Unsolicited Advice: How to Stop the Oil Spill

With the crisis into its 39th day, scientists are still trying to figure out a way to stop the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (They spent too much time figuring out how to get a live video feed of the oil spewing).

Some people (FOXNews) are saying that this is Obama's Katrina (both in Louisiana...). Actually, I saw a guest on a FOXNews show say yesterday that this is also Watergate, but I'm not exactly sure who the person was accusing the administration of paying off, or who the oil spill helps him spy on. (Not to be confused with the other Watergate that Obama is accused of, offering someone a job.) I'm not going to entertain these ideas, as I have not heard Obama say that anyone is doing a heckuva a job. (But, if Obama doesn't want to repeat Bush's mistakes, he'll have to do much better than a fly-over. Hope he has scuba gear.) It's weird to hear people saying that there should have been more regulations on FOX. It's easy to be against big government before anything happens, but once private corporations can't plug a hole, it's hard to expect the government to step in.

But none of that matters right now. What matters is stopping the leak. And while we are not scientists by trade (as a matter of fact, we have no trade), we at The Serum Magazine have decided to provide some suggestions on how to stop the oil from ruining our much needed seafood.

Plan A: Build a dome around it. Seems kind of obvious to me. I mean, I don't know how it would work, or what it would do, but they should probably just put a dome up.

Plan B: Plug the hole with all the dead animals killed by the oil. Sure, it's kind of grim, but at least we know that the dead whales will turn into new oil at some point, so it's kind of a rejuvenating solution.

Plan C: Catch all the oil and mud and gunk that's spilling now in barrels, then sell it to people who drive hybrids. Even if the cars can't run on that stuff, people who own hybrids would be okay with saving the oceans.

Plan D: Drill a really deep hole right next to the one that's leaking, all the way through the planet to China, then make them deal with it.

Plan E: Do anything, but just give it a sick name. Gotta give props to whoever thought of "Top Kill."

Plan F: Drain the Gulf of Mexico. Not sure how it would help, but it would probably look pretty cool.

Plan G: Just let it drain. They keep telling us there's a finite amount of oil in the world; let's put it to the test. Also, if we ignore it, it might just stop.

Plan H: If none of these work, give up and blame Obama. If that doesn't work, blame Bush. If that doesn't work, just pick random people until it sticks.

Billy's Opinion: The Truth About American Politics

If you buy what the internet/24 hour news people say, you might think that there's a new "movement" every election cycle. Family values, national security at all costs, family values again, change, hope, and now conservative grass roots are the perceived movements of the past decade. This theory of the political situation makes everything seem really dramatic and important.

Of course, that doesn't make any sense. The voters are all the same people. How can there be a such a huge political climate change in the two-year span from 2004 to 2006? (Some people don't believe in any kind of climate change.) If we're expected to believe that Bush was re-elected because voters didn't think Democrats were prepared for the post-9/11 world, how can we reconcile that Democrats took majorities in the midterm elections? The answer is pretty simple: people were fed up.

There are no movements based around issues, platforms, or ideologies. Voters just want to get mad at someone, and act accordingly. They use any reason they can get. Looking back at the past ten years, we can see this. In 2000, there isn't much to be mad at, so the election was a push, with the advantage going to the person who wasn't the Vice President. In 2002, everyone was pissed at Osama bin Laden, so they elected Republicans. In 2004, people were either mad at Bush or gays, but everyone was still mad at terrorists; Bush was re-elected. In 2006, everyone was mad at Bush, simply. In 2008, anger at Bush was coupled with anger at rich people. And this year, voters are mad at everyone.

This week's Senate primaries prove this last point. While professional political analysts can't figure out a trend (they are always looking for fucking trends, like this CNN.com article), it's pretty obvious what's going on. Incumbents and 'establishment' candidates are running into trouble everywhere, and the reason is that everybody is mad. Conservatives, liberals, and just about everyone in between is upset in some way with the President, their Congressperson, and everyone in between. That's why Arlen Specter lost, Blanche Lincoln has a run-off next week, and Rand Paul ("Rand" can only be short for Randal if you love Atlas Shrugged) took the primary in Kentucky. There's no unified trend other than anger.

Since I live in Boston, every discussion of the political world goes back to Scott Brown. If you credit the Tea Party's ideals with Brown's victory in January, you must be an idiot. Do you really think the state that gave 62% of Obama their votes to change government became radical conservatives in time to put the filibuster vote in the Senate 14 months later? No, voters were saying, "Hey, screw you!" It wasn't a mandate on health care reform; it was a bunch of people who don't like paying taxes when they just lost their job or are about to. Scott Brown was successful because he promised to channel that anger.

Which brings me to how to use this anger. Republicans have it easy this year-- just remind people how they want to be angry, and let them be mad. The incumbent Democrats have a tough time, because they have to try to steer the anger toward a group that isn't in the election. Bush and Co. did this well during his administration: be mad at terrorists, activist judges, etc, etc. The recent rhetoric from the White House about Wall Street is getting close, but Obama has to hope that people will forget that the government gave Wall Street a whole bunch of money first, and now are mad at them (hey, we forgot we gave money to Osama, right?).

So forget what you've read. 2008 wasn't about hope. People are so cynical right now, and were before then, it doesn't make any sense for Obama's election to have been all positive. (Sure, some people might have thought that their vote mattered and was going to have a real impact on the country. They are fools.) Simply put, if Bush wasn't as bad as he was, Obama would not have been elected.

News organizations are trying to give you the most exciting, best story about politics. That doesn't mean it's true. Whoever wins in November is just who voters are less mad at--at the moment they pull the lever. Everyone can hate the government, and that doesn't reflect their own ideals. That's why people could vote against Bush II (McCain) and against gay marriage on the same ballot. And that's why everyone who is mad at Obama isn't a conservative, and not every Democrat who loses is the victim of the Tea Party.

Editor's Note-- Suck it, Specter.

Protesting Arizona- Sports Edition

It's hard to imagine how a state could be as screwed up as Arizona is right now. It came out of nowhere, too. I mean, you'd hear about those civilians who watch the border 24-7 (no cable service down there, evidently) with big guns out and everything. But I thought they were the minority. But now it's clear that they are the majority, at least in the state's government, what with the mandating of racial profiling with their new 'immigration' law. They also passed a gemdescribed here, which prevents public schools in AZ from teaching about ethnic groups. It makes you wonder how they'll deal with the whole Native Americans thing. It sounds like they'll have to whitewash by omission... But then how will kids know what the Washington Redskins' team name refers to?

And that's a great segue, if I can compliment myself for that, to how this law is impacting the sports world. First, the Phoenix Suns became everybody's favorite team when they wore jerseys that read "Los Suns" at a home game in the playoffs. (Here's a sick picture of Steve Nash Finger-rolling For Civil Liberties.) Then some Mets players have said that they might boycott the MLB All-Star Game next year, which is being held in Arizona. (David Wright is also boycotting being good at baseball this season.) Then L.A. Lakers coach Phil Jackson said that he doesn't see what the big deal is, and would not join in the city of Los Angeles' protest of Arizona.

As a big sports fan and someone interested in freedom, I should be jumping for joy that I can read about sports figures on CNN.com and about the immigration law on FoxSports.com. But I'm not jumping for joy. I'm jumping for being confused about how to feel. On the one hand, it's good to see that athletes are expressing their outrage over the law. On the other hand, most professional athletes are probably idiots. Remember John Rocker? He's probably spinning in his grave hearing that people are saying the MLB should move the All-Star Game (oh, you say he's not dead? Well, he's dead to me).

Furthermore, I don't care what players think about politics and law. I care how far Ryan Howard can hit the ball, and I don't complain that he gets paid millions and millions and millions of dollars for it. I have way less respect for Curt Schilling since he started blogging about politics. Maybe there's a reason there's superstitions about talking to pitchers during games: they might say something so offensively dumb that you'll be rendered unable to play for the rest of the day. When athletes get pulled into (or put themselves into) current event debates, they risk alienating their own fans (the same thing happens with any kind of entertainers. For this reason, Republicans can watch "I Am Sam" without weeping). The only person who faced no consequences for being uber-rich and taking sides politically was Oprah (and she only endorsed Obama because he's [redacted by Editor]).

All that said, it is good to see people with influence taking a stand against the egregious law. People like athletes better than politicians. Proof: Way more votes are cast for the MLB All-Star teams than Arizona's John McCain received in the 2008 election. So at least some good can come of this. But it's important to remember that the Arizona immigration law isn't a game. And unlike the MLB All-Star game, it matters.

What's the Deal with Internet Privacy?

According to this CNN.com article that's way behind on technology news, a lot of people are starting to get fed up with Facebook. Some are deleting their accounts (some are just deactivating them, thinking that's good enough) over concerns about Facebook's privacy policy. Whatever their policy is at the moment (it changes every couple of minutes), it allows for the unauthorized sharing of your information with sites like Pandora. How do I know this? Because my Pandora keeps telling me which of my Facebook friends like the artists I'm listening to. (In that CNN article, a girl is quoted as being upset to learn that this Pandora-Facebook alliance was unauthorizedly telling her friends that she likes New Found Glory. If you ask me, it's her own fault for liking New Found Glory.)

What's ironic is that people are posting on Twitter about how awful Facebook is. Twitter is a whole different story, because, unlike Facebook, you don't give information to Twitter to be sold to various advertisers. Instead, you just give information directly to everyone in the world. The same tastes, interests, and information that Facebook sells to companies to advertise things to you (I just got something called the Lowell Bucket List, things to do in Lowell, MA before you die. I think one of them is Don't Go to Lowell) are just given away by Twitter users at will. "In Boston w8ing 4 Taco Bell to open, listening to ICP on iPod," for example, gives away a users location, love of Taco Bell, Insane Clown Posse, and use of an iPod. You give away way more than Facebook takes.

People complaining about these privacy issues really don't care. Everyone--EVERYONE--loves Google, but they're advertising methods are creepy. I get advertisements about making campaign materials, because the advertisers know that I wrote a bunch of emails about running for office last summer.* And with Twitter, FourSquare, various other websites, and even status updates on Facebook (which are still voluntary for the time being), people are broadcasting information that companies pay money for. So why is Facebook's methods problematic?

It's partly because nobody knows what the hell they are doing. Is Facebook still run out a dorm room? Is the Zuck reading all my notes, tracking all my clicks, masturbating to all my pictures? But the main reason is that most Facebook users have never explicitly consented to the kinds of info-sharing going on. It's the same kind of problem when magazines sell your information and then you get all kinds of offers for semi-related things. But junk mail can be easily thrown away, and they don't really have that much information on me. But the privacy issues with regards to the internet are especially troubling because they know a lot about me. They might be able to guess my password (They can probably guess my old password: "theserumrulez." The 'z' is meant to throw you off). Is Coca-Cola perusing my photos to find a picture of me drinking Coke, so they can tell my fb friends that "Billy likes Coke"? (They'd find plenty.) We're concerned about this because we like to think that we have control over our privacy.

We don't, of course. For example: if you are reading this right now, then I know where you are. TheSerumMagazine.com has a free (free!) account with StatCounter, which gives me information about page visits-- including IP address, location, time of visit, internet service provider, and come-from links. And I'm just me! Imagine what any other major website can, and likely does, have to track information even more in-depth than this. Somebody (or something) knows just about everything you do online. In short, if you use the internet, you are giving up some of your privacy, and if you use any website requring a log-in, you are giving up more.

It doesn't have to be this way, of course. Some people value the connections that the internet can bring us. We can all be in on a joke with Conan O'Brien, or share opinions about world happenings, or share our favorite satire blogs with friends and strangers alike using the wonderful world of the internet. Hell, I wouldn't know who Justin Beiber is if it weren't for Twitter. But then again, why is life just a compitetion over who can be the most mediated? If you click the "Deactivate my Account" button in your Account Settings, you are taken to a page to confirm your deactivation. But Facebook shows you pictures of you with friends, saying, "Are you sure you want to deactivate your account? Your (number of friends) friends will no longer be able to keep in touch with you. So-and-so will miss you..." This probably works on people, but it isn't true. My friends can still keep in touch; I still have my dumbphone, and postage is only 42 cents. (WHAT? It's 44? Oh what the fuck!) At some point, we have to decide if the convenience and fun of the internet is worth living in a culture of constantly being told to buy something. It didn't start with the internet-- T.V. was created to get advertisements into the home, for example. But Facebook et al may be bringing us to the point of no return.

My profile picture is hilarious, though, so I'll be keeping my Facebook.

*The first ten G-mail ads after I wrote that sentence: "Buffalo Wild Wings, Geneos Wealth Management, Fenway's Buyer Agent, Get Jimmy Dean Sausage, Fajitas & 'Ritas, Cooking Recipes, Iams Cat Food Coupons, Daily Boston Coupons, New Wacom Bamboo Touch, and, I swear to God, Fetal Bovine Serum USA." I might have to write a whole new post about that last one. They have a Facebook page, and 42 people like them. Anyway, I wonder what kinds of crazy shit I can get if I write really weird emails. Another future post? (No promises.)

The Right Picture For the Story

I'm sure many of your have read my blog before. (That's a relative statement. Not many "of you," like people out there in the universe, but "of you," people currently reading this. Not many people actually read this. Editor's Note-- Tell your friends!) And a lot of regular readers have complained about all the words in The Serum's postings. People tell me they want more pictures to look at. We concede that there are a lot of words, and for that we apologize. The Serum's official position on pictures is this: That whole "a picture is a worth a thousand words" thing is bullshit. A thousand words is worth a thousand words (Well, really, somewhere around 800 words because of all these parentheticals).

Aside from this editorial hatred of pictures, The Serum doesn't run pictures because we don't know how you are supposed to decide what picture to put with a story. Take a look at this example: here are two stories, both about the Senate hearings on the oil spill, one from Boston.com and one from MSNBC.com. The accompanying photo of the first is a picture of dirty water, the second has a photo of the executives being sworn in before their testimony. They both work, I suppose. But is one better? I can't tell, so I certainly can't commit to one photo for anything I write. It's all too confusing.

How do news websites pick the photos for their stories? It seems like for most web-news stories there isn't a photographer covering an event, so they have to use file photos. Newspapers often go with this technique, quickly searching through their files for a relevant photo. I'm guessing a Google search dug up the photo that accompanies this story on the Boston Herald's website. Actually, let me confirm that. Here is a Google search of "ak 47".

Unfortunately, The Serum Magazine's file photo vault is pretty small. (There are a few pictures of people eating Bagel Bites, one of me holding a water gun, one of the American flag, and a photo-illustration I did on Obama on a skateboard.) And using photos that other people own the copyright of would be illegal. I mean, I could credit the source, but that's kind of lame.

So we could get a photographer. But there are two problems with this. One is that I write about Barack Obama and Yasser Arafat almost exclusively, and it's hard to photograph these people. (Arafat is dead, for example.) The other reason is that even when news organizations do have photographers, they still end up running a photo of the Pope smiling on a plane, apparently on some kind of game show, with a story about him talking about child abuse. I can never find or even have taken the perfect picture that depicts what I'm trying to say as well as my words can. (Also, my words are often awesome.)

So use your damn imagination. If I'm describing Barack Obama doing a sick ollie while talking about reforming Wall Street, just picture it. You people are so lazy you need every single thing shown to you. You're lucky I link to things.

Politics and Law Don't Mix

No matter who Obama picked for the Supreme Court, a lot of people would be talking about the race/ethnicity and gender of the nominee. And for good reason, of course-- we shouldn't have a Supreme Court that's an all-white-boys club. With two women, one African-American, and one Latina (totalling three people...) on the Supreme Court, and with four of the last ten nominees being non-white-males, it's clear that the Supreme Court (please don't call it SCOTUS) is moving toward being more representative. Just a few more deaths and we could have a really diverse group.

But there's gotta be a limit to how much we emphasize diversity in matters like this. It's one thing to make a pick based on the most qualified person, regardless of race/gender/etc, or even picking a qualified black person or a woman or a Hispanic person to create a fairer balance. However, it's something else to expect a minority nominee for political reasons. Remember when John McCain catered to the supposedly angry female populace? Now you can't get away from Sarah Palin. Slate.com posted an overview of every potential nominee, and in their discussion of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, said, "Bonus: an African-American voice on the court other than that of Clarence Thomas." This kind of One-of-Each Diversity is absurd, but I'll give Slate credit for having many other reasons for supporting Patrick and the others of various creeds they wrote about. But CNN's resident fool Roland Martin inspired me to write this today with his opinion piece regarding the nomination of Elena Kagan, which essentially says: Kagan isn't diverse enough for him.

Martin's main argument is that Kagan, as head of Harvard Law, hired 28 white people and 1 Asian-American, and only six women. He compares this to a hypothetical scenario: a white Republican male President nominates a white Republican male person who had hired almost exclusively white males. The focus on Democrat-Republican is an irrelevant distraction, when it comes to race. (A Republican nominated the only African American Supreme Court Justice.) The fact is, Kagan isn't a white male, so her hiring of men doesn't indicate a gender bias. Also, Barack Obama is black (BREAKING NEWS!), so his nominating a white person can't be considered being too pro-white.

Imagine the variables switched around. A white president nominates a black woman who hires only white men. A white president nominates a black man who hires only white women. A black president nominates a black man who hires only white men. A black president nominates a white woman who hires half black men and half white women. A white president hires a black woman who nominates a white woman. A black nominee hires a white president. Wait, this is getting confused.

My point is, nobody can be a perfect fit for gender and racial diversity, because people read way too much into it. If Obama nominated a black woman with excellent credentials, he'd be accused of nominating one of his own. If he nominated a black man, he'd be accused of gender bias. He nominated a white woman, and is being accused of racial bias. WTF?

Martin takes a jab at what he calls "the left": "It is shameful and disgusting when civil rights organizations, feminist groups and others lose their conviction and sense of purpose when a Democrat gets in the White House. They need to decide what matters: their principles or their politics; their mission or their liberal money; their convictions or chicken dinners in the White House." (Then he quotes a long letter from National Coalition on Black Civic Participation that does the exact opposite of what he just said.)

Martin doesn't realize that the real "left" doesn't get invited to the White House or have any political stake in the Supreme Court. And regarding politics over principles: Martin's politics and principles are the same (he also gets paid to pull the race card on every possible topic. Fuck, am I even allowed to say that? Do you guys know I'm white. Shit, I blew it now). But when your politics/principles are to promote members of one under-represented group at the expense of another, well, that just doesn't make any sense. The fight over who gets equality first-- women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, etc-- needs to stop. We should be glad that another well-qualified woman was nominated for the Supreme Court.

And let's not forget, this isn't the supposed to be a political arena. We aren't talking about who to nominate for a President-- a white woman or a black man-- we're talking about the judicial body that is probably the most important group of people in the country. Politics should be left out of it, especially if your politics are just about who qualifies are being "diverse."

Billy's Opinion: Terrorists Are People Too, But Citizens?

This is a kind of clever legislation. A bill that would take citizenship away from anyone who helps a terrorist group or takes actions against the United States. It's being introduced in the House by two guys from Pennsylvania I've heard of, and in the Senate by Joe Lieberman and Scott Brown. Read about it here.

It's, of course, a bill that's all about symbolism. If they want to attack the U.S., then they can't be one of us anymore. It's like that time when I didn't want to tuck in my uniform in my in-town soccer league, so they made me sit out the game. Well, maybe it's a little different, but it's the same principle.

Here's the problem: it's definitely unconstitutional. According to that CNN.com article, even Jim Boehner thinks so. Jim Boehner! Seriously, this should be the end of the conversation. Jim Boehner thinks it is unconstitutional. Let that sink in.

Anyway, why is it unconstitutional? Well, a "terrorist organization" is defined by the government. They could say anything is a terrorist organization, and justify it by playing Six Degrees of Osama bin Laden. (Kevin Bacon is not a terrorist. Editor's Note-- We will launch an investigation to confirm that Mr. Bacon is actually not a terrorist.) And, under this law, you could potentially have your citizenship revoked without even having a trial. To me, that's a big deal. Of course, some people (Lieberman! Fuck you!) think that people accused of terrorist activities should not be allowed in a courtroom.

What's more, this law is meant to be an add-on to a World War II-era law that outlines different voluntary activities that can lead to citizenship revoking. Examples include: committing treason, joining foreign combatants in fighting against American armed forces, or formally renouncing one's citizenship during a time of war. Brown says that the new law is meant to update the old law to fit the modern war. (Because there was never guerrilla warfare in the past.) It's like how laws against sexting were added to the books; it seems like it makes sense to update everything to fit the technology, but at the end of the day, a dick pic is a dick pic, no matter what medium.

But all of those acts from the old law involve intent to end citizenship with the United States. Lieberman conceded that, in order to have their citizenship revoked, a person would have to declare intent to renounce their citizenship; however, he added that the State Department could use whatever ever information they want to "make that conclusion." For example: let's assume that the attempted Times Square bomber has not said that he wants to renounce his citizenship. But the State Dept. uses the fact that he was in contact with the Pakistani Taliban and the fact that he put a bomb in his car in the middle of New York as evidence that he did. They can fabricate intent, and revoke his citizenship. You can imagine where it can be taken from there. Am I a terrorist because I said "bomb" at the Capitol Building in 2002? (No! Christ no! Oh fuck!)

Of course, a terrorist engaging in terrorist activities probably is OK with renouncing his citizenship. But the line is so fuzzy and undefined. Every time something big happens, there's a conversation about whether or not it is terrorism. Times Square? Christmas Day plane bomber? Those are easy. What about the Fort Hood shooter? The IRS building in Texas? Whoever keeps giving Seth MacFarlane Family Guy spin-offs? Not as simple. Until there's a universally agreed upon standard for what defines "terrorism," we can't go around revoking citizenship when somebody calls someone else a terrorist. (Also, Seth MacFarlane is a terrorist. Editor's Note-- Yeah, we're gonna look into that one, too.)

But in the end, what does it really matter? I'm sure someone who gets involved with terrorist organizations isn't going to be deterred by the threat of losing citizenship. They don't care about being called "American." I don't care about calling them "American," either. In fact, I don't even care about the symbology behind my citizenship. In fact, being an "American" is what is making me a target to terrorists in the first place.

Billy's Opinion: A Trip to Marine Week

A few weeks ago, I went to the Boston Common to hang out with a bunch of conservatives waving signs and flags with pictures of guns on them. This week, I got to see the guns up close. That's right, folks. Marine week, when children are encouraged to point huge guns at their siblings and call it patriotic.

I was drawn to the festivities mainly because there was a huge-ass helicopter in the middle of the no-leash-required area of the Common. When I got closer, my companions and I saw many more vehicles of destruction-- a few more helicopters, a couple tanks, some Jeeps, and a tent with a whole slew of guns in them. Naturally, we lined up to go into a helicopter.

It was pretty boring inside, with exposed wires and crap everywhere. A Marine told me I could sit down in the seats along the sides. "There's no padding?" I asked. He replied, as manly as possible, "No, just basically a piece of steel and some cloth over it." Uncomfortable, I stood up and said, "Where are my tax dollars going?" He did not laugh.

As we were waiting behind a family and an old couple that were taking their pictures by the cockpit, I noticed some shirts that I'm assuming they were selling. It had a picture of the helicopter, and the slogan, "Size does matter." God Bless America.

So we walked around a little bit after that, and I admired our killing machines. I wanted to ask some Marines how many civilians each tank could kill with a single shot, but it goes without saying that these guys could kick my ass.

A few Marines had whips. Is that for lion-taming the insurgents?

We walked by the tables of guns, and people were all over it. I can't tell you how many kids pointed their high-powered guns at me. I guess they weren't Boy Scouts. I understand the kids. They're not old enough to know what these guns really do (I don't even know). But there were older men, no doubt on lunch break from their cubicle jobs, just as into it. I guess it's effective marketing. How can you be opposed to war when you see how amazing the weapons are?

I hoped that Marine Week fit under the gun show loophole and that I could buy some stuff without a background check. But in order for the government to turn a profit on these, I'd have to pay a few million dollars for a gun, and pay at least thirty-one lives for the helicopter.

But hey, why be so cynical? After all, people were having a good time. But I guess that's my problem with it. When you fill the Boston Common with weapons, they become just toys to the people who come to see it. And then the Marines have to explain them like they are just cool toys (I don't think that (all) Marines fail to acknowledge the gravity of war). And then war is cool. Now, I've never been in a war (the T on a Red Sox game night comes close). So I'll just quote a guy who has been to war, General Sherman, "There is many a boy here who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell." Though I concede that with computers doing all the fighting, it's probably more fun than it was in the Civil War.

On the way home, I saw a Marine in his tan camouflage uniform relaxing on a bench. He was tan camo from hat to boots. Then a guy walked by, also in tan camo from hat to boots, but clearly not a Marine, singing. I wonder if they saw each other.

The Constitution: Due For an Upgrade?

One day, a long time ago, a bunch of guys with British accents, powdered wigs, first-edition bifocals, and slaves invented a country. (One of them even had a lisp.) And now, we still do what they say. Today's world is very different from theirs (did I mention the slaves?), and its hard to figure out what those people would think of Fair Use, Net Neutrality, or porno. Well, I guess they'd like porno, but you know what I mean. These are people who used to buy islands with corn. They definitely would not understand credit cards (let alone debit cards).

So is it time to update the Constitution? I'm not sure, but it's definitely worth debate. If a new Constitutional Congress were convened, these are some recommendations that The Serum Magazine would make.

Electoral Reform-- I've only voted in a few elections, and it was annoying every time. It's in the middle of the day in the middle of the week. Like I've got nothing better to do than exercise my civic duty in determining who my representatives are? Come on. A lot of different suggestions have been tossed around, including changing Election Day to the weekend or encouraging more absentee voting. These ideas aren't terrible, but they are over-looking the tried and true system that exists right now. American Idol's call/text voting has provided the country with many great pop stars. Why not just create a National Election Hotline? 1-800-GOPREZ1 for Obama, 1-800-GOPREZ2 for McCain, etc. This might help voter turnout top 65%!

Legislative Reform-- Like many Americans, I watched C-SPAN on the day of the health care vote. The amount of compromises and deals that had to be made for that bill to pass left a bad taste in my mouth. Also, the process was really, really boring. I watched for hours and didn't understand what the hell was going on. Were Democrats winning or losing? Simple solution: make Congress into a competitive sports league. It would encourage Americans to pay attention to the legislative process, and it would also help people decide who is really right. "Well, Senator Byrd can't swing a bat, so he's probably full of shit." Think about it-- if Congressmen are really passionate about their bills, does it make more sense for them to do backroom dealings or play their guts out on the field?

Judicial Reform-- This might just be because I'm hungry, or because it's Cinco de Mayo, but I think the Supreme Court should have a counter-court called the Baja Court. The difference between Supreme and Baja, obviously, is sour cream vs. um, baja sauce? Thankfully, the Supreme Court is currently offers options of crunchy or soft.

Church and State Separation-- Since this phrase doesn't really exist in the Constitution, let's put it in this time around. And while we're at it, let's mandate that no church can exist within 10,000 yards of any government building.

Free Speech Clarification-- A new Constitution should also clearly state what is and is not free speech. Can I say "Fuck you, Mitch McConnell"? How about "Go to hell, Jim Boeheim, you cocksucker"? Is "shithead" okay? These all need to be addressed. Furthermore, a redraft of the Bill of Rights should explicitly protect satire-- satire being anything that someone says in satire.

Equal Rights-- In 1776, nobody expected the gem in the Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal," would stick. And here we are, in 2010, still arguing over what it really means. I mean, there are so many semantics issues: can you really define "all" or "men" or "created" or "equal"? (Everyone knows what "are" means, smartasses.) This should be addressed. So as not to shock the system too much, an amendment can be added granting equality to various groups in a timetable. Gays, for example, can get equal rights in 2015, transsexuals in 2020, people who have sex with donkey in 2030, android-lovers in 2045, Aqua-Americans in 2060, Martian-Americans in 2075, and, finally, women will get their equality in 2100.

Forced Quartering-- This is seriously still in there? Cut it.

Surveillance Reform-- I'm kind of tired of being spied on. I may be a bleeding heart liberal, but I'm not so idealist to think that it will stop. So I propose this: The new Constitution should allow people to opt out of constant government and corporate surveillance for twenty minutes a day or so, so long as they promise not to use this time for planning terrorist attacks.

Gun Rights Reform-- Too many people hide behind the 1789 Second Amendment. The 2010 Second Amendment would still allow for the right to bear arms, but only if you can really explain why you have to right own one. If you say self-protection from robbers, hunting, gaming, or anything like that, then you are wrong. The only correct answer is to prevent the American government from controlling you. The people who get it right will then be placed on 'round the clock surveillance, described above. Also, if you have more wives than teeth, you should not be allowed to have a gun.

Term Length-- The length of terms in federal offices need to be changed. Some people say that elections, especially for Senators, should be more frequently. But as frustrated as I am by the lack of representation in Congress and the White House, I'm more frustrated by how much campaigning there is at all times. This is something that liberals and conservatives can agree on-- liberals can put faith in their democratically elected officials, and conservatives can take solace in the fact that the government will leave them alone more. So I say elections every five years and only every five years. And fifteen year Presidential terms. That will make people really, really think before they vote. "Do I really want Mitt Romney to be in power for that long?" The answer is no, God no.

Is Obama Funny?

So, apparently, President Obama is in hot water over his joke about using predator drones to kill the Jonas brothers if they attempt to get with his daughters. (Shitty ABCNews.com round-up here, Salon.com post here, really snobby criticism here.) The ABCNews notes that criticism "has been confined to the internet." At least it's only people who use the vast, infinite internet.

There's the comparison to Bush's joke about not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a joke that accompanied photos of the Commander-in-Chief looking in the Oval Office. Both jokes seem to show a disregard for the killing power that they hold. Obama's joke points to the unease among liberals that the government can do anything to anybody for any reason. Bush's joke is more of a slap in the face because the journalists laugh-- "Oh, ha ha, we fucked up so much. Ha ha." Both jokes, in some opinions, have the quality of "Look what I am/can get away with."

As a bleeding heart anti-government leftist attempted humor blogger, I feel compelled to add my opinion. For me, Obama's joke is fine. First of all, it's funny, but doesn't make me want to throw shit across the room. I'm no fan of predator drones myself, or of killing civilians, but I can appreciate a nice protective father joke. Also, I don't really like the Jonas brothers. So I'd kind of be okay with it.

But there's also a key difference between these two. Bush's joke really relied on the frustration about the topic. Obama's doesn't. Obama's joke can exist in a world where the political and moral views about predator drones are neutral. Bush's needs there to be anger in order to be funny. And for that reason, Bush's joke isn't actually funny when Bush tells it, but Obama's is only funny because the President told it. Obama's joke isn't really insulting, even for people who are morally outraged by predator drones, because the joke isn't about killing civilians in a morally ambiguous war. Here's an example of what would not be a good joke (intended to be read in Obama's voice): "Osama bin Laden is still out there. We can't find him. So here's what we're going to do. Use predator drones to kill everyone from Kabul to Islamabad and call it a day." You can see why that is actually offensive.

But people can be offended by anything. The snobby criticism of the joke that I linked to talks about the human cost of predator drones and shit like that. I respect a sensitivity to these issues, but seriously, guy? (Yes, that's my rebuttal.)

And there's one more, very important difference between Obama and Bush. I have a sense that Barack Obama has a moral compass about this kind of thing. (I could be wrong.) I definitely don't think Bush really cares about the immorality of war. So I can laugh with Obama. And that's one of the most important things there is.

The Serum Ranks Bottled Water

The Serum Magazine, based in Boston, is suffering along with two million others in the struggle for drinkable water. The catastrophic failure of the state's water main (apparently there's only one. Doesn't that seem kind of stupid?) has forced us to take terrifying precautions. Yes, there is a high probability that I rubbed E. Coli all over my body while taking a shower this morning. (I really, really struggled not to drink any water in the shower. It just seemed natural to take a sip or two. Oh well, I guess you never know what you have till it's gone, or in this case, poisonous.) Since none of us have the time to boil water, since we have spent all of our time either coming up with the hashtag "aquapocalypse" or criticizing this hashtag, we have been forced to turn to bottled water.

But there are too many varieties. So The Serum Magazine will help you decide which brand of bottled water to go with for the duration of this crisis.

Aquafina-- It's good, if you like to have just plain old water. Aquafina has no defining characteristics. It's probably good for brushing teeth, but drinking? I don't know about that.

Dasani-- You simply can't trust Dasani. That's really all there is too it. If you use Dasani to wash your hands, you'll still have to buy another bottle of water to wash the Dasani off.

Evian-- This is only water for girls. Probably among the best for cooking.

Poland Spring-- This is what I'm talking about. Crisp, smooth, clear, tasteless. It's everything water should be and more.

Deer Park-- Exactly the same as Poland Spring, but it's much worse name makes it a terrible buy.

Nestle Pure Life Water-- This water is for fucking saps.

Fiji-- The water is OK, but a State of Emergency is no time to learn how to adjust to a square bottle.

Ethos-- Like I can afford to buy this water?

So given these analyses, The Serum Magazine officially recommends Poland Spring water for drinking, Aquafina for brushing teeth, and Ethos Water for your lawn.

The Serum's Weekly Wrap-up - 5/2

It's been a weird week. The Republican Party can no longer count Crist among its members. (I can't tell you how long it took me to phrase that. Some smart ass at the Longboat Key News (WTF?) really forced the headline here.) May Day protests kind of lost their luster, since they were on Saturday, although this story quotes quite possibly the most reasonable protest sign I've ever heard: "Obama, stop deporting our families." Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar broke Cape Wind. (Editor's note-- Eh. Could be funnier.) A car bomb in Times Square, according to the New York Times, is not a terrorist threat, federal agents said last night. Phew. It's just a guy with a bomb in a public area. Thank God it isn't a terrorist. But oh no, future former Governor Paterson called it "an act of terrorism." Here's hoping they figure out how to label this thing. Alright, time for the wrap-up.

Guy Hammers Kids

Chinese people keep trying to kill kindergarteners. No, seriously. And if you believe that story from MSNBC.com, it's because a lot more people have personal grudges or mental illness, "a growing problem because of feelings of social injustice and alienation in a fast-changing country." Seriously, Associated Press? That's your angle? Social injustice in any other country hasn't caused too many adults to try to kill kids. Can't people just go crazy without it being because China is communist?

That Fucking Dirty Water

According to a Boston Transportation Department van that went by a little earlier, I have to boil water before I drink it. Proof of this is also scrolling on every channel, and people can't stop tweeting about it. Since I tell myself I should link to something in each of these, though, here's one. Now, dirty water....Isn't that what's endearing about this city? Does this mean the Sox just beat the Yankees? Well, unfortunately, the dirty water is nice on the Charles, but not so much in the home. Note that the article I linked to says that, while we can't drink the water, the water "will be safe for bathing, flushing, and fire protection." But honestly, if there is a fire in my apartment, I don't want to get shit all over my stuff. Lastly, I'd like to point out that the catastrophic impact that would follow the failure of water mains just west of Boston was predicted by my Science and Society professor, Timothy Wieskel. I can remember him saying something like "If I were a terrorist..." or maybe he said "evil-doer." It was the Bush Era, after all. (Yes, I am accusing him.)

Blagojevich Can't Invite Obama to Party

Unfortunately, Celebrity Apprentice contestant Rod Blagojevich won't be able to have Barack Obama testify about the attempt sale of his old Senate seat. Apparently, the judge thought that the President of the United States, or POTUS if you are a jackass, would not have information material to the case. This is, of course, a huge blow to Blagojevich's defense team, who really wanted to meet Obama. It is being speculated that Blagojevich will now take an affirmative defense stance, admitting that he was trying to sell the seat, but at least it was for charity.

Media Matters, but do I?

As a hater of news, the internet, and internet news, I am avid reader of Media Matters (Actually I don't read it. I get the idea with the headlines. I guess I'm an avid acknowledger of Media Matters.) They keep tabs on T.V. and internet news, focusing on Fox for obvious reasons. They run corrections on pretty much any story that needs correcting, or they point out when somebody says something stupid or unsubstantiated on the air. You know, real fact-checking, pro-objectivity stuff. So nobody influential cares about them.

Obviously, I think this is a pretty good cause and it's worth doing. By worth doing, I mean it's fun to look at and get worked up about the 24 hour news people. ("You can't say that!" Unfortunately, yes they can.) But I do have one problem with it. (Well, I have two. The first is that as objective and serious as their stories are, their tweets are super sensationalized. Sample: "Words-mean-whatever-we-say-they-mean alert: Fox & Friends decide that Obama is opposed to the American Dream." Sample: "VIDEO: Welcome to the Glenn Beck meltdown." Way to take the high road, media watchdog. But this isn't why we're here.)

For a while now, The Serum Magazine has been writing some crazy shit. I mean completely baseless, absurd, and insulting things. Stories that have been an affront to journalism and the American system. But we have gotten absolutely know coverage from Media Matters. They have dropped the ball, for sure.

So we have been wondering. What do we have to do to get a media watchdog to come after us? Here are a few things that might work:

Rudy Giuliani: Gay?

After several troubled marriages, it's a safe guess that Rudy Giuliani is gay. Also, that lisp.

John Kerry: Does He Have Sex With Staffers?

With his former running mate in hot water for having a baby with a weird-named mistress, I think it's plausible to assume that Senator Kerry is having an affair.

Nancy Pelosi: Gay?

Think about it.

John Kerry: Gay?

He is cultured...

Harry Reid: Gay?

Like any woman would stoop that low.

I guess I could just keep speculating that people are gay.

Anyway, I hope that these four completely untrue stories get some attention from someone who wants to police people in the media. So I guess we will find out if The Serum Magazine matters.