Back to the Virtual Future

Following the news of Justice Souter's departure from the highest court in the land, there's been close to chaos on the news wires, hotly debating the POTUS's first Supreme Court appointment.

Who's Obama gonna pick? Will it be a he? A she? Latin(a)? African American? Asian? Hell, there've been so many choices artificially pumped into the debate I've even heard he's thinking about vetting Judge Dredd (although I hear that liberals aren't too fond of arresting, sentencing and executive felons on the spot - maybe Dick Cheney's hiring?).

And of course, when you're irrelevant, the only way to make news is to be news. So Republicans have resorted to sounding the alarm and warn of the doomsday "activist judge" nomination.

There theory is as follows: Obama is sending out the search party for an activist judge as the new replacement. How do we know? Simple - Obama is "encoding" the word 'empathy' into his speeches.

And just like that, the word 'empathy' made its way through the talk machine and into every pundit's mouth quicker than Dustin Hoffman counting toothpicks on a diner floor.

But of course, no one stopped to ask the simplest of questions - what the hell's so wrong with empathy?

Empathy is, of course, the ability to feel and understand someone else's feelings or point of view. Or in simpler terms....the ability to feel bad for this guy.

And what's so bad with that? If you ask me, I think we could all use a little more empathy. Put it up there on the list of things Americans need badly but never think about - right after mid-afternoon nap breaks at work and right before this badass nose clip.

I mean just think about the things mankind could avoid if we just added a little empathy to everyone's morning coffee - it'd take a whole lot more conviction to hurt, maim, torture, and kill people if you took the time to empathize with them.

(Ten bucks to someone who overloads Nic Cage's coffee with empathy. Does he know what I went through watching the Wicker Man? God, Nic, can't I remember you as Stanley Goodspeed or, better yet, as this awesome quote?)

Ok, so it sounds impossible. But really, the possibility is not that far off. The answer lies in a future medium.

Virtual Reality.

Sounds like a sweet Robert Zemekis film, I know.

(On a side note, what the hell was a teenager like Marty McFly doing hanging out with a much older and deranged 'doctor?' Would you be surprised if they remade Back to the Future and Chris Hansen popped around the corner and asked Doc "So what were your intentions?).

But virtual reality may actually be closer than we think.

As recently as a few months ago, scientists have been able to develop technology which stimulates the five senses all at once - a big step towards fully creating virtual reality technology.

Did you hear that? Our country just spent the last eight years slashing science funding faster than Kate Moss can go through a line of cocaine and we're still not that far off. We're literally one solid lobbying movement by the porn industry away from full development.

So let's assume virtual reality becomes an actual reality in our lifetime. And then let's say, from the ages of 14-18, every student in high school had to "virtually" experience another life just for a day at a time. And not even a whole day. Just for a class period once a week.

The only requirements are like core classes in high school or college - they have to be persons totally out of the realm of their ordinary life.

So the rich yuppies have to 'virtual-it-up' with the kid who can't afford the new hip clothes. The nasty mean girl trades places with the girl who picks her scabs. The athletes trade with the kid who falls off the cargo net every gym class. And vice versa as well.

And poof! Just like that...we get a little empathy flowing through our veins.

But we shouldn't stop there. Hell no. This is my fictional future. I say, damn it, we make the kids virtual-it-up with people from other religions, cultures, and races. Live a day at a time in their shoes.

Those kids grow up and 'see' the world with more than one set of eyes. They empathize with others and work together instead of apart. Problems which seemed to divide utterly different and diverse people don't seem so difficult to solve. Imagine living in a world where yelling at the Chinese take-out guy because he doesn't know if what they hell you just ordered seems unthinkable, instead of customary.

It seems pretty sweet to me.

Of course, no way in hell virtual reality is saving A-Rod. He's toast.

Lonely, Lonely Big Apple

The buzz in the New York sports world for the past month has been all "oohs" and "ahhs" over the new baseball stadiums for both the Yankees and Mets.

Certainly, both stadiums are sites deserving of admiration, like Jeffrey Maier's glove or Curt Schilling's bloody sock (just how did he reapply the ketchup in the dugout without a camera seeing?). Having a Shake Shake in Citi Field alone would cause me to act like a thirteen year old girl at a Backstreet Boys concert.

But take a closer look at the new stadiums, particularly Yankee Stadium. Amid all the praise lauded to the architects, the owners, and the buildings, something's amiss that has appeared to slip through the nightly coverage: There's hardly any one in the seats.

And no, I don't buy the "official attendance numbers." When the Yankees versus A's looks like a Marlins vs Nationals game on Bingo night in Florida, I reserve the right to be skeptical.

Even though the new stadium seats less than the old one to make room for all those new luxury boxes - which, ironically, may be even emptier than those pricey ground level seats - fans still can't fill out the stadiums.

Last week's Yankees games looked like bad Triple A games, where no one shows up because it's hot and the players suck. Considering both Chien-Ming Wang and Carl Pavano pitched, maybe that comparison isn't too far off. Tough jab, I know.

Blame it on the tough economic times. Blame it on the fans of New York having to use their taxes to pay for the stadiums and still have their ticket prices raised. Blame it on both. It doesn't really matter. All that matters is that seats are empty. Awkwardly empty.

Maybe it's not as bad as it seems. Maybe they're all at Shake Shack. Hell, if it's between Mike Pelfrey's pitching and a cheeseburger, how can you blame them?

Tone Deaf Cable News

Watching MSNBC this morning, I saw a segment in which the anchor described the "new fashion" in the music industry - singing or rapping about the economic recession.

The anchor then asked a music expert - not sure if you go to school for that title or if you need a PhD, but he looked serious - whether it was: a) a surprise that musicians are starting to incorporate the recession into their songs and b) whether it was working - that is, was it effective in selling songs? Poor Neil Young even had his latest youtube-style music video played during the segment.

Come on, really? Damn it, cable news, don't do that to music.

Isn't music, or great music, by default, not something that takes reality and contorts it to sell records, but in fact, a reflection of reality itself? And when we describe history and time, don't we invariably look to the art and music of the period for some part of an answer? Music defines generations as much as it's defined by them. That's what I thought. If not, what the hell was the 1960's and 70's all about? Even worse, why'd I have to suffer through art history 101?

By this definition, the anchor's question was circular at best, nonsense at worst.

Shouldn't it be more of a surprise if artist's ignored the recession rather than if they incorporated it into their work? Would they even be an artist if they were disconnected from their reality? I would tend to think not.

Who Knew? Volunteer Work is Compatible with Capitalism

Back in January, a Starbucks in Arizona offered a free cup of coffee to anyone willing to sign a pledge sheet and join then soon-to-be President Obama's volunteer corps. I still have yet to find out how many people signed up, but if the raging caffeine addicts at my local Starbucks are any clue, people will go a long way for a cup of coffee.

Heading to Obama's hometown of Chicago, the White Sox - one of the windy city's Major League Baseball teams - got in on the act too. They've pledged to organize increased community service events involving players, organizational members and willing fans and citizens.

The NBA has also gotten in on the Obama volunteer bandwagon; they highlighted their usual NBA Cares program with commentary from Obama and NBA players alike during the most recent All-Star Weekend in Phoenix.

Who knew that volunteer work could be so compatible with capitalism?

Now we've all heard the cries of political opponents and bloggers, describing Obama's volunteer program with adjectives ranging from Gestapo-like and socialistic, to rumors of children being "drafted" into a civilian national security force, aimed at being as powerful as the military.

But apparently wealthy corporations and businesses don't seem to mind. That should settle the socialistic argument. I can't imagine anyone but the extreme right-wing bloggers are really pre-occupied about the other rumors and complaints.

Yet aside from settling ridiculous rumors, the actions of Starbucks, the White Sox and the NBA represent something much more important - the perpendicular intersection of two commonly believed parallel actions. In a time period of grandiose recession and stories of businesses cheating, stealing, swindling and collapsing, it's pleasant to see three corporate entities thinking about something larger than themselves - the community which supports them.

(Ok, so maybe Starbucks was just looking to increase customers by hooking even more people on caffeine. But it's nice to believe otherwise.)

Obama Should Pick Up Where Edwards Fell Off

It sure seems like all the rave these days is to talk about class. On one hand, there's the economic coverage and the struggles of millions of middle class families to pay their bills. On the other hand, there's Obama's "socialistic" plan to increase taxes on the upper class - with "class warfare!" as the battle cry to defend against the President's actions. Each of these notions have been getting considerable air time on the major media networks.

But pay attention long enough and you'll find that the term "lower class" is rarely ever mention in isolation. You may hear the phrase, "lower and middle class," as if both classes fit snuggly together like peanut butter and jelly. But it doesn't take much common sense to figure out that this shouldn't be and isn't true - after all, why bother having two separate names?

And, if you really pay attention, you'll hear virtually no discussion about the "lowest of the lower class," namely the homeless and those in poverty. So the question remains - "Where has the lower class gone?"

The answer, of course, is no where. In fact, with this economic crisis, it's more than likely that this class will continue to grow as unemployment continues to rise and the credit markets continue to sap. The real question, therefore, should be, "Where's the discussion of the lower class gone?" And the answer to that question, is unfortunate - it's been sucked out of political discourse on the back of John Edwards failed political career.

If you can remember, a mainstay of Edwards' 2008 presidential bid focused on the need to end poverty, a topic which many of the other candidates were silent about (in fact, he proposed a plan which projected to eliminate poverty by 2036). His campaign, although unsuccessful, pushed the issue of poverty into the forefront of the political debate and forced the other candidates to offer solutions and grapple with the epidemic. And then, just like that, the topic was gone, as Edwards was caught having an extra-marital affair.

One of the greatest moral dilemmas of our time was wiped off the political spectrum, untouched for much of the remainder of the campaign trail. But Obama can change all of that - he can pick up where Edwards left off. And he's already got a head start.

In his national speech before the members of Congress, Obama called for a new GI Bill, modeled on the post-WWII bill, which provided educational and vocational opportunities to millions of veterans returning from the war. But caring for the new veterans of both Iraq and Afghanistan is just a start - albeit a very good start. Obama must extend this care to all veterans, especially those forgotten in the "lower class." According to a USAToday article, approximately one-fourth of all our nation's homeless have served in the Armed Forces. That doesn't include those who have served and are living just above poverty line, or the number living "better off" in the higher strata of the lower class.

Obama is correct for calling for more support to those who serve their country. But the discussion cannot end with a new GI Bill. The opportunity is now to push the conversation one step further and bring back the "lower class" into the political discussion. Like a newer version of the GI Bill, it is long overdue.

Obama's Call to Action

Earlier this week, when President Obama delivered his address to Congress, the new President managed to squeeze in a topic that was held in high regard by many of his campaign followers during the election: the call to reward volunteer work. And in between the over-the-top clapping and applause served up by Congress, Obama seems to really have a solid notion of rewarding community work.

(Before continuing, I have to make a note of something real quick. Remember when Obama hit on the topic of healthcare and re-enforced an important notion that it is a tremendous weight that needs to be lifted immediately? Did anyone else think it was straight brass that any Congressional official had the moxie to stand up and applaud? Not that I disagree with Obama - I completely agree in fact. But these same politicians are standing up and applauding, nodding their heads, conveying a sense of "Yes, yes definitely. It's about time." Umm, riiiiiight.....and how long have you been serving in Congress? Ten, fifteen, thirty years? And what have you done concerning this issue since then? But you applaud anyway. Trust me, you're not fooling anyone.)

Back to Obama's plan: it's certainly time to reward good and honest work. Personally, I don't think there's any better way of restoring America's sense of integrity following an economic crisis caused by greed, profit-only thinking, and straight selfish activity, than a program which rewards the exact opposite. Plus, it'll likely reward the volunteer (if Obama was truthful during the speech) in the area of education by offering a tax credit or some other economic aid for higher learning.

Sometimes, although I don't like to admit that I ever give any politician a free pass or quick once over when scrutinizing his or her's intentions, it really does feel good to breathe a sigh of relief, sit back and marvel that Obama is truly serious about this program.

I would also hope that the overall popularity of this program (I have yet to see a poll on the topic but can't imagine it not being overwhelmingly popular) makes Rudy Giuliani and those at the Republican convention blush.

After all, it wasn't that long ago that the former New York Mayor made a "joke" about Obama being a community organizer. While on the surface, Giuliani was only calling Obama's resume thin at best, deep down - when combined with the historical context of the Republican party -the joke was much more than a simple jab. It was a "dis" towards honest work, helping those less fortunate, and the idea that a non-"me first" attitude is unuseful at best - a failure at worst.

Let's hope that rewarding volunteers leads our country into a new direction - a future where a jab like Giuliani's not only isn't funny (which is wasn't) but impossible. After all, in a society that helps each other and looks for other values other than money, the jab loses all context and is irrelevant. This program is a good start.

It's Tough to Be Jindal - Tougher to Be the GOP

My first thought watching Bobby Jindal's "reaction" speech tonight:

"Oh man, there's a teleprompter.....yea he's screwed."

My second: "Man, this is boring,"

"What were they thinking?" should have been my third but I'd already changed the channel.

OK listen, I get it. Throw Jindal out there, let'em give a speech, make it look Presidential and try to steal some of Obama's thunder. Give conservatives some hope!

But like so many Republican ideologies, tonight's tactic fell flat because it's outdated and ignores recent history. Remember Inauguration Day and what you were doing ten minutes after Obama's speech? Were you on the phone? Washing the dishes? Getting back to work? Writing a blog?

Who knows what you were doing? But I'll tell you what you were definitely not doing ..... watching the TV, marveling in the next speaker.

You know why? Because it wasn't gonna be Obama. And by some transitive property, that meant whoever was next was gonna suck (sorry poem lady). But honestly, it's the truth. And this isn't anything new.

It's why they put the crappy musicians in the opening set of a concert. Because there ain't no way in hell anyone's gonna sit around and watch if they come after the main event. They aren't as good and no one's pretending that they might be. It won't matter if they play the best concert of their life - compared to the popular and, well, better band, they suck. It seems like the GOP forgot to include this in their Jindal thinking.

But it gets worse....

To stick with the above example:

The Republican party basically slotted their relatively unknown artist in Jindal AFTER a multi-platinum selling, girls screaming in the aisles, Van Halen popular in the 1980's artist in Obama. AND, if that wasn't daunting enough, encouraged him to play the exact freakin' song that got him boo-ed off stage last week and dumped by his girlfriend after she realized he sucks as a musician and won't make it (read: the 2008 election).

I mean, how'd anyone think it was gonna work? What would be the best case scenario for Jindal? Assuming people were in the mood for another speech (which they knew wasn't gonna be as good) and assuming people forgot how empty and pathetic the Republican rhetoric has sounded in the past (which I'm not convinced they are) AND assuming that people would not heavily compare Obama's and Jindal's speech giving abilities and immediately become disinterested (come on, he was using a teleprompter!), wouldn't the best case scenario be something along the lines of: "Hmm, Jindal wasn't bad actually."

Is that the highest Republicans can shoot for these days?