As the world turns, various peoples begin to worry about the future of our planet. These people take steps to secure the things they hold dear.
What I hold dear are God, Family, and Country, in that order. It is my ambition to one day enter the political arena to do what is right by those three things.
June 21, 2008
Today's topic is America's education system, and all that is wrong with it.
On Specialization and the weakening of the American individual:
Despite traditional American emphasis on individualism, the fact is that this country has fallen prey to the hallmark trait of advanced civilization: specialization. Rather than a free-standing entity, Everyman has become but a cog in the realm of a much larger wheel, intended to be a specialist towards one purpose--and nothing else. Self sufficiency is not only a thing of the past, it is no longer considered a virtue. Society encourages members from an early age to identify with a group or clique, forsaking all vestiges of resemblence to the groups to which they do not belong--and membership to only 1 group is demanded.
The result is a fast moving, efficient society. The cost? Individuality. The entire point of our current education system is not to maximize the potential of each person, but rather to generate STANDARDIZED PARTS to be assimilated into the work force. The strength of a system built on standarized parts instead of unique individuals is that "we the people' become 'we the expendable'. Kill one of us, kill ten of us, kill a hundred of us, there are still a thousand more just like us who can do exactly what we can do. You won't see that on any campaign slogans or recruiting posters, but it's the truth.
This is the reason for the 'mixed messages' in advertising. For instance, who hasn't heard a commercial for some product, ending with the slogan 'be you'. To any logical person, there's a contradiction here. The thought process looks something like this:
"You just showed me 45 seconds of a thousand people doing a choreographed dance because they like this product so much. In fact I daresay a more appropriate slogan would be 'everyone else is doin' it'. If I'm gonna 'be me' shouldn't I be trying to do my own thing instead of following the crowd? How does that 'be you' slogan even follow the 'everyone else is doin it' commercial?"
Simple. "You" are SUPPOSED to be just like "everyone else". To "be you" under our system is not to maximize your potential, it is to succumb to the accepted stereotypes of the culture.
Actually this started off in the direction of the "jock" and "nerd" roles and how the "strong" are encouraged to be stupid gasbags and look upon intelligence as "nerdy", whereas the intelligent are encouraged to be mind-only-matters, neglecting their physical well being and resulting in either obesity or the stereotypical skinniness that is supposed to go along with the 'nerd'.
That does still fit here as the perfect example of the difference between standardized parts and unique individuals. If we were really encouraged to "be all you can be" under this system, the 'nerd' would be encouraged to play football and rugby, and the 'jock' pushed towards trigonometry and philosophy.
If we truly are trying to build a dynamic, well rounded person, shouldnt he be physically AND mentally honed? Why should intelligence be a precursor to physical incompetence? Why should strength be equivalent to condemnation to a life of idiocy?
Whichever traits are most obvious in a child's early life are the ones which will be reinforced, leaving all else to perish. The result? Not the dynamic world-changers of centuries ago...but in place of that a plastic imitation, similar to each one next to it.
Predictable. Unremarkable. Expendable
Try this
June 11, 2008
Todays update is a simple salute to democrats across america: Congratulations! You have just proven yourselves worthy of the title 'human being' that you so precariously cling to. The entire rest of the world was poised to question that very moniker, had you collectively agreed that Hilary Clinton was the best possible candidate your entire party could come up with. With her withdrawal comes a whole new era of understanding between Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Nazis, Communists, Chimpanzees, Sea Slugs, and probably even Satan himself: whatever our differences, we all despise Hilary Clinton.
June 03, 2008
And now I'd like to familiarize you all on my views on Homosexuality. Here are my non-religious reasons for keeping homosexual marriage illegal. Brought to you in the form of an actual debate held on Facebook, starting with my opponent's opening remarks.
Nick: You see, the primary problem I have with Mr. Huckabee is his intention to take the Bible and enforce it's tenants on the entirety of this country, regardless of ones personal relationship with whatever god they worship if any. I myself am a Christian, though chiefly spiritual in nature. I find that the organized religion is lacking compared to the personal faith and belief that I hold in my heart. I prefer to talk to god in solitude. But that is just my opinion and my own personal relationship with god, it may not be right for some but it is right for me. I would have no problem with a strongly Christian president, obviously. I would not have a problem with a President who was devoted to Islam, Buddhism or Judaism either. Why? Because I would trust the American Constitution. I would know that I will always be allowed to have my own personal relationship with my father and that whatever the religion of the President it would not affect my faith. And in all honesty, something I have learned is that there is a remarkable resemblance among almost all faiths. I have found through experience that those who are both devout and confident in their own personal faith (whatever that may be) AND tolerant towards the faiths and ideas of others tend to be truly remarkable people by any religion's standards. I completely agree with you that the government should not have one official religion or force a religion. Because every person has the right to chose for themselves. Which is way there are several things that have been bothering me about the way the American tide has been turning lately. I'll touch on one by giving you an example. The problem I see with Huckabee is that he uses the Bible to validate legislation he intends to pass that would directly affect those who do not follow the bible. Here is an example of a conversation as i see it that illustrates my issues. (Please excuse the unorthodox medium, I am a student of Theatre and enjoy expressing myself this way)
Tim: Hello.
Kate: Hello.
Tim: What is your religion?
Kate: I am a Christian. I believe that Jesus Christ was the prophet and son of God. I believe that Jesus Christ loves me and is always with me so long as I embrace him. I believe that God speaks to me through the Bible which is his word. I believe that Christ died for our sins and that through him and the word of God eternal life and happiness in the presence of the lord will be granted to me. I believe that God is found in faith and devotion. What is your religion?
Tim: I am a Deist. I believe that the Supreme Being is nameless, that he created man for a reason beyond our comprehension. I believe he gives us absolute free will. I believe that god speaks to me through my soul, which only he could create. I believe that through bringing happiness to those around me and being truthful to myself eternal happiness and life will be granted to me. I believe that god is found in reason and experience.
Kate: We disagree then.
Tim: Yes we do. For instance: The teachings I follow say that to raise a child while encouraging the belief in a certain god is against the wishes of god. I believe god wants humans to experience the world he has created and find him through the inherent reason he has set before us. I believe that to find the lord one must listen to their heart and that teaching a child that one God is the correct one is destructive to the child's spirit and to the spirit of society. I would rather you did not do that.
Kate: The teachings I follow say that it is through belief in and adherence to the word of god and the acceptance of Jesus into your heart that one is freed of sin and comes to truly know the lord. I believe that I must teach my child the word of the lord so that he will be godly and know right from wrong and that the lord loves him. I believe that failure to show him such truths would damage his spirit. I will teach him of the Lord and Jesus.
Tim: Very well, that is your right. I suppose you will teach your child the word of Jesus Christ.
Kate: Yes, I will. I assume you will teach your child the ways of Deism
Tim: In a way, yes.
Kate: Very well, this is your right
Tim:Though I do not agree with it I respect your decision, and even if I did not this land protects your rights as it does mine. Also, I believe that love transcends the physical. That the soul knowns no gender and that the Supreme Being wishes only that I bring joy and comfort to those around me and allow such things for myself as well. I have met a man to whom I bring great joy, and he brings great joy to me.
Kate: I have also met a man who brings me joy and closer to the lord than ever before.
Tim:I have decided to marry my man in a bond of Deism and spend the rest of my days with him.
Kate: I have also decided to marry my man in a Christian bond and spend the rest of my days with him. My teachings say that a man is to bond in such a way only with a woman. I believe that a marriage of two men is against God's wishes. The bonding of a man and a woman is a gift from god and to pervert this gift is a grave sin against him. I believe that to enact such a ritual is destructive to one's spirit and destructive to society. I would rather you did not do it.
Tim: My teachings do not hold the same taboo as yours. I will marry this man.
Kate: I do not agree with your ideas and so you will not be granted permission to wed this man.
Tim: But why? What reason do you have to not allow this?
Kate: The reason lies in the Bible, the Holy Word of god by which I live my life states that for a man to lie with a man is deeply sinful. So you shall not be given acknowledgment for your bond.
Tim: But the Bible is not mine. You live your life by your beliefs, yes. You will not lay with another woman. This is good for you. But your beliefs are not mine. Why must I adhere to yours?
Kate: Because this land enforces the word of my God, but not yours.
Tim:...
OK, I realize how simplified that whole thing was and that the idea of a discussion being that civil and mechanical is far fetched but I hope you can understand the problems I have with this line of thinking. It worries me severely. it threatens that deep conviction held by our founding fathers that all of us are equal and no one is more equal than another, recognizing that once we ever decide that some people are more equal or less equal than others, then we start moving that line, and it may include us some day.
Joe:
Um, a few faults:
Your "Deism-homosexual" tie-in was cute, but not much of a reflection on reality.
Second, even if all homosexuals behaved as they do out of religious fervor, that still begs the question "does previously illegal behavior become legalized under the "freedom of religion" umbrella if a religion sanctions it?"
The role of government is to reflect the will of the people, and unless the majority of Americans decide homosexual behavior is morally acceptable, the government should not sanction it. Should the government ban homosexual behavior? Tricky question. Personally I think it will be a dark day on planet earth when the US government starts dictating who can and cannot have sex with whom, and has the technology and manpower to enforce such regulations. People will do what people will do, and some things aren't the government's business. Letting people do something you disagree with is known as "tolerance". You are "tolerating" that behavior.
Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, can be rightly construed as a government >underscore< sanction >/underscore< on homosexual behavior. Whether or not homosexual behavior is right or wrong is irrelevant to the question of homosexual marriage. What is important is that most Americans believe homosexuality is wrong, and therefore the government cannot sanction it. If the government can sanction or ban things against the will of the people, then what we're dealing with isn't democracy but a dictatorship. Surely anyone can see that!
Nick:
Joe. The post of mine you are replying to is actually in response to someone countering my original post by saying that the reason he denounces homosexuality and supports Huckabee is due to his strong Christian faith. What my post was meant to illustrate was that the will of the people is in fact hampered by the American constitution should the will of the people ever be turned against the freedom's of any individual group of American citizens. According to the United States government it is currently a state's right to decide if homosexual marriage is allowed in that particular state. What Huckabee proposes is an AMENDMENT to the constitution REMOVING that right from the states. Now the greatness of the constitution does indeed come from it's malleability and our founding fathers intended for the constitution to remain a morphic being responding to the current will of the people. However, we should insure that the constitution remains consistent throughout it's text and I think that it would be necessary to also alter the 1st amendment which currently reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Since a ban on gay marriage would be the government explicitly denying a public service based specifically on a tenet of Christianity. The fourteenth amendment would also need to be dealt with. If one can give a better reason as to why this right should be denied to these people without citing some holy text then I would be interested to hear. However, if you plan on bringing up procreation I would just point out the serious problem we have in this world with overpopulation, a problem that we are currently trying to solve. If you want to see my original argument which is my primary reason for being against a ban on homosexuality, look at the original post. I think that will deal with most of what you just said.
"Your "Deism-homosexual" tie-in was cute, but not much of a reflection on reality. "
It was cute? OK, maybe you did not intend it this way but I found your wording in this one to be extremely condescending. I have made every effort to remain respectful through my posts on this board and all I ask is that you do the same. the cute "Deism-homosexual" tie in was based on a very good friend of mine who is both deist and gay. He is an extremely kind and caring person and the most intelligent and well read man I have ever known. It is sad that he knows his government thinks less of him than it does of me, when I would be the first to say he is a better man then I am. But when the time comes the government will recognize my bond and not his. And you insult me for standing up for my friend? You mock me for that?
Joe:
By "cute" I mean "good in theory" or "looks good on paper". Sorry if that offends you or your friend, but my point that the vast majority of homosexuals are not Deists, nor is homosexuality technically a part of any well-known religion (except as a 'don't do this') stands.
Back when the constitution was written, general consensus was that homosexuality was wrong. It was considered so blatantly obvious that they didn't feel compelled to put a "definition of marriage" because marriage was for a man and a woman. During these trying and confused times, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish right from wrong, but I believe that the people still believe homosexuality to be wrong. Hence, the government cannot act. If you wish to change the government, first you must change the people.
Any great lobbyist (Martin Luther King, Jr for example) is great because of some aspect --diction, intelligence, eloquence, charisma-- draws people to him, winning hearts and minds. When the people come together, the government has the responsibility to do as they say.
Ask anyone today (except maybe in some parts of the south) and they will agree that Martin Luther King Jr. was a good man, fighting for a good cause. The government did not step in unasked and unwanted to make a change.
Some reasons to not condone homosexual behavior through sanction (ie marriage)
1. homosexuality confuses the role of the male in society, leading to broken homes in a country with already-dismal marriages
2. homosexuality spreads disease. few people remember that when AIDS was discovered it was first termed GRIDS (Gay-related immune deficiency syndrome) by scientists, until it was discovered that it could be spread by means other than homosexual contact (and politicians pushed for a more politically correct term)
3. it has yet to be put forth why this behavior is even justifiable. to most rationally thinking Americans, Homosexuality is like adultery. Some people "buckle" to sinful desires, and that's unfortunate. Nobody is seeking the death penalty for them, and the punishments are largely left to the Church for marital infidelity. But if the government were to take this taboo and attempt to pass a sanction (constitutional amendment: cheating on your wife is ok), imagine the outcry from the people! Should the government pass an amendment banning cheating on your wife? Not really. As I said before, wrong or not, the day the Federal government can actually enforce a law like that is the day I don't even want to live in that country anymore (Orwellian).
Most Americans with even a smattering of religious upbringing (and some without) would feel insulted if someone claimed "infidelity is key to my religion because it makes me happy, it completes me. Legalize it!" Yet this is exactly what the Gay Rights movement is trying to do. There is little or no attempt to make it "right" or "palatable" to mainstream America, simply a "this is us, now tolerate us". There are no hearts and minds being won! So, the homosexual community has won tolerance, but if they ever wish to achieve "sanction" they will have to start the uncomfortable conversation involving morality. Some hearts and minds need to be won somewhere, mine included, and I have yet to hear a decent argument for why the behavior itself is ok.
Typically the response is "we're born this way" but so are many kleptomaniacs, serial killers, blind people, and handicapped people. Despite that all of the above are arguably "born with" a condition, society deals with them in a certain way. (cures for the blind/handicapped, prison/psychiatric help for kleptos, prison/death penalty for serial killers).
To summarize, one cannot talk of government sanctioning ANYTHING until the people of America wish to sanction it. The current direction of the homosexual community is to avoid discussing morality altogether, appealing to government without changing the minds of the people--in truth, I believe they fear the results of such "mind changing" discussion. When it comes to the subject of morality, homosexuality has hardly a leg to stand on. Yet a moral defense is exactly what they will need to change the minds of America.
May 30, 2008
No discussion of politics can be complete without broaching the subject of all that is wrong with Hilary Clinton. Among all the things I disagree with her on, all the things that irritate me about her, the one that is most wrongfully trivialized is the most obvious of all:
She is grotesquely ugly. Some people may think this is a poor reason to denounce a candidate, but they simply havent thought it all the way through. I'm not saying Bush is going to be walking down any fashion runways anytime soon either, but he does not have the same effect on the eyes as a cheese grater on cheese (as Hilary does).
What this nation needs to remember is this: Whomever we elect we will have to see plastered on newspapers, magazines, and tabloids for the next 4 years. Do you really want to spend the next four years looking at Hilary Clinton? I dont...I prefer my sleep without nightmares, thank you. This alone should be reason enough to vote Obama.