Dictator Museum

There should be a museum dedicated to history's worst and cruelest dictators and revolutionary leaders. Stalin, Hitler, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, etc. While these people were terrible men who were responsible for the deaths of an unbelievable amount of innocent people, they need to be remembered. When people think of, for example, the innocent people that were killed in the Holocaust, they need to be reminded that there was a person behind all of it. In the case of Hitler/the Holocaust, it's what happens automatically anyway, but a sole reminder of all the terrible things certain people are capable of with certain powers (such as a museum) would go a much farther way in raising awareness and helping to prevent people like this from ever abusing their power again.
I could do a lot of research for this on things like the Holocaust museum in DC (I've been there, it's an incredibly graphic but enlightening experience) to see what was successful there and what I could incorporate into my museum. I'd also have to research into a couple dictator's specific lives/reigns/crimes, so I could use them as examples in the paper.

San Diego Museum of Man

I visited the San Diego Museum of Man. I don't think it was quite as interesting as some of the visits in my blog group. I kind of wish I had gone to a science or aerospace museum, but I decided to try something new. It wound up being pretty cool - It was fun learning about where man came from and everything that made us what we are today. The museum definitely managed to make it a lot more interesting than my high school anthropology class did! The museum had some interesting exhibits, from one on ancient Egypt to one investigating the evolutionary curiosities of the human skeleton. All in all it was a pretty good trip, and I definitely learned some cool stuff. Not enough to make me switch from a technical major though!

Museum website: http://www.museumofman.org/exhibits

Would an Apology Help or Hurt?

In this case, an apology was not necessary. Kanye West was speaking out against a political opponent of his, and although he did it in a rash and controversial way, he did not need to cave into people pressuring him to apologize. All that did was force an insincere apology anyway. Kanye is allowed to think that George Bush hates black people - maybe a statement such as this could have pressured George Bush into putting a little more time and effort into helping Katrina victims more swiftly and effectively, in order to avert the image of being a racist. Instead, Kanye instantly rescinded his statements, and George Bush was allowed to go on and on in interviews about how "offended he is by being called a racist." Here's a hint George Bush: don't get "offended," SHOW people how you do care and you can make a difference. That's the best way to make Kanye look like an idiot, not by drawing an insincere apology out of him like a grade school teacher draws out of a kid who pulled his classmate's hair.

Kanye West Apology

There was a lot of political unrest and government criticism after hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and the surrounding area. One of the most controversial statements made about the government was Kanye West's attack of then-president George W. Bush: "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Not only did this attack severely offend the president of the united states, it negatively affected many people's opinions of both George Bush and Kanye West. Kanye West later went on to apologize and state that his statements were made out of frustration, and stemmed from the emotion of the moment. He then went on to state that human beings in general don't "choose the right words" in states of emotional distress. George Bush, in an interview with Matt Lauer, said he forgave Kanye, but said that he was still troubled that anyone would ever call him a racist.
Some people were surprised that Kanye openly apologized for this incident - The only reason he did so was to regain public support. No one really knows if he meant it or not. He could very well still think George Bush is a racist. That being said, maybe an apology was not necessary, because he was just criticizing a public figure, something citizens in this country are expected to do.

Example of partisan rhetoric being dangerous

Not all partisan rhetoric is as safe as we'd like it to be. Sometimes, when someone has a very strong view on a subject or has a very determined agenda, he/she can say things that could have very dangerous results. One example of this kind of dangerous partisan rhetoric is the civil rights activist Malcolm X. He had the same basic agenda as, say, Martin Luther King Jr., but he went about it in a very different way. His speeches often include talks of civil unrest and violence, such as this quote: "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." It's obvious that he's just trying to tell people (mainly black people in the context it was said) to stand up for themselves and make people regret disrespecting them, but it's obvious how it could be argued that Malcolm X incited more violence than was necessary, and that his partisan rhetoric proved to be very dangerous. Now the question is, did Malcolm X help more than he hurt?

Problems involved in "Feel Good" Bipartisan Arguments

People talk non stop about having a "bipartisan" government, and how great it would be to have a system where everyone would decide what they think on an issue-by-issue basis, and there would be no political parties that would force people to go one way or another on every issue. If you think about it, it seems like a great idea at first, but most people who are pro-bipartisanship lack the ability to see the benefits of the side they oppose (but then again, how is that different from any other argument or conflict?).
The biggest problem with bipartisanship is a lack of support for issues that many people have in common. Take the issue of abortion for example - Not ALL Republicans are pro-life, and not ALL Democrats are pro-choice. However, the majority of Republicans are pro-life, and the Republican party provides an outstanding organizing point for pro-life persons. The Republican party can organize protests, rallies, etc., and know that it is making MOST of its people happy. It can also send people to elections that carry a political platform that will gel with people's beliefs as well as possible. You might not agree with every belief held by a Republican politician, but most Republicans can rest assured that the majority of their values will be taken care of. It is much harder to do this in a bipartisan system - political candidates' values would be all over the place, and it would be much harder to select a candidate that would effectively represent most of your political beliefs.

Follow Up Blog Entry

I'm very glad that I wrote this paper on the song Californication. I had always kinda of known what the Chili Peppers were saying in this song, but I never really thought about it and analyzed what they were truly saying. Turns out, they have a much more grim view of the California dream than I originally thought they did. The metaphors to Alderaan and the biblical Great Flood paint a very grim picture of the California Dream in the listener's head, and make them rethink what their opinions of the beautiful people and epic partying in California really are. I know I did - I used to think the California Dream was absolutely awesome (It's why I came out here in the first place). While I don't think the California Dream is actually going to crumble our society, my analysis of this song did make me realize that I need to make sure I keep my head on straight and that I don't get sucked up into it.