Representation of the American people has become as much an illusion as a polar bear in the desert (or, for that matter, in the arctic) these days. It's no more than a facade put up to coax people into believing that their votes matter. Really, they don't - while, yes, it is true that your votes put someone into office, there is virtually no guarantee that the person you expected is the person you receive. Worse yet, the person you voted in most probably isn't considering your best interests, as he was elected to do, but either his party's or his funding allies.

Consider last week... several Republican senators had finally compromised with the Democrats on a bill. Before they could even say how it would help the people, they flipped their position as soon as President Obama said he was for the bill. How can you be for a bill and then suddenly decide it's no longer good on such a superficial level? For you Republican senators, please take note: the president doesn't make the laws, you do. Yes, the president may have an agenda you oppose, but that does not mean you radically oppose ANY bill that the he agrees with. In a comic I read the other day (I cannot find the link at this time), if the president and the democratic party supported a "love puppies" bill, there would be a "hate puppies" bill on the floor the next day.

I'm not saying that Democrats are without their fair share of blame on that point either, but the ability for congress to do anything when Republicans are in the minority suddenly becomes nearly impossible. Especially so when a Democrat is president. News flash: Your party is not in jeopardy just because you're in the minority. In fact, becoming hypocrites and ultra-defensive about your party makes you appear even more incompetent. Unfortunately, much of your fan base disregards this and continues to put you into power.

Our founding fathers never intended for such a divisive country. Patrick Henry stated, "United we stand, divided we fall, Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs." This quote, now more than ever, perfectly describes the United States today. The fact that we cannot agree on a measure as simple as public health care when all other developed countries of the world have such is ridiculous (and the argument that it would get rid of Medicare is irrelevant, clearly). (On that note, to continue arguing that we need lower taxes while complaining about the deficit is insanity. Most developed countries have income tax at near 30%; however, education and health care are free, as well as a multitude of other services. If you divide the costs of these essential services over the course of your lifetime, you'd (most likely) find that you'd spend more privately than you would lose in income tax.)

Perhaps, though, the reason we are so divided, is because the Federal Government now holds far more responsibility than it did in years past... perhaps it's time to redesign Congress. Even now, our Congress does not fit the bill. The House of Representatives is supposed to have one representative per 30,000 people. This would mean that today, the House would hold over 10,000 members.

Perhaps the House should be divided into an X number of subgroups with 100 persons each. Each subgroup would have its own agenda to take care of, akin to a committee; however, there's a catch. Each subgroup would have two (or more) representatives to the actual House, which then votes on the bills. Every 2 years, there would need to be 2 people voted in per subgroup per state. (Meaning if there are 5 subgroups of Congress, there would need to be 10 elected representatives from each state).

This will never happen, of course, as any change this radical would never be implemented. It is unfortunate, though, that so quickly after the founding fathers passed, the United States became so averse to touching the Constitution or altering the national government. The government we have today is one the founding fathers never expected, though Benjamin Franklin alludes to such, "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."

The founding fathers expected there to be radical change to the constitution and our national government as time went on, but somehow this got lost in translation and became "stick to the constitution" as if it were not possible to create a more perfect union. A lot has changed in 223 years...

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

For those loyal readers, you may have noticed that the site was down for a majority of the day. Though I may have averted a domain loss earlier this year, my domain is hosted by a friend of mine who was unable to pay his hosting fees. Thus, when his site (http://www.otm-comics.com) went down, mine went as well.

Through some collaboration and money exchange, all of our sites are back online and active (at least until November 18, which is when his next dues are to be paid). Let's hope he's learned his lesson!

A few months ago, I wrote a blog regarding Texas' proposition to make it legal to carry weapons on campus (and within that an aside regarding the Governor's comment to secede from the US). Well, Texas is back in the news again! Anyone surprised?

This time, the southern state's Board of Education has decided that Thurgood Marshall and César Chávez don't belong in history books, essentially erasing them from history. Before I begin verbally attacking the board, let's review the history behind these two names for those who don't recall:

Thurgood Marshall - First African American to serve on the Supreme Court. Prior to becoming a judge, he was a lawyer who argued before the Supreme Court and for the victory in Brown v. Board of Education.
Without Him: Segregation could have been an issue for several years after and could have prolonged not only the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court, but the first African American to become president - President Obama.

César Chávez - Texan Mexican American farm worker, labor leader, and civil rights activist who, with Dolores Huerta, co-founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers. Supporters say his work led to numerous improvements for union laborers.
Without Him: The UFW and the advancement of workers' rights would have almost certainly been prolonged.

Important, no? Mind you, this is from the same state who decided to weaken science standards on evolution and asked what a character was reading in a comic on a graduation qualifying exam (a newspaper)... and gave us W, but we won't get into that.

Now... let's take a look at the members of the Texas Board of Education's Committee on Instruction and their backgrounds:

(T/C Issue = Thurgood/Chávez Issue)
Republicans
Barbara Cargill, CHAIR - Founder/Director of Wonders of the Woodlands Science Camp, part of the United Methodist Church.
On the T/C Issue: Appointed "expert" Peter Marshall, who believes Amelia Earhart, Thurgood Marshall, and César Chávez should be removed from the Texas curriculum.
Belief on Evolution: Creationist
"...when evidence for universal common ancestry in the fossil record is taught (i.e. scientific strength), then the contradictory evidence showing the huge gaps of missing transitional fossils in the record must also be presented (i.e. scientific weakness). We must educate our students -- not indoctrinate them by letting them hear only one side of an issue."
(Only problem is, gaps in the fossil record isn't a weakness, it just warrants further research.)

Ken Mercer, VICE CHAIR - Master's in Business Administration.
On the T/C Issue: "Quiinn and his allies are attempting to steal the textbook process away from our 24 million Texans and indoctrinate students with their politically revised version of American history."
Belief on Evolution: Intelligent Design
"History is not kind to Darwinian evolutionists who push their theory as truth; no weaknesses and no questions allowed. In this 21st Century, scientific research that opposes academic freedom will never pass any “smell test.”"

Terri Leo - Master's in Educational Administration. Certified teacher for the visually impaired.
On the T/C Issue: "[The] reviewers have properly refocused the studies back to a mastery of the core essential elements of history, government, and geography,” Leo said. “TFN is apparently disappointed by the emphasis on actual knowledge and the de-emphasis on indoctrination."
Belief on Evolution: Creationist
"For the past twenty years, students in Texas have been required “to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to the strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.” This standard has been applied to all scientific theories. Pro-Evolution Advocates, however, want evolution to be singled out and taught differently from the other theories. They want evolution to be taught without including the weaknesses of this theory."
(Though she was a member of the board who rejected textbooks for not including weaknesses of evolution; however allowed textbooks that did not include weaknesses of other scientific theories.)

Geraldine Miller - MS in Reading, Real Estate Broker, Certified Academic Language Therapist
On the T/C Issue: Nothing found.
Belief on Evolution: Evolutionist
"There is nothing to stop a teacher from talking about other theories on how the world began, but those should not be the basis for a science class."

Democrats
Lawrence A. Allen, Jr. - Former Middle and High school principal, assistant principal, and teacher. Two Master's Degrees and a Bachelor's degree (areas not listed)
On the T/C Issue: Nothing found.
Belief on Evolution: Evolutionist
Voted against including the "strengths and weaknesses" clause in the 2009 standards.

Does anyone else see a clear bias against the proper teaching of evolution in this mess of officials? Of the five on the Committee on Instruction, 3 are Creationists/Proponents of Intelligent Design. In addition, 1 of those 3 works in a religious science camp, and another is unaffiliated with Education - other than being named to this committee.

How can Texas even assume that work can get done if religion is clouding the minds of their committee persons? Oh wait, their minds are clouded as well - perhaps this wouldn't have happened if Texas' Board of Education had actually done their job earlier and actually taught Science rather than covering up the parts that didn't fit their personal beliefs. Hmm... covering up history that doesn't fit - anyone else finding it odd that the "most American" of the US is turning out to be more like the most "North Korean"?

Just one more reason why Texas is on my "States Not to Teach In Even if I was Paid $1 Million"-List, I suppose.

So I was watching a Martin Short comedy special (Let Freedom Hum) on TBS with my mom - who is deaf, and I noticed something in the closed captioning: TBS was cleaning up the language of their performers. At first, I thought the person typing the captioning was just a slow, bad typist (and they were) - but I did notice that, consistently, the captions would replace "unclean" words.

Although I wouldn't be ok with it in any case - it's especially dumb to do so in a comedy special, as sometimes the pun or story doesn't make sense without the right words in place. Here are some examples of the replacements I caught:

"What a jackass" = "What a weirdo"
"He would be drinking" = "He would be bringing"
"I got hair above my ass" = "I got hair above my butt"
"What the hell kind of trade off is that?" = "What kind of strayed off is that?"
"Good thing I have the hair above my ass" = -omitted-
"My ass looked good in those pants" = "My butt looked good in those pants"
"He comes waddling out" = "He came out"
"Men and women, how did we get together" = "How did we get together?"
"You could not handle testicles" = "You could not handle Tess"
"Are you with a whore?" - "Are you with a --"
"I could fart in that store" = "I could fall in that store"

Just plain funny:
"Our next comic" = "Our next economic"
"Tufts of hair" = "Toughs of hair"
"Everyone dreams of being a successful stand up" = "Everyone dreams of being a suck es"
"I thank god every day for the gluten in my life" = "I thank god every day for the flu gluten in my life"
"Warranty" = "Warrentee"

First off... is it that hard to find a typist that can type captions without falling behind (and just skips material to catch up) or who doesn't type so fast that the captions go off screen before any normal human being has time to read it? I noticed about halfway through that the first typist must have gone off duty, because the second typist was much faster.

Second... what is TBS trying to do by censoring the captions? Not only does it exclude the deaf community from what is actually being said - the entire purpose of captions, but it doesn't protect anyone. Anyone who needs to be shielded from the offensive remarks (which were few and far between) would have been under the television rating (TV14) anyway - and even then, hearing children watching the program would have heard the remarks.

So, then, why is TBS censoring the captions? It makes no sense to me, but perhaps the higher ups at TBS would care to explain it to me (and my mom) sometime.

Minor Announcement

ActualBlizzard was in danger of expiring this Saturday and I've been unsure as to whether I should go through paying for a new lease or letting it expire. Obviously, as evidenced by the title, I chose to extend AB's life by a year. It's anyone's guess as to whether this was a good decision or not. Let's hope it was for the better!