Generation Y and politics

Been reading lately about how there's a fairly strong chance a third-party candidate will win the next presidential election.
A lot of people will be cheering if we get our first third-party president.
I foresee a lot of shouts of "End the partisan corruption!" and such.


Sad thing is, no matter who gets elected or what party they're from, chances are very high that nothing will change for the better, and several things will most likely change for the worse.

When Obama first got elected, I wasn't jumping up and down in celebration, but at the very least I thought "Well, it's somebody new, so maybe we'll see a few things done differently."

...turns out the stuff I wanted to see done differently (i.e., finally end the illegal wars we've been constantly involved in for most of my lifetime a la Oceania vs. Eurasia) didn't change, and got worse (Libya).

Thus I, and looking at the statistics most of my generation, are probably more cynical about the federal government than any generation before.

We know it's screwing us over on taxes and college costs and entitlement programs while our parents (the Baby Boomers) are starting to settle into their billion-dollar retirement communities.

But we've been taught by our parents and by the presidents we've actually had the chance to vote for that voting is MEANINGLESS.
No matter who is elected, about half the country will spend his/her entire first term complaining about every little thing he/she does, and fervently hoping that he/she is ousted immediately after.

No one who wants the office is morally qualified to have it (except maybe Ron Paul).
Those who seek power are least worthy of it, and those who are most worthy of it don't seek it.
The whole "election" fiasco is one big advertising campaign to give us the illusion of making a choice.

Choosing between getting a bullet in the left eye and getting a bullet in the right eye is no choice at all.

Even assuming an honest person who honestly didn't give two craps about lobbyists or special interest groups, and genuinely wanted to make this country a better place, he/she would be shackled by "the party", i.e. the corporate bigwigs and their political slaves who only seek to tighten their control of this country in the name of "laissez-faire".

The question on that is, WHOSE HANDS ARE STAYING OFF?
The answer? Us. The you's and me's of this world.
We who WEREN'T born into wealth, actually have to WORK to have basic necessities, and who by our labors KEEP THIS COUNTRY GOING.

But in order to keep the financial fascism under cover, they have to wrap the ball of dog crap in pretty golden wrapping paper called "Democracy."

What separates financial fascistic rule by a wealthy elite and communistic rule by the working-class masses?

The middle class.
A unique American invention which provides the opportunity for social mobility.
The entire American Dream was that if you worked hard and long enough, got a college degree, and continually persevered, you could provide a better life for your family.

But the financial fascists have been working for decades to dissolve the middle class, to continually widen the gap between rich and poor, all the while keeping everyone occupied by playing us off against each other in "politics."

If we could set aside our differing opinions on abortion, homosexuality, gun control, and a thousand other ultimately-insignificant issues, we could come together as a nation and demand the ousting of every last corporate puppet from our government, revamp the laws regarding "campaign contributions" (AKA bribes), and ensure that only those individuals willing to act in our best interests, especially regarding compromise, are put in power above us.

Idiocracy

This film is based off the scarily realistic premise that at some point, stupid people will outbreed smart people.

The result is depicted as a man who is mathematically deemed "the most average man in the world" in the present time accidentally traveling 500 years in the future, where the above concept results in his being the smartest man on the planet.


Recent decades have left me quite cynical regarding mankind's future development, and I've only been around for 26 years.

Especially in the United States.

We have yet to extricate ourselves from the Lay-Z-Boys of surplus and entitlement, even after a decade of economic recession.

We drive our gas-guzzling SUVs, we slam down high-calorie energy drinks and fat-dripping foods, we buy houses we can't afford in sizes we don't need, we pollute our environment, we expect our employers to take care of us for life...

And we treat all of the above as our inalienable right.

Then we complain that the government isn't doing enough, or is doing too much.

No increase in gas prices, no increase in the unemployment rate, no increase in cost of living, no drop in life expectancy can change the American mindset that YOU (the universe) OWE ME BECAUSE I'M AN AMERICAN, DAMMIT.

I fear for my nieces and nephews, who are every day from a million different directions being fed the lie that they are owed something by the world, no matter how hard their parents work to undo the damage.

One of many reasons my wife and I are hesitant to procreate.


Bang-for-the-buck, the bottom line, the best deal, etc. are the only motivators that matter in America nowadays.
That applies to choice of college, choice of degree, choice of car, choice of neighborhood, choice of church, choice of employer, choice of employee, choice of supermarket, choice of Internet provider, choice of spouse.......and anything and everything between.

"Immoral" Films

Any time morality is brought up regarding a movie, I just sit back and watch the circus commence, because ANYTHING in the entire cinematic production process could be used to justify calling a film "immoral."

The star is a drug addict.
The director cheated on his wife in 1978.
The film shows a woman not wearing a veil.
The soundtrack was composed by a Jew.
"God" is said too many/not enough times in the dialogue.
The editor doesn't clip his fingernails often enough.
The producer was bi-curious in college.
The wardrobe lady has a mustache.
The movie posters used PhotoShop.
The man selling tickets at the theater hit on my daughter.

Yeah. ANYTHING.


Individuals can interpret visuals, sounds, music, and dialogue in any number of ways.

A great example of this is The Passion of the Christ.
Most non-Christians I've spoken with (and several Christians) view it as nothing more than glorifying the horrific torture and death of a man, and the sadistic mindset of his tormentors.
Almost to the point of being torture-porn, given that they perceive the movie as having NO POINT other than to show a gruesome death.

But a lot of Christians watching the same movie treat it as "beautiful," in that it is a realistic representation of Christ's death (as opposed to the previous theatrical representations which dumbed it down and cleaned it up), and thus believe it teaches greater appreciation of His sacrifice.

(...to the point that they'll take their kids to see it. Blech.)

Neither interpretation is objectively "moral" or "immoral."

Film is art, art is interpreted by each individual, and no single interpretation is the "right" interpretation.