes to money? I always hear people complaining about how corrupt politicians are, but why then do we elect these same politicians back into office time and time again? Why do we allow government to take our money through taxes for a cause we could care less about? People have such disdain and resentment for politicians (and even wealthy public figures like Rupert Murdoch), but a large percentage of Americans refuse to vote, maintaining an apathetic state of mind. According to the United States Election Project, 37% of 218,054,301 eligible voters turned out for 2010 US election day. That’s ridiculous. Fortunately, with the help of the Tea Party, Republican candidates ,upholding a campaign based on fiscal responsibility, were voted into office. These candidates include now Governors Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mark Rubio of Florida.
According to a September 2010 Gallup Poll, Americans trust their local and state governments far more more than than the federal government, with 70% saying they have trust and confidence in their local government and only 49% saying they have trust and confidence in the federal executive branch headed by the President. Although this is a good thing considering how awful of a job the current Presidential Administration is handling the nation’s most serious problems (Immigration, Unemployment, Debt), Presidents come and go. If they do a sucky job, it’s often in the spotlight so we know to vote them out of office as soon as we get the chance. However when it comes to Senators, Representatives, Governors, City Council members, the general public is oblivious to corruption and unethical decision-making.
There are still many people who believe the government is supposed to help us through life’s many struggles. Yvette Chappell, 47 of California said the government is not “doing enough for the right people, for the poor.” If it was government’s responsibility to nurture the people, education, housing, employment, health care, and social security would be entitlements. Government does not exist to provide for us, it exists to protect our rights. We are “endowed by our Creator (or nature if you’re Bill Maher) certain inalienable rights” that are reinforced in our Constitution. The Government is most successful in the areas of law and national security. A Washington Post-Kaiser-Harvard poll result shows the public rating the U.S. Military a B+ grade and the Federal Court System a C, the two highest grades given in the poll. This shows that if the Government focused on preventing North Korea and Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and making just decisions in the Supreme Court, our society would run much smoother. Socializing every service offered in America is just going to make half of the country dependent on government and the other half very angry that they are being milked like a cow for tax money.
Socialism is defined on Dictionary.com as a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. In a socialist state, income is redistributed. In lames terms, money is taken away from those with high incomes and given to those with low incomes. If this isn’t highway robbery, I don’t know what is.
Our current President is a good example of a socialist, despite the amount of people who would strongly disagree with me. Not only does he advocate income redistribution as he was filmed saying,"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.", but he honestly thinks government is the answer to unemployment and health care reform (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 ). With the economy in a “recession” and health care in dire need of reform, I do not criticize the President for giving a ****. But his approach is unproductive. The economy will be restored through supporting business growth. Health care is one of those services that is merely more efficient through privatization, which will demand a larger quantity of insurance companies. When three large corporations have control over any industry, they start to function as bureaucracies and/or fall to corruption due to not having to be held accountable for incompetence. This chokes the market as much as massive federal spending does. The heart of the economy is the small business sector. The Small Business Administration says that small businesses make up more than 99.7% of all employers.
There are many services that are simply more effective under the private sector, yet the Government spends an extreme amount of tax-payer money on education, third-most after Defense Spending and Social Security. We’re taught that money is what makes a school successful or not., That’s not true. Even if every classroom has the decent amount of textbooks and desks, it isn’t going to make a difference if teachers fail miserably because their only goal is to cover the state standards. They are only going to held accountable after that student passed the class without learning anything significant to his/her education. The theme here is personal responsibility. Dependency on government just turns the country into a Welfare State. Bureaucracy is the problem, not the answer.
http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2010/06/10/zogby-poll-most-self-described-democrats-andor-liberals-flunk-basic-economics-badly/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-10-11-1Abiggovernment11_CV_N.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/fedrole.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/17/cnn-poll-only-one-third-favor-tax-cut-extension-for-wealthy/
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
All Flags Welcomed... Except Our Own?
America is a land of immigrants. Every fool knows that. Whether your ancestors came here from Alaska, forced by the slave trade, or driven by persecution, everyone is an immigrant. By emigrating to this nation, many have declared America their new home. Nearly every ethnic group in this country has faced discrimination upon arrival. Jews, Germans, Blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Italians, Irish; the list goes on. Everyone who has rights guaranteed by the Constitution fought for it. But our flag was never burned in the process.
It's no doubt that Mexican immigration is no different than former waves of immigration into the United States. However, now it's different. When you look back at the immigrants of the past, you see people trying to mix into the melting pot. But now, peoples such as Mexicans and Filipinos, don't try to become Americanized. They stick to their own cultures and wave their own flags. I'm all for having pride in WHERE YOU COME FROM, but it's become so normal to wave foreign flags that whenever an American wants to wave an AMERICAN flag, it's seen as an anomaly.
There are people who seriously think this is the worst country on the planet. They are known as retards. One of these retards is Michael Moore, who constantly makes excuses for terrorists instead of condemning them. I'd like to see him hug bin Laden when the guy has an RPG pointed at him. It's true that America has funded dictators and defiled civilizations. It's true that we've stood on the forefront of Imperialism. But ask yourself, do we as Americans fight for our leaders OR do we fight for ideals? The Nazis fought for their fuhrer, Adolf Hitler. The Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces would all die under a mushroom cloud for their leader Fidel Castro. But Americans don't fight for our President, General, or Commandant. We fight because we need to in order to survive. Our flag represents the never-ending fight to maintain this Republic. That is the ideal.
I love different cultures; most of my friends are Latino/Hispanic. But I will never lose my stance on patriotism. If you want to be prideful of where you come from, go ahead and celebrate that. But we shouldn't ACCOMMODATE immigrants by dismounting our own flag.
It's no doubt that Mexican immigration is no different than former waves of immigration into the United States. However, now it's different. When you look back at the immigrants of the past, you see people trying to mix into the melting pot. But now, peoples such as Mexicans and Filipinos, don't try to become Americanized. They stick to their own cultures and wave their own flags. I'm all for having pride in WHERE YOU COME FROM, but it's become so normal to wave foreign flags that whenever an American wants to wave an AMERICAN flag, it's seen as an anomaly.
There are people who seriously think this is the worst country on the planet. They are known as retards. One of these retards is Michael Moore, who constantly makes excuses for terrorists instead of condemning them. I'd like to see him hug bin Laden when the guy has an RPG pointed at him. It's true that America has funded dictators and defiled civilizations. It's true that we've stood on the forefront of Imperialism. But ask yourself, do we as Americans fight for our leaders OR do we fight for ideals? The Nazis fought for their fuhrer, Adolf Hitler. The Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces would all die under a mushroom cloud for their leader Fidel Castro. But Americans don't fight for our President, General, or Commandant. We fight because we need to in order to survive. Our flag represents the never-ending fight to maintain this Republic. That is the ideal.
I love different cultures; most of my friends are Latino/Hispanic. But I will never lose my stance on patriotism. If you want to be prideful of where you come from, go ahead and celebrate that. But we shouldn't ACCOMMODATE immigrants by dismounting our own flag.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Letter of Appeal to Ms. Maloney
Dear Ms. Maloney,
I was recently informed of my rejection into the AP English course and I realizing why I was rejected, I'd like to respond to my rejection. There is only one reason why I was rejected, that reason being my cumulative grade point average. This is an unfair way of deciding who gets to take the course because it accepts those who simply maintain grades instead of those who actually excel in English. I regret the day I took the written test for AP, realizing that I wasn't being judged based on my ability as a writer, but for a history of inconsistency I cannot go back and correct or redo. The students who were accepted into AP have something in common. They've been in the same classes with each other their entire high school lives. I sat in the testing room pondering whether I should have just left, seeing all of the students who I knew had a higher GPA. If teachers such as yourself are going to take the easy way out and decide who gets the AP spot out of the fact that they are in the top of their class, then for what reason would a C+ student like myself have for signing up in the first place? When you think about it, it really makes no sense at all.
Last year, I applied for APUSH feeling confident that I would make it into the class. I looked around at all of the other students in the meeting thinking I was just as qualified, if not more, than any of them. I listened to Ms. Perkins list off the requirements for the class, not flinching a bit as she told us about the heavy amount of homework that would be given on a regular basis. I have a passion for history, as well as this great country, so it didn't discourage me. The application process required an essay, teacher and parent signatures, and a transcript, similar to your application. I completed everything and actually spent time with my essay to make sure it reflected how I felt about history, war in specific. Weeks later, I retrieved a letter of rejection, which listed many reasons why I wasn't chosen. The point is, most of those reasons were bullshit. The only reason why I wasn't chosen was because of my overall GPA. I understand if my grades in World History in specific were lacking, but that wasn't even the case. I passed Ms. Johnson's class with an A, no doubt being one of her favorite students, which says a lot considering her demanding teaching style. I might be stretching my argument when I say this but wouldn't a recommendation from one of the most challenging teachers in our school be enough for Ms. Perkins to overlook my mediocre math grade, which brought my GPA down? I haven't recently heard of any connection between math and history, but I may be wrong. A grade point average is not only an inaccurate measure of a student's potential, intelligence, or passion for a subject, but it is a way to filter out the "smart kids" from the "dumb kids".
When I opened up my letter today in my Psychology class, everyone watched with anticipation to see what it said. For a while, I put it in my backpack, telling those around me that I'd read it later. But my own curiosity caused me to open it anyway. I knew deep down that I didn't get in even before ripping the staple off of the paper. My friends in the class were shocked when I allowed them to read it. Some kids laughed. The students who were accepted, however, were those who had high GPAs, but from my experience with them, they were the same people who never participated in class. This upset me because I am placed in an education system where I can show that I genuinely care about what goes on in the classroom and display a passion for learning, yet it means nothing, no matter how much the teacher begs that kid with the 3.9 to share her idea, because at the end of the semester that kid will get an A anyway just for filling out homework pages. I'm not excusing my inadequacy as a student at all. I have made many bad choices in high school and I continue to make a habit out of it, even to this very hour. But I think it's immoral to give the student an opportunity when that student only wants it for superficial reasons. Has it ever crossed your mind that us C+ average students may need the extra grade point given in AP classes to raise our GPAs?
Thank God for giving me a mind that doesn't cease to stop learning when the last bell of the day rings. Because if that were the case, I'd be like many of the students who were accepted because of their consistency, not due to their excellence. Earlier this year I wrote an argument essay explaining why AP shouldn't be expanded at this school and I stick to my belief that it shouldn't. The best should be accepted and by best I don't mean highest GPA. GPA doesn't tell you what a student will have to offer to a classroom setting, how intellectual a student is, or how much the student appreciates writing as a craft. During class, Mr. Mitchell, my teacher for Psychology kept asking why I didn't get in but the only thing I could tell him is,"I don't have a high enough GPA." That's a big slap in the face to me, considering I didn't have to waste an hour writing a bogus analysis essay about one of the most overrated books in literature if I knew that it wouldn't matter if I didn't have over a 3.0. I don't seek revision of your decision regarding my acceptance into AP seeing as you've more than likely written me off as an arrogant, ideological, prick. What I do request, for the sake of incoming classes, is to tell applicants that they must have a 3.0 in order to be admitted as it would only be rational and fair.
Sincerely,
Trevor Phillips
I was recently informed of my rejection into the AP English course and I realizing why I was rejected, I'd like to respond to my rejection. There is only one reason why I was rejected, that reason being my cumulative grade point average. This is an unfair way of deciding who gets to take the course because it accepts those who simply maintain grades instead of those who actually excel in English. I regret the day I took the written test for AP, realizing that I wasn't being judged based on my ability as a writer, but for a history of inconsistency I cannot go back and correct or redo. The students who were accepted into AP have something in common. They've been in the same classes with each other their entire high school lives. I sat in the testing room pondering whether I should have just left, seeing all of the students who I knew had a higher GPA. If teachers such as yourself are going to take the easy way out and decide who gets the AP spot out of the fact that they are in the top of their class, then for what reason would a C+ student like myself have for signing up in the first place? When you think about it, it really makes no sense at all.
Last year, I applied for APUSH feeling confident that I would make it into the class. I looked around at all of the other students in the meeting thinking I was just as qualified, if not more, than any of them. I listened to Ms. Perkins list off the requirements for the class, not flinching a bit as she told us about the heavy amount of homework that would be given on a regular basis. I have a passion for history, as well as this great country, so it didn't discourage me. The application process required an essay, teacher and parent signatures, and a transcript, similar to your application. I completed everything and actually spent time with my essay to make sure it reflected how I felt about history, war in specific. Weeks later, I retrieved a letter of rejection, which listed many reasons why I wasn't chosen. The point is, most of those reasons were bullshit. The only reason why I wasn't chosen was because of my overall GPA. I understand if my grades in World History in specific were lacking, but that wasn't even the case. I passed Ms. Johnson's class with an A, no doubt being one of her favorite students, which says a lot considering her demanding teaching style. I might be stretching my argument when I say this but wouldn't a recommendation from one of the most challenging teachers in our school be enough for Ms. Perkins to overlook my mediocre math grade, which brought my GPA down? I haven't recently heard of any connection between math and history, but I may be wrong. A grade point average is not only an inaccurate measure of a student's potential, intelligence, or passion for a subject, but it is a way to filter out the "smart kids" from the "dumb kids".
When I opened up my letter today in my Psychology class, everyone watched with anticipation to see what it said. For a while, I put it in my backpack, telling those around me that I'd read it later. But my own curiosity caused me to open it anyway. I knew deep down that I didn't get in even before ripping the staple off of the paper. My friends in the class were shocked when I allowed them to read it. Some kids laughed. The students who were accepted, however, were those who had high GPAs, but from my experience with them, they were the same people who never participated in class. This upset me because I am placed in an education system where I can show that I genuinely care about what goes on in the classroom and display a passion for learning, yet it means nothing, no matter how much the teacher begs that kid with the 3.9 to share her idea, because at the end of the semester that kid will get an A anyway just for filling out homework pages. I'm not excusing my inadequacy as a student at all. I have made many bad choices in high school and I continue to make a habit out of it, even to this very hour. But I think it's immoral to give the student an opportunity when that student only wants it for superficial reasons. Has it ever crossed your mind that us C+ average students may need the extra grade point given in AP classes to raise our GPAs?
Thank God for giving me a mind that doesn't cease to stop learning when the last bell of the day rings. Because if that were the case, I'd be like many of the students who were accepted because of their consistency, not due to their excellence. Earlier this year I wrote an argument essay explaining why AP shouldn't be expanded at this school and I stick to my belief that it shouldn't. The best should be accepted and by best I don't mean highest GPA. GPA doesn't tell you what a student will have to offer to a classroom setting, how intellectual a student is, or how much the student appreciates writing as a craft. During class, Mr. Mitchell, my teacher for Psychology kept asking why I didn't get in but the only thing I could tell him is,"I don't have a high enough GPA." That's a big slap in the face to me, considering I didn't have to waste an hour writing a bogus analysis essay about one of the most overrated books in literature if I knew that it wouldn't matter if I didn't have over a 3.0. I don't seek revision of your decision regarding my acceptance into AP seeing as you've more than likely written me off as an arrogant, ideological, prick. What I do request, for the sake of incoming classes, is to tell applicants that they must have a 3.0 in order to be admitted as it would only be rational and fair.
Sincerely,
Trevor Phillips
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Exile Radio: March Edition
The Vise the Exile podcast is up! Check it out here: http://vise.podbean.com/
Friday, March 26, 2010
The Local "Scene"
Click images to get a good view as they are crucial to my many arguments.
Been a long time since I last posted hasn't it guys? Well, I just haven't had the inspiration up until now. I mean, I've been keeping up with current world and national events (like always) but something has stabbed me in the eye and I will finally take that something out of my eye TODAY. For a while now I've been into the local music music scene in my town of Hayward,Ca. What makes Hayward special is that it's in the heart of the San Francisco Bay Area. Living in this city, I have access to some of the best music on the West Coast. Being a fan of both punk and metal, it's not surprising that I would enjoy Hayward's alive and well hardcore scene.
The thing I love about metal, punk, and hardcore is that it embodies what music is all about; expression. Not only are those three genres full of expression, but bands who fall under those styles present their expression in a surprisingly melodic and creative way, not being pressured to write songs which consist of age-old themes that the mainstream thrive on. They don't need to reach out to fans by wearing fashionable clothes or by having gimmicks. It's all about the music. True fans of metal/punk/hardcore discover bands not virally, but often in coincidental situations. Once hooked on one of these bands, they are life-long fans, not ever questioning why they liked said band when they first listened. But these things aren't my point.
There's a very popular band from the East Bay Area. I don't want to promote them so I will only refer to them as "Gaylin". Gaylin hit the stage about a year ago and have since been on the lips of scene kids, from Oakland and further down to San Jose.
For those who have never heard of the term, a scene kid is a teenager who dresses a certain way, based on the music they like. To spot one, all you need are a good pair of eyes and these characteristics in mind. Look for a kid with very colorful clothing and/or hair. They will most likely have 'cute' facial piercings and appear very cheerful and happy. To make a long description short, they look like it took them two hours to get ready dressing up in their Hot Topic apparel. Their choice of attire is inspired by the hope that they will attain a certain "look". They have the attitude of "Look at ME! I listen to indie/alternative music!"
Now, I cannot say that my style of dress hasn't changed since being a Metalhead/hardcore fan but I can honestly tell you through this PC that it doesn't take me two hours to get ready in the clothes I wear. Listening to music that rails against conformity actually encourages one to develop a PERSONAL style of dress. To put myself out there, I enjoy wearing a t-shirt with a cool design (generic or brand name, doesn't matter) and some camo shorts. Speaking of PERSONAL, I come to my next topic.
- Typical "Gaylin" fan.
- Other possible fans of Gaylin.Now that we've covered the difference between a scene kid and a dedicated fan, conformity versus individualism comes to the table. Gaylin reminds me of MTV Favorites such as Fall Out Boy, My Chemical Romance, and Panic! at the Disco (Yes, I used the exclamation point on purpose). Fans of those bands aren't really into music at all. They see something on TV that looks pretty and they just like it. To be honest, everyone including I, have gone through this phase. Intelligent people however, break out of this phase. Part of maturing as an individual is critically analyzing your environment and yourself. If one truly calls themself a fan of music, they know to dig deep within the surface of said music. When I listen to a song, I shouldn't be able to understand the lyrics as they smack me in the face. I should be FORCED to read them at least a few times over and come up with a good interpretation. When bands describe their lyrics as "straight to the point", it usually means they're simple to understand.
But I still haven't gotten to the point!
One Saturday afternoon I came home from a hard day's labor and I sat in front of my computer. I signed onto Myspace, twitter, and Pandora and I noticed that Gaylin was online! Out of mere randomness, I sent them a comment reading "Legitimate Question: Why do you guys choose to have a demographic of only young scene kids?" I was awarded with the beautiful response of "Why do you care?". It is true that most of their fans are scene kids. It only takes one look at their Myspace friends list to back that statement up. This question was really important to me because I honestly wanted to know why bands choose these kind of fans. Whether intentionally or subconsciously, musicians choose their audience just like any politician. If you want to grab the attention of black teens, write lyrics about the thug life and hustling. If you want to target hardcore kids, incorporate breakdowns (vamping) into your instrumental structure. Getting an answer like that ensured me the quintessential fact that most bands that have these types of fans do so because they DON'T think about who their audience is. The attitudes of most mainstream bands are ones that made glam metal so popular in the 80s. Gaylin is like the parallel of Avenged Sevenfold, only A7X sells themselves with their music instead of gimmicks.
Gaylin describes their music simply as "DIRTY ROCK!" (Whatever that means) Look, I'm so for a fan having personality but a line is crossed when you won't admit that your genre falls under (In my opinion) Pop-punk/Post-grunge. Progressive Metal band Mudvayne has described their sound as "Math Metal", but I have NEVER ever heard any one of their fans say "I love Math Metal!" Do you know why? Because it's the same as repeating an inside joke to a stranger, hoping they will comprehend what the fuck you're saying. I talked a lot of trash to Gaylin. They wrote a blog about me and all of their scene fans had a lot to say, boy did they!
Once again we cross the paths of the mainstream culture. Kid's point: Because many hardcore bands that I support can't be found on iTunes, they suck. Does that make any sense? Just because great bands aren't POPULAR enough to be recognized by the media, they... suck. That is the world's worst argument right there my friends.
To tell you the truth, I have been bragging. But not for the same reason as this asshole thinks. I've been bragging, because I clearly hit a toad with Gaylin. For them to write a blog about me really tickles my side. If Gaylin is confident in who they are as a band, why should a comment from a clearly angry teenager like myself phase them? For the things I pointed to and underlined, all I can say is thank you for proving my point. By assuming that Gaylin is my favorite band, you are insinuating that anyone who dislikes a band, does it out of pure jealousy and deep inside, I really adore them. Well isn't that great! NOT. That's the same argument people use against people who oppose homosexuality. "Well if you don't support gays, you must be still in the closet.." I can't begin to talk about where that logic fails so desperately. The second person who described Gaylin as "Rockstars" only reinforced this idea:
In this blog posting, I tried to use proof AS WELL as opinions. In order to limit my douche-baggery, I even blurred images of Gaylin's fans. They aren't the focus of why this band disgusts me. It's Gaylin itself and it's bandwagon of followers (Or as I should call them as Gaylin does, "Sinners". Get it? 'Cause it's Dirty Rock?) that make me despise the band. Raelin's inevitable success is not a question, but it's how you attain success that really counts. I'd rather have 1,000 strong fans than sell out to get 100,000 fans that are just with me for the night. But who am I to speak. I'M NOT IN A BAND! Here's the Gaylin Blog if you were wondering.
For your blatant ignorance Gaylin and all your fans,
GET A GRIP!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)