Disney is a war training facility (Pt.1)

Dear Diary,


Today I have been called in to work to infiltrate the evil corporation known as Disney.
Why? Because they are evil.
Why are the evil? Because their shows suck and have mild sexual themes (which are then exposed to children)
Apparently I'm infiltrating their organization by this magical ticket given to me by my boss. The ticket merely has a picture of a duck without pants and the words "Disneyland" in snazzy font. This must be an extremely special card as in the back it states 'admit one.' This is how secretive the organization is; they only let ME use the ticket. They look like this:

These are extremely rare and special as they allow you to enter the Disney HQ

As I entered the corporation's headquarters known to the public as a common amusement park, I was given a special map that provided me with enough information to figure out how to fit in. First of all, I needed to get an employee badge; that would make me seem like a part of the company.

I looked around and found out that almost everyone in the vicinity was wearing a hat with two rounded plastic ears that look like this:

The Employee Badge

By wearing these ears you would be considered 'part of their world.' I took upon chance and found one on the ground lying near a trash bin. Perfect. Now I fit in:


"Now I fit in!"

I decided to follow the crowd of people around. Good god, I realized that the workers had brought their children with them. There are more children in the area than adults. This really must be an evil place if they make parents force their children to work too. I ended up infront of this building labeled 'Buzz Lightyear's Star Command.' It seems pretty harmless. But here's the worst part, they make you wait in the hot, blazing sun for about an hour. This is apparently where Disney decides to torture children and adults alike into submission. I entered this 'Star Command' compound after about an hour and looked around. The parents look exhausted beyond belief and the children... those poor poor children... are screaming and laughing like crazy. They make children go insane here. Next thing I know I'm on a conveyor belt being pushed into a little round vehicle... with GUNS ATTACHED.

What I saw next was horrifying. Like World War II horrifying. It was in this very 'Star Command' command compound that they [Disney] trained their workers to be an army. Children are forced to take the laser guns and shoot at targets around me. Let me repeat this. THEY TRAIN CHILDREN TO GO TO WAR. This right here... is a great discovery.

Funny enough, the Disney corporation did my job for me by allowing us to buy photos of the 'training experience.' Stupid Disney. I bought multiple photographs of children in this training camp (the good thing is that all the photos are of them shooting something; good evidence). Uh-oh, people are looking at me funny now. Apparently it's odd to buy pictures of other people.

I better get out of here before my cover gets blown.

Sincerely,

That Agent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lesson here: Why are people bitching about Disney? Geez, people are just crazy nowadays. Leave them be.

Model... United... Nations?

After reading Carl Schmitt (fine fine he's a Nazi, but he makes good points. Go read his Nuremberg testimony then you'll understand why I think we are able to somewhat over look that), I have come to the conclusion that the UN... is useless.

It is within Chapter Six of his book, The Concept of the Political, where Carl Schmitt deconstructs the concept of the "world state." As quoted from Wikipedia:

He uses the inevitability of the friend/enemy distinction to target the liberal international order. A League of Nations or any political group claiming to represent humanity must, according to the logic of politics, dehumanize and annihilate the enemy. "To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity."^[10] "Humanity" is not a political concept for Schmitt. When it becomes one, it distorts the real political groupings. The world state as it's conceived, which is to say a universal government that has successfully abolished war and conflict, cannot be anything more than a clearing house of commerce. It, as a result, strips us of all meaning. "For what would they be free?"^[11] Schmitt asks of the inhabitants of this new world state.

To explain, the friend and enemy distinction is a theory that Carl Schmitt presents to the readers as an 'inescapable' component of the political. As I interpret it, Carl Schmitt is telling us that in politics or the form he uses 'the state' is pretty much an 'us' versus 'them' concept. It is impossible for me to fully explain this in one blog post so I would suggest reading The Concept of the Politcal, it's a good read.

I do agree with Carl Schmitt that the League of Nations is quite redundent and that the concept of the world state is ridiculous. Yet, ironically, I am a part of my college's Model United Nations team. Why? Simple. It looks good on my record/resume/transfer apps. Also, I get to practice my advocacy, writing, and negotiation skills. Call me selfish, call me whatever you want, but I'm at least honest about it. I don't really like the way Model United Nations runs. It's simply too easy. Just because as a body supposedly representing countries does not mean we actually understand how the United Nations runs. We are not a 'model' united nations, we're like the Pre-School United Nations. All who participate actually barely know what actually happens in the UN.

Yes, the UN does follow parliamentary procedure, yes they have things called caucuses. Yet, when we are drafting articles, sponsoring, choosing sides, creating blocs etc. In our heads as representing countries, when joining a side we only take into account of what we know of our represented countries. We have to note that we don't know everything. Supposedly China should side with America for their financial interests, but who knows? Maybe China has some shady dealings with some other country which forces them to change sides.

Sometimes I feel that MUN is pretty ridiculous, us kids sometimes go to the point of thinking that if WE were in the UN, we would fix things faster, or all in all, be 'better.' Check out the SNL M.U.N sketch by Andy Samberg and Arcade Fire (love the both of them though):

I think we can all agree that the UN makes mistakes. Sometimes really BIG ones. But I might just be overly sympathetic, but the UN is comprised of human beings. Countries, governments, etc. HUMAN. I criticize that the UN's motivations and intentions, but I do not criticize their intrinsic human characteristics within them. (Unless they do something absurd like say that we should blow up the world or Mars or anything that's just obviously... stupid).

P.S. I Hate You, Jon Stewart

Oh right, but sometimes you make mistakes Jon...


The 'Oopsies' of Jon Stewart

1. I get that you are a comedian. But at least admit that people look to you as a news source!

Most critics of the Daily Show argue that Jon Stewart isn't really comedian as many viewers tend to look to him as a news source rather than a place of satirical value. Jon Stewart always denies this and places the fact that he is first and foremost a comedian and is not a journalist. Hence, journalists should not look to his show for comparison.

I get that Jon is a comedian. I love his work, I even subscribe to him on iTunes (10 bucks for 16 episodes, not bad). Yet I admittedly look to him for current information, views, and even what the hell is going on these days in 'politics.' I understand that you are:

• Not an idealogue
• Not a participant of partisan hackery
• A COMEDIAN (geezus)
• A nice guy who makes fun of absurdity rather than political partisanship

However, to me at least, Jon is not just a plain old comedian. He is a political commentator who presents his viewpoint through humor. My views are sometimes shaped by his commentary on subjects. Especially on the 'Crisis of the Dairy land' (Wisconsin vs. Teacher Unions; more on that one day). So one day Jon, please let us all know that you interpret rather than observe.

(Addition)

Also, you can't be 'a comedian first' and not equated to journalistic shows if the people who show up to your shows are politicians and well-known public figures such as Bill O'Reilly, President Barack Obama, Michael Mullen, etc. etc.

2. Admit that you have more influence than you think

I might be wrong here, but there are many times that Jon Stewart has rejected claims that he is the cause of many incedents or what not. Maybe I'm wrong again but I believe that Jon Stewart has also denied shaping the views of his audience.

Well Jon, I think you're wrong.

• Crossfire
  You got it CANCELED. Former CNN CEO even referenced the case you made on the show as one of his factors of getting rid of it. Take pride in it, don't demolish it. 
• Rick Sanchez
  By calling you a bigot... he got fired. (Although he did say many other things, this contributed to the firing).
• John Kerry skipped Bill O'Reilly for you
  Presidential Candidate on your show... and not Bill's. Well hot-damn.
• Jim Cramer and that publicity
  The world was anticipating that day where you confronted Jim Cramer... and won. No one has stopped talking about it since. Many journalists praised you for that confrontation.

Oh yeah, Askmen.com voted you the most influential man of 2010.

All in all, I do love Jon Stewart. I consider him one of my idols. Not that I want to emulate him or anything. It's because of him that I someday want to be a journalist, I want to be better  than the ones that he criticizes.

I may have faulty criticisms and whatever, but then again I might not. But I still love you Jon Stewart.

Jon Stewart, I Love You.

I am not afraid to admit that I am a fan of Jon Stewart. Although I would not categorize myself as a liberal (I would prefer the moniker of 'person who believes what she believes') I hold a great deal of respect for him. Although I am new to 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' and the man that is Jon Stewart, I can't helped but be somewhat captivated by him. I am not easily taken with hosts of television shows, but he's different. Even if I do love him per se, I do have my share of criticisms.

The Loves of Jon Stewart

1. He's a great speaker

Every time I watch Jon Stewart on his show, he knows exactly what to say and what to comment on to make me laugh. You could argue that it's because he funny or is a comedian, yet I would have to say that no one can capture an audience without charisma and expert forensic skills. One thing that contributes to Jon's good grasp of speech is that he is tactful; he chooses his words wisely. I would go on to say that he chooses his words better than most presidents do (hint: Hire him as your PR guy and you would probably start to lack absurdity in your comments Mr. Newt). Specifically, I would like to point out his Fox News Sunday interview/debate/great-moment-on-television-so-far when he stated that:

"I am a comedian first..."

Chris Wallace went on to argue that Jon was also in many ways a liberal idealogue that pushes a liberal agenda and that Jon seems to dance around questions about his [Jon's] 'journalistic' qualities by stating he is 'only' a comedian. Jon counters, due to his good choice of words, that he stated that he is a comedian first, he never denounced the fact that he could be anything else.

2. Crossfire, what an attack!

Remember Crossfire? I definitely do. Although I was at a young age at the time (10-11), I enjoyed watching two political pundits battling it out on television over random issues. Even though I missed the episode, Jon Stewart came along and sat in on the show to supposedly 'promote' his new book: "America, (The Book): The Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction." (Good read, it's funny. Don't take it seriously) Yet, once he started talking he immediately started pointing out that he disliked the show Crossfire and told the show to 'stop hurting America.' 

Good move. Even if I did like the show, it was just political theater more so than an actual news program. The argument here is that it was actually a debate/forum show, however, shouldn't a debate actually have a conclusion of sorts? If I can recall Crossfire, it was just shouting and political spin revolving around issues. I am assuming here that political theater to Jon Stewart means that it is a platform for poltics to 'act' rather than to actually be an area of discourse. Stewart makes a good point to note that if Crossfire was on another network (not a news network like CNN) then maybe it is proper; but it was on CNN. (He brings this up in many of his criticisms of other networks). The point of a news channel is to provide the public with accurate information filled with journalistic integrity. Entertainment should not be the priority. Journalism is.