I believe that this once great nation has already been destroyed.
Once, we were a nation of individuals. The leaders were well read, literate, opinionated, and passionate. They had faults, and both good and bad ideas. There were always disagreements, dirty politics, subversives, and monarchists. But the majority of the founders felt it necessary to place the new government in its proper place. To ensure that it would not encroach upon the rights of its citizens, nor to attempt to provide anything other than was absolutely necessary to function as a uniting government. They realized that anything more would lead to tyranny.
Today we have much, MUCH more. Today we have a nanny state. a Federal government that even Hamilton may have been sick to see. Today we are not individuals in a self-governing union. The states are denied their 10th amendment right to make their own laws. Every issue becomes a national issue. Abortion, education, euthanasia, gay marriage, ad infinitum. Laws are made nationally that should be left up to the states. In fact, many "laws" regarding these hot-button issues are not actually laws. They are edicts passed down from a tyrannical court system that has usurped far more power than was relegated them by the Constitution. The Presidency can issue executive orders. The Legislators are interested only in obtaining and retaining power. All three branches have ceased to check or balance the others. This is tyranny.
We are a nation of sheep. we do what we are told, we pay confiscatory taxes that would have sparked revolution had they not been introduced piecemeal. We have no right to own property because if we don't pay the taxes on the land, the government can take it away. Indeed, the property we are allowed to occupy can be taken from us at the drop of a bureaucrat hat if they think that knocking down our 2 bed 1 bath home and putting up a strip mall will net more taxes for the "public good".
No longer do we govern ourselves. No longer does freedom ring. Big Brother is realized in the way we are forced to think. You must be "politically correct" or suffer the wrath of a tyrannical government.
One by one our constitutional rights have been stripped from us, while at the same time we are told that all is well. We are assured that we need a bigger government. More should be done. People need to be taken care of. It's for the children. It's for our safety. It's for our own good.
Yes. The damage is already done. The United States has been successfully destroyed. In it's place is the United Bureaucracy of Blissful Socialists.
And that's the trouble. Too many people like it this way.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
eau de humanity
I recently saw a commercial on TV that convinces me our society is on the verge of collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwX8MzOKOzI
We have no shame. We put anything on the air.
In our world of hedonism and excess, ignorance and apathy, it is only a matter of time before it all comes crashing down.
Or should I say: "It's only a matter of time before we are all flushed down the toilet" ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwX8MzOKOzI
We have no shame. We put anything on the air.
In our world of hedonism and excess, ignorance and apathy, it is only a matter of time before it all comes crashing down.
Or should I say: "It's only a matter of time before we are all flushed down the toilet" ?
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Coos County SSR
Here is a letter someone wrote to the editor of a small Coos County newspaper:
I wonder if the author of this letter would approve of many of GWB's executive orders. I wonder if they would approve of the very idea of an executive order. I do not. The President should not have this sort of power. This is the sort of power a king has. Or a dictator. A President has veto power, not edict power. Mr Letter-Writer would disapprove of anything GWB did just because it was GWB doing it. I am sure the same or more criminal actions perpetrated by someone holding this man's same ideology would cause nary a batted eyelash.
But I wonder if this letter writer realizes that his Model Leader has had this same power by an "enabling act" which allows him to rule by decree on certain matters There was another famous 20th century figure who had this power.
Lionizing Hugo Chavez may be the first indicator that this guy is a nutball. I am quite sure that there are thousands if not millions of sycophants that follow bad leaders as well as good ones. Like Chavez, there is another historical figure of the 20th century that attempted a coup, failed, went to prison for it, and then eventually got himself elected leader of the government he had been trying to overthrow. See if you can look it up and figure it out. I would be surprised if the letter-writer could figure it out.
With regards to the United States: if this guy thinks that we have been under the thumb of a megalomaniac for only 6 years, he is demonstrating his crippling lack of historical perspective. This country has been under the influence of corrupt destabilizing forces from the beginning. Our bondage has happened gradually and carefully. We have been haltered with flaxen cords and are being led towards destruction. Meanwhile there are those who stridently fight to keep the cords around our necks and just as shrilly scream for more cords to be added.
It is ironic that this man calls for us to throw off our oppressors when his socialist ideas put in practice in our government are the very cause of our oppression.
As the Coos County Democrats reflect on their first authentic caucus, I'm reminded of the people of Venezuela who elected their president leader, Huga Chavez. He was elected president of the country by the people with an overwhelming majority, but, within a few days a coup instigated by our CIA and that country's powerbrokers, removed him. However, the people, in numbers of over 1,000,000, marched in the streets of Caracas, demanding his return.I can only assume this person is a Bush-hater. I am no fan of many of his policies, they are too liberal for me. In fact, I am so far right of the Republicans, I quit their party. I disagreed with GWB's reasons for entering Iraq - not because I was following a party line, or because it was fashionable amongst the social circles in which I frequent, but because of what I feel are moral grounds based on my study of scripture and world history. The reasons for staying there is a subject for another blog.
We, the people of the United States of America, also must rise up and unite to elect leaders who represent us, throwing aside those who represent big business, and oppress us through lies and filling us with fear.
Chavez has promoted councils throughout his country (communitywide assemblies), in every barrio, even in the poorest of the poor areas to give voice to the people, to teach them that they must participate in government to assure themselves of justice and the fulfillment of their rights. In our American way, we of Coos County, through our caucus, are making every effort to give voice to the people of this area.
Huga Chavez stated, "Latin America is leaving forever its role as the backyard of the North American empire." We, the Democrats of Coos County, want to forever eliminate the megalomaniac tyrannical power we have been subjected to these past six years, the kind that considers us insignificant, and thus trivializes our worth.
The progressive movements in Latin America, led by Hugo Chavez; Venezuela, are counting on the United States citizens to support them in building a new direction for all the countries of South and Central America, calling for "fair trade" instead of "free trade," and independence from Washington. They have gained a voice in their governments, whereas in the past, the U.S. government has silenced their voices.
Even the poor of Venezuela, living in shacks made of cardboard, have a voice in their government. It is our time to also recover our voices in our government, to demand our rights. That's why we had our own caucus.
I wonder if the author of this letter would approve of many of GWB's executive orders. I wonder if they would approve of the very idea of an executive order. I do not. The President should not have this sort of power. This is the sort of power a king has. Or a dictator. A President has veto power, not edict power. Mr Letter-Writer would disapprove of anything GWB did just because it was GWB doing it. I am sure the same or more criminal actions perpetrated by someone holding this man's same ideology would cause nary a batted eyelash.
But I wonder if this letter writer realizes that his Model Leader has had this same power by an "enabling act" which allows him to rule by decree on certain matters There was another famous 20th century figure who had this power.
Lionizing Hugo Chavez may be the first indicator that this guy is a nutball. I am quite sure that there are thousands if not millions of sycophants that follow bad leaders as well as good ones. Like Chavez, there is another historical figure of the 20th century that attempted a coup, failed, went to prison for it, and then eventually got himself elected leader of the government he had been trying to overthrow. See if you can look it up and figure it out. I would be surprised if the letter-writer could figure it out.
With regards to the United States: if this guy thinks that we have been under the thumb of a megalomaniac for only 6 years, he is demonstrating his crippling lack of historical perspective. This country has been under the influence of corrupt destabilizing forces from the beginning. Our bondage has happened gradually and carefully. We have been haltered with flaxen cords and are being led towards destruction. Meanwhile there are those who stridently fight to keep the cords around our necks and just as shrilly scream for more cords to be added.
It is ironic that this man calls for us to throw off our oppressors when his socialist ideas put in practice in our government are the very cause of our oppression.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Laziness
As you may know, I sometimes participate in Yahoo Answers. A user asked a question:
Why are 90% of Americans the size of a blimp?That question was removed by the administrators, which is puzzling because I have seen far worse questions. But I had answered it before it was removed.
Because contrary to most TV commercials most Americans do *not* have an active lifestyle. In fact, most of the supposed time-saving aspects of our culture (such as microwave dinners) serve not to provide us with more active time, but to guarantee us more leisure time.
Most Americans lead sedentary lives of ease. We are taught from day one to do what is easiest. Any exertion that would set us in front of the crowd is subject to scorn and derision -> Why should that over-achiever make me look bad? We are all about conforming to the lowest common denominator, dragging as many people down with us as possible so that we feel safety in numbers.
Laziness is pervasive in American culture, not only physically, but perhaps more so mentally. Note how many people will get genuinely angry at someone who dares to point out spelling errors. Typos are one thing, but to never learn the difference between "their", "they're" and "there" is laziness at its zenith.
So, while your question is probably meant as a semi-trollish attempt to elicit denials or correct your bad mathematics, it does land close to the mark.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
an actual email exchange
At work, our company uses a spam filter to help cut down on junk mail. This email was sent from an outside user to someone inside our company after they discovered our filter had blocked their email. He sent it to the original intended recipient, and cc'ed it to her manager, and the IT distro group.
So I replied to him using our admin account:
You need to tell your IT guy to get a life. They seem to be to busy running around trying to justify there own existence playing big brother, and interfering in normal e-mail traffic.
All e-mail that leaves ***** is scanned by Symantec Internet Security (2006 edition).
[name deleted]
[company deleted]
[phone deleted]
--
------ Forwarded Message
From:
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2*** 07:53:50 -0800
To: <*****@*****.com>
Cc: <*****@*****.com>
Subject: Your email message was blocked
The following email message was blocked by MailMarshal:
From: *****@*****.com
To: *****@*****.com
Subject: FW: JUST FOR YOU !!!!!!!!!!!
Message: B438f1c8c0000.000000000001.0001.mml
Because it contains a sound file.
If you believe the message is business related, please contact *****@*****.com and request that the message be released. If no contact is made within 5 days the message will be automatically deleted.
MailMarshal Rule: Content Security (Inbound) : Block SOUND Files
NetIQ MailMarshal
Email Content Security
------ End of Forwarded Message
So I replied to him using our admin account:
From: Administrator
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2*** 9:48 AM
To: *****
Cc: *****
Subject: RE: Your email message was blocked
It would seem that your own company's IT staff have taken certain precautions with emails by using Symantec.
Our company also has certain policies that we follow to protect our users from viruses, worms, trojans, and spam. As you can imagine, we receive a lot of mail and therefore cannot inspect each one ourselves, so we use automation to do so. Certain email types fall into the category that tends to contain the aforementioned threats.
Examples of these types of emails are those that:
contain the text string 'FW:' in the subject
contain multiple exclamation points in the subject
contain a sound file attachment
of course there are many others which, again, is why we use software automation to check our email.
If you feel that discarding some emails is "playing big brother", I suggest that you go for one week disabling your virus software, pop-up blocker, spyware blocker, spam filter, and double click on each and every attachment you receive. Perhaps then you would feel differently about the existence of IT.
If, in fact, your email with the subject of "FW: JUST FOR YOU !!!!!!!!!!!" was "normal e-mail traffic" pertaining to business between ***** and *****, we will be more than happy to release the email from our quarantine.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Mr Sharpton
We all know it.
Al Sharpton is one of the most bigoted people in the world.
The reason that he can get away with it (contrary to the belief of many) is not because of the color of his skin. It is because he is a liberal that he has carte blanche to spout as much vitriol and hate as he wishes and still get a pass from the MSM. It is his ideology, not his race, that allows him to commit the very offenses that would draw swift retribution if uttered from the other side of the thought-spectrum.
Because Romney is a conservative, his religion is a point of discussion. No one seems to give a rip about Harry Reid. Who is Harry Reid you ask? Why, he's the Senate majority leader. You know, the Democrat majority. Oh yeah, and he's a Mormon.
Liberals are some of the most racist, sexist, bigoted hypocrites out there. A liberal thinks that if you are black, you can't take care of yourself. You can't succeed without some sort of help. You can't get into school, find a job, get a decent place to live, buy groceries, or make any important decision on your own. You must have your own community and clubs to belong to, your own awards shows and your own special set of 'leaders', Why? Because without Jesse and Al you wouldn't stand a chance. You are aren't good enough. 'The Man' Would hold you down.
I call BS.
This is treating a group of people like children. Children need the help of adults. They need to be fed, clothed, educated, and nourished emotionally. What happens to an adult when you consistently treat them like a child? You demean them and demoralize them. You take away their dignity and turn them into a dependant.
This is the current state of our welfare system in the United States. There are many people who will enter the welfare system and rise above it. They will work hard and motivate themselves to become independent. On the other hand there are those who will get caught in its seductive web of handouts and programs. Once you enter into the system, they want to keep you in it. You are encouraged to partake of more and more programs, not fewer. The system does not view itself as a stepping stone to betterment, but a way of life to be wallowed in for generations. So the deeper you sink into it, the harder it is to extricate yourself.
But back to the racist liberals. Not only do liberals enjoy dragging a whole segment of our population down into the quagmire of welfare, they treat every black person as if they need their socialist system to get from day to day. The very idea that black people need 'leaders', and affirmative action, and caucuses, and the NAACP's Image Awards makes it seem like being black puts you into some sort of exclusive club. That's: EX-clusive. Isn't that what segregation was all about? Let's flip it around. Suppose there were 'white leaders', and 'white programs' and 'the white caucus' in Congress, and the 'NAAWP White people's awards'.
But wait, you say, there *is* a NAAWP (founded by David Duke former KKK Grand Wizard). So how does the general populace look at this sort of thing, and how would we look at a white guy saying he was a 'white leader'? We would, and do, consider it abhorrent. These KKK guys are racist bigots. Are they concerned with the civil rights of white people, or about advancing white people? No, they exist because they hate black people. Why do they hate black people? Because they have different pigments in their skin.
What was it that Martin Luther King, Jr. said? Something about judging each other on the content of our character? How can this be done if there is constant reminders all around us that our society is hyper-aware of skin color? People of color have risen to positions of great notoriety. Those who are liberal seem to garner the most praise, while those who are conservative are denigrated and mocked in such racist ways that, if coming from a non-liberal person, would be grounds for immediate removal from whatever job they had.
Condoleezza Rice, being a conservative, was outrageously lampooned in political cartoons, and was called an Aunt Jemima by a white radio talk show host in 2004. I just checked that radio station's web page. He still works there. Do you think for one nanosecond that if this same guy had made this same comment about a liberal black woman, that he would have kept his job for three years? Try three minutes.
So there is a double standard out there. Check out Trent Lott's comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday party: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either". Since Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat, Lott's comments obviously meant that he supported Thurmond's position on segregation, and logically it follows that Lott must hate black people. So he was forced to resign his Senate position.
Al Sharpton, on the other hand, can say things like: ". . .I want to make it clear…that we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." This statement was in a demonstration responding to a Jewish man named Harari who owned a business in a building and raised rent on a subtenant's business who happened to be black. The building landlord (The United House of Prayer - one of the largest black landlords on 125th Street) had raised Harari's rent. Sharpton implied that Harari was trying to push out a black business owner because Harari must hate black people. So three months later, a black man storms Harari's business, shoots up the place, set fire to it, and eventually killed himself and seven others. Sharpton denied speaking at any rallies against Harari. But then tapes surfaced proving he had. He responded: "What's wrong with denouncing white interlopers?" If something similar happened after a conservative uttered such things, would not the charge be: "Hate speech leading to the deaths of seven people"? You be the judge.
Sharpton is unapologetic for most of the things he says. Evan after being proved wrong in the Brawly incident. Tawana Brawly falsely accused a former district attorney named Pagones of raping her. It was a terrible tale of abduction, rape, and using feces to write KKK on her. Sharpton said: "We stated openly that Steven Pagones did it. If we're lying, sue us, so we can go into court with you and prove you did it. Sue us—sue us right now." Pagones did sue – for defamation. The whole thing was found out to be a hoax. But only after death threats against him, and threats upon his child. Sharpton was ordered to pay $65K but refused. His friends eventually took up a collection and paid for him. He still refuses to apologize. Says Sharpton: "I did what I believed….They are asking me to grovel. They want black children to say they forced a black man coming out of the hard-core ghetto to his knees….Once you begin bending, it's 'did you bend today?' or 'I missed the apology, say it again.' Once you start compromising, you lose respect for yourself."
This is his attitude. To say whatever he wants and apologize for nothing. He demands apologies and retribution for the slightest hint that someone looked cross-eyed at a liberal person of color. He can incite people to riot, falsely accuse people of the most heinous of crimes, run his festering gob in front of cameras about injustices, and yet he is one of the worst offenders of what he decries.
He and his ilk are parodies of themselves. Unfortunately, they are doing damage to the race relations they pretend to advocate. This is no accident. They make their living on exploiting race disharmony, so it behooves them to continue to stir up hate and discord.
It shows how much of the 'Man' Sharpton turns out to be by encouraging self-destructive behavior and unproductive whining. There's your real news story: Who's holding you back? Who's the Man? Al Sharpton, that's who.
Al Sharpton is one of the most bigoted people in the world.
The reason that he can get away with it (contrary to the belief of many) is not because of the color of his skin. It is because he is a liberal that he has carte blanche to spout as much vitriol and hate as he wishes and still get a pass from the MSM. It is his ideology, not his race, that allows him to commit the very offenses that would draw swift retribution if uttered from the other side of the thought-spectrum.
Because Romney is a conservative, his religion is a point of discussion. No one seems to give a rip about Harry Reid. Who is Harry Reid you ask? Why, he's the Senate majority leader. You know, the Democrat majority. Oh yeah, and he's a Mormon.
Liberals are some of the most racist, sexist, bigoted hypocrites out there. A liberal thinks that if you are black, you can't take care of yourself. You can't succeed without some sort of help. You can't get into school, find a job, get a decent place to live, buy groceries, or make any important decision on your own. You must have your own community and clubs to belong to, your own awards shows and your own special set of 'leaders', Why? Because without Jesse and Al you wouldn't stand a chance. You are aren't good enough. 'The Man' Would hold you down.
I call BS.
This is treating a group of people like children. Children need the help of adults. They need to be fed, clothed, educated, and nourished emotionally. What happens to an adult when you consistently treat them like a child? You demean them and demoralize them. You take away their dignity and turn them into a dependant.
This is the current state of our welfare system in the United States. There are many people who will enter the welfare system and rise above it. They will work hard and motivate themselves to become independent. On the other hand there are those who will get caught in its seductive web of handouts and programs. Once you enter into the system, they want to keep you in it. You are encouraged to partake of more and more programs, not fewer. The system does not view itself as a stepping stone to betterment, but a way of life to be wallowed in for generations. So the deeper you sink into it, the harder it is to extricate yourself.
But back to the racist liberals. Not only do liberals enjoy dragging a whole segment of our population down into the quagmire of welfare, they treat every black person as if they need their socialist system to get from day to day. The very idea that black people need 'leaders', and affirmative action, and caucuses, and the NAACP's Image Awards makes it seem like being black puts you into some sort of exclusive club. That's: EX-clusive. Isn't that what segregation was all about? Let's flip it around. Suppose there were 'white leaders', and 'white programs' and 'the white caucus' in Congress, and the 'NAAWP White people's awards'.
But wait, you say, there *is* a NAAWP (founded by David Duke former KKK Grand Wizard). So how does the general populace look at this sort of thing, and how would we look at a white guy saying he was a 'white leader'? We would, and do, consider it abhorrent. These KKK guys are racist bigots. Are they concerned with the civil rights of white people, or about advancing white people? No, they exist because they hate black people. Why do they hate black people? Because they have different pigments in their skin.
What was it that Martin Luther King, Jr. said? Something about judging each other on the content of our character? How can this be done if there is constant reminders all around us that our society is hyper-aware of skin color? People of color have risen to positions of great notoriety. Those who are liberal seem to garner the most praise, while those who are conservative are denigrated and mocked in such racist ways that, if coming from a non-liberal person, would be grounds for immediate removal from whatever job they had.
Condoleezza Rice, being a conservative, was outrageously lampooned in political cartoons, and was called an Aunt Jemima by a white radio talk show host in 2004. I just checked that radio station's web page. He still works there. Do you think for one nanosecond that if this same guy had made this same comment about a liberal black woman, that he would have kept his job for three years? Try three minutes.
So there is a double standard out there. Check out Trent Lott's comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday party: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either". Since Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat, Lott's comments obviously meant that he supported Thurmond's position on segregation, and logically it follows that Lott must hate black people. So he was forced to resign his Senate position.
Al Sharpton, on the other hand, can say things like: ". . .I want to make it clear…that we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." This statement was in a demonstration responding to a Jewish man named Harari who owned a business in a building and raised rent on a subtenant's business who happened to be black. The building landlord (The United House of Prayer - one of the largest black landlords on 125th Street) had raised Harari's rent. Sharpton implied that Harari was trying to push out a black business owner because Harari must hate black people. So three months later, a black man storms Harari's business, shoots up the place, set fire to it, and eventually killed himself and seven others. Sharpton denied speaking at any rallies against Harari. But then tapes surfaced proving he had. He responded: "What's wrong with denouncing white interlopers?" If something similar happened after a conservative uttered such things, would not the charge be: "Hate speech leading to the deaths of seven people"? You be the judge.
Sharpton is unapologetic for most of the things he says. Evan after being proved wrong in the Brawly incident. Tawana Brawly falsely accused a former district attorney named Pagones of raping her. It was a terrible tale of abduction, rape, and using feces to write KKK on her. Sharpton said: "We stated openly that Steven Pagones did it. If we're lying, sue us, so we can go into court with you and prove you did it. Sue us—sue us right now." Pagones did sue – for defamation. The whole thing was found out to be a hoax. But only after death threats against him, and threats upon his child. Sharpton was ordered to pay $65K but refused. His friends eventually took up a collection and paid for him. He still refuses to apologize. Says Sharpton: "I did what I believed….They are asking me to grovel. They want black children to say they forced a black man coming out of the hard-core ghetto to his knees….Once you begin bending, it's 'did you bend today?' or 'I missed the apology, say it again.' Once you start compromising, you lose respect for yourself."
This is his attitude. To say whatever he wants and apologize for nothing. He demands apologies and retribution for the slightest hint that someone looked cross-eyed at a liberal person of color. He can incite people to riot, falsely accuse people of the most heinous of crimes, run his festering gob in front of cameras about injustices, and yet he is one of the worst offenders of what he decries.
He and his ilk are parodies of themselves. Unfortunately, they are doing damage to the race relations they pretend to advocate. This is no accident. They make their living on exploiting race disharmony, so it behooves them to continue to stir up hate and discord.
It shows how much of the 'Man' Sharpton turns out to be by encouraging self-destructive behavior and unproductive whining. There's your real news story: Who's holding you back? Who's the Man? Al Sharpton, that's who.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
PBS Prejudice and Ignorance
Most of my comments are of a political vein or in relation to human nature, but today I will take a short detour.
As a follow up to my previous entry, and being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I thought I would make a few comments regarding the recent PBS show about my religion.
I admit not watching the entire thing. I actually turned it on halfway through the first night so I don't know what went on in the first hour, but the second hour was what I would consider almost completely anti-Mormon. The only reason an episode like the Mountain Meadows Massacre would be featured for half an hour is to imply that the church itself, and not some rogue members, was responsible for the murders. It offered the idea that the president of the church ordered the killings. It implied that the church members are mindless automatons that will blindly do whatever the church says up to and including murder. Although they did not go so far as to imply it, the insinuation that follows is that mormons are one step away from hijacking jets and flying them into buildings. The last half hour of the first episode was about polygamy. There are a lot of things I could say about this practice, and it is part of church history, but I felt that it was extremely misleading to show contemporary people who practice it. These people do not belong to the church. They probably never were members. It has been over 100 years since anyone in the church has practiced polygamy. Showing people from an offshoot apostate group is simply continuing the misconception that this practice is being done by actual mormons. In my opinion, this was the very reason they were shown. After all, its what people expected to see, so the filmmaker gave them what they wanted. This would be like showing a group of people calling themselves Catholics selling indulgences and persecuting people for saying the earth orbited the sun. Just because they call themselves Catholic and practice something that the Catholic church did hundreds of years ago, doesn't mean they are really Catholic.
The second night I watched even less. I watched for about a total of half an hour. What I saw was an ex-mormon featured prominently. Ask yourself what motive an ex-member of anything might have. Would they be more or less inclined to make their former association look good. The part I watched had her talking about the high council and implying that members are subjected to some sort of inquisition and then unjustly kicked out. Now, as far as I know, the vast majority of members do not ever deal with sitting in front of the high council, and if she had been called in and then excommunicated, it was probably because there was a good reason, and she was unrepentant. I couldn't figure out the reason why she gave a description of the attitude the members of the council had towards her afterwards. She said that they all shook her hand and were impressed with her. Was she saying that even though they were impressed with her they kicked her out for some hidden, sinister reason? Was she calling them hypocrites because she was impressive and yet still got kicked out? Seems to me like the most Christian thing to do after you excommunicate someone is show love towards them.
Anyhow, it reminded me of one of the talking heads shows on CNN: a liberal host, three liberal panelists, and one conservative sitting around a table. Most of the time the one conservative is simply a moderate, or perhaps one who isn't very articulate. One point of view dominates the discussion, while the other is there as a whipping boy made to appear foolish, or at the very best cannot get their entire message out, and the parts they can squeeze in edgewise are rebutted four times with no chance of response.
The parts of "The Mormons" I watched were just like that. A 10 second clip of the current president of the church explaining to the world that polygamy is not practiced by the church and those who are caught are excommunicated. Follow that up with 15 minutes of so-called 'fundamentalists' practicing polygamy. What is the average viewer going to take away? Just what the filmmaker wanted them to.
Maybe I watched all the wrong parts before I couldn't stomach any more. Maybe the parts I didn't watch were glorious endorsements of the majority of the members of the church. Maybe one day I'll catch it on a rerun to see.
But as an example of what I am talking about, I want to post the text of an article written by a journalist writing in the Courier-Journal out of Louisville, Kentucky. He talks about Mitt Romney and the PBS show, and gets at least 4 basic facts utterly wrong.
This is what I expect will be the result of all the media attention given to Mormons. Ignorance on top of ignorance.
There is one thing I ask you. If you have questions about McDonalds, do you ask Burger King?
Depend on news stories, movies, or websites put together by non-members then expect to remain ignorant. If you want to know what mormons really believe, then go to www.mormon.org. If you want to hear about anti-mormon stuff, you'll find it and you will be satisfied because its what you want to hear.
As a follow up to my previous entry, and being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I thought I would make a few comments regarding the recent PBS show about my religion.
I admit not watching the entire thing. I actually turned it on halfway through the first night so I don't know what went on in the first hour, but the second hour was what I would consider almost completely anti-Mormon. The only reason an episode like the Mountain Meadows Massacre would be featured for half an hour is to imply that the church itself, and not some rogue members, was responsible for the murders. It offered the idea that the president of the church ordered the killings. It implied that the church members are mindless automatons that will blindly do whatever the church says up to and including murder. Although they did not go so far as to imply it, the insinuation that follows is that mormons are one step away from hijacking jets and flying them into buildings. The last half hour of the first episode was about polygamy. There are a lot of things I could say about this practice, and it is part of church history, but I felt that it was extremely misleading to show contemporary people who practice it. These people do not belong to the church. They probably never were members. It has been over 100 years since anyone in the church has practiced polygamy. Showing people from an offshoot apostate group is simply continuing the misconception that this practice is being done by actual mormons. In my opinion, this was the very reason they were shown. After all, its what people expected to see, so the filmmaker gave them what they wanted. This would be like showing a group of people calling themselves Catholics selling indulgences and persecuting people for saying the earth orbited the sun. Just because they call themselves Catholic and practice something that the Catholic church did hundreds of years ago, doesn't mean they are really Catholic.
The second night I watched even less. I watched for about a total of half an hour. What I saw was an ex-mormon featured prominently. Ask yourself what motive an ex-member of anything might have. Would they be more or less inclined to make their former association look good. The part I watched had her talking about the high council and implying that members are subjected to some sort of inquisition and then unjustly kicked out. Now, as far as I know, the vast majority of members do not ever deal with sitting in front of the high council, and if she had been called in and then excommunicated, it was probably because there was a good reason, and she was unrepentant. I couldn't figure out the reason why she gave a description of the attitude the members of the council had towards her afterwards. She said that they all shook her hand and were impressed with her. Was she saying that even though they were impressed with her they kicked her out for some hidden, sinister reason? Was she calling them hypocrites because she was impressive and yet still got kicked out? Seems to me like the most Christian thing to do after you excommunicate someone is show love towards them.
Anyhow, it reminded me of one of the talking heads shows on CNN: a liberal host, three liberal panelists, and one conservative sitting around a table. Most of the time the one conservative is simply a moderate, or perhaps one who isn't very articulate. One point of view dominates the discussion, while the other is there as a whipping boy made to appear foolish, or at the very best cannot get their entire message out, and the parts they can squeeze in edgewise are rebutted four times with no chance of response.
The parts of "The Mormons" I watched were just like that. A 10 second clip of the current president of the church explaining to the world that polygamy is not practiced by the church and those who are caught are excommunicated. Follow that up with 15 minutes of so-called 'fundamentalists' practicing polygamy. What is the average viewer going to take away? Just what the filmmaker wanted them to.
Maybe I watched all the wrong parts before I couldn't stomach any more. Maybe the parts I didn't watch were glorious endorsements of the majority of the members of the church. Maybe one day I'll catch it on a rerun to see.
But as an example of what I am talking about, I want to post the text of an article written by a journalist writing in the Courier-Journal out of Louisville, Kentucky. He talks about Mitt Romney and the PBS show, and gets at least 4 basic facts utterly wrong.
Mormon faith examined in two-night Frontline special
by
Tom Dorsey
Could Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, become America's first Mormon president?
Unless you're a Mormon and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you probably don't know much about Mormons except that they display amazing politeness when they come to your door or stop you on the street.
If you want to know what Mormons believe, and don't believe, check out a two-night, four-hour "Frontline -- American Experience" on KET2. "The Mormons" airs at 9 tonight and tomorrow night.
Many media outlets have said Romney's religion will be his biggest obstacle in getting elected. On the other hand, a lot of people in Massachusetts, who aren't Mormons, voted him into office, so it may be possible to overcome the hurdle as John Kennedy did in becoming the country's first Catholic president.
Romney wouldn't be the first major Mormon figure in American politics, though. Mormons have served in presidential cabinets. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is a Mormon, although the church has been much more identified with the Republican Party than the Democrats.
Four hours is probably too much for most people, but the project is an interesting exploration of what the documentary calls "one of the most compelling and misunderstood religions of our time."
The church was founded in the 19th century by Joseph Smith. He said the prophet Mormon, who lived in the Americas in 4 A.D., was told by God to compile the record of his people and their dealings with God into a book.
His son buried the work and then returned 1,400 years later as an angel telling Smith where to find it in 1827. Smith founded the religion, which had many controversial beliefs, not the least of which was that a man could have many wives.
The film points out that 19th-century Mormons suffered persecution, including the burning of their homes, the raping of their women and the confiscation of their property in Ohio, Illinois and Missouri. After Smith was assassinated in 1844, Brigham Young became their leader.
They later moved to Utah to establish their home base. The church has changed over the last two centuries and especially since World War II, when it began missionary work to expand its message.
The program says it is one of the fast-growing and richest churches in America per capita. Each member must give 10 percent of his or her paycheck to the church. There are close to 13 million Mormons worldwide, most of them in this country.
But Mormons remain a mystery to many of their countrymen and are still treated as outcasts by some out of ignorance. People love to hear the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing Christmas carols, but church members remain an object of suspicion if not persecution.
Much of their image problem can be traced to plural marriage, which the church officially denounced long ago but which some members still practice. Rules that say only men can be ordained have been a hang-up for feminists, but that's a criticism they share with other faiths. So is their opposition to gay relationships.
The documentary suggests that the Mormon church, like other religions, may have to evolve to remain relevant and to expand while retaining its beliefs and identity.
by
Tom Dorsey
Could Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, become America's first Mormon president?
Unless you're a Mormon and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you probably don't know much about Mormons except that they display amazing politeness when they come to your door or stop you on the street.
If you want to know what Mormons believe, and don't believe, check out a two-night, four-hour "Frontline -- American Experience" on KET2. "The Mormons" airs at 9 tonight and tomorrow night.
Many media outlets have said Romney's religion will be his biggest obstacle in getting elected. On the other hand, a lot of people in Massachusetts, who aren't Mormons, voted him into office, so it may be possible to overcome the hurdle as John Kennedy did in becoming the country's first Catholic president.
Romney wouldn't be the first major Mormon figure in American politics, though. Mormons have served in presidential cabinets. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is a Mormon, although the church has been much more identified with the Republican Party than the Democrats.
Four hours is probably too much for most people, but the project is an interesting exploration of what the documentary calls "one of the most compelling and misunderstood religions of our time."
The church was founded in the 19th century by Joseph Smith. He said the prophet Mormon, who lived in the Americas in 4 A.D., was told by God to compile the record of his people and their dealings with God into a book.
His son buried the work and then returned 1,400 years later as an angel telling Smith where to find it in 1827. Smith founded the religion, which had many controversial beliefs, not the least of which was that a man could have many wives.
The film points out that 19th-century Mormons suffered persecution, including the burning of their homes, the raping of their women and the confiscation of their property in Ohio, Illinois and Missouri. After Smith was assassinated in 1844, Brigham Young became their leader.
They later moved to Utah to establish their home base. The church has changed over the last two centuries and especially since World War II, when it began missionary work to expand its message.
The program says it is one of the fast-growing and richest churches in America per capita. Each member must give 10 percent of his or her paycheck to the church. There are close to 13 million Mormons worldwide, most of them in this country.
But Mormons remain a mystery to many of their countrymen and are still treated as outcasts by some out of ignorance. People love to hear the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing Christmas carols, but church members remain an object of suspicion if not persecution.
Much of their image problem can be traced to plural marriage, which the church officially denounced long ago but which some members still practice. Rules that say only men can be ordained have been a hang-up for feminists, but that's a criticism they share with other faiths. So is their opposition to gay relationships.
The documentary suggests that the Mormon church, like other religions, may have to evolve to remain relevant and to expand while retaining its beliefs and identity.
This is what I expect will be the result of all the media attention given to Mormons. Ignorance on top of ignorance.
There is one thing I ask you. If you have questions about McDonalds, do you ask Burger King?
Depend on news stories, movies, or websites put together by non-members then expect to remain ignorant. If you want to know what mormons really believe, then go to www.mormon.org. If you want to hear about anti-mormon stuff, you'll find it and you will be satisfied because its what you want to hear.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Perspective
Lets pick any group of people and imagine four hours of film devoted to discussing them, but the film was put together by someone on the outside of the group.
For instance, let's say that you wanted to watch a film on American History put together by the Chinese. Ok. . . perhaps the Chinese are more antagonistic towards the US than most countries, so we choose maybe the British or Spain or Mexico. Or maybe the Native Americans. How about we let Canada do it?
See? No matter who is chosen, there will be certain biases brought to the table. One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter". Lincoln's decision to send the Grand Army of the Republic to keep the South from seceding can be looked on as triumph of Union, or the death of State's rights.
A filmmaker's point of view will determine which facts they choose and in what light to place them.
Depending on whether you belong to the group or not, you may have differing feelings on an outsider presenting a particular group's culture, characteristics and beliefs. One may argue that in order to get a 'balanced' presentation, an outsider must do it, because in insider will tend to slant things their own way. This is perhaps true in almost all cases, but would not the converse equally be true? Won't an outsider slant things their way as well?
One of the best films I have seen is "Tora! Tora! Tora!" which showed both US and Japanese perspectives of events leading up to the attack of the naval base at Pearl Harbor. We got both points of view from separate film crews headed by US and Japanese directors.
Your point of view determines much of what you get out of a filmed presentation. By that same token, the point of view presented has a lot to do with the personal beliefs and biases that the filmmaker has.
So how do you know if a film presented as fact is actually fact? Consider: (for those of you who are Bible readers) The serpent in the garden told Eve a truth and accompanied it with a lie. Even if you are non-religious, or believe the story to be allegory, you can still see the value in this narrative. We learn that evil will often try to convince you of lies by packaging it alongside truths.
You should be skeptical. The commercials on TV with the Bill-Gates-alike as the "PC", and the younger, hipper kid as the "Mac" are a prime example of what I am talking about. The commercials imply that one of the advantages Macs have over PCs is that they are not susceptible to viruses or programming bugs. One simple search on Norton's product page will show you that they sell antivirus for Mac. Why would they do that if Macs are immune? And programming bugs can hardly be avoided no matter what platform a software is written for. Operating systems crash. It doesn't matter if it's Vista, OSX, some flavor of Linux or BSD, a human wrote it. Humans make mistakes. Humans write bugs into their code. The Mac commercials paint a picture of perfection, while making PCs seem like the stupid or boring choice.
Imagine how biased these films would be:
A Beef industry promo made by vegetarians.
A look at American benevolence made by Al Jazeera.
Taiwan's sovereignty discussed by the Peoples Republic of China.
Anything by Michael Moore
Remember that 'facts' can be presented in a myriad of ways. The way things are worded can be in ominous tones or optimistic, the colorization can be washed out or vibrant, the music can be plodding along in a minor key or trip along brightly. Context can be omitted, motives can be implied, statistics can be quoted. A person completely ignorant of a particular subject matter can end up worse than ignorant after watching a skillful lie wrapped in truths. It is done every day on a number of subjects. Global Warming is just one example.
The old adage is true: "Don't believe everything you hear", but perhaps a better way to phrase it would be:
"Don't believe everything you want to hear."
For instance, let's say that you wanted to watch a film on American History put together by the Chinese. Ok. . . perhaps the Chinese are more antagonistic towards the US than most countries, so we choose maybe the British or Spain or Mexico. Or maybe the Native Americans. How about we let Canada do it?
See? No matter who is chosen, there will be certain biases brought to the table. One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter". Lincoln's decision to send the Grand Army of the Republic to keep the South from seceding can be looked on as triumph of Union, or the death of State's rights.
A filmmaker's point of view will determine which facts they choose and in what light to place them.
Depending on whether you belong to the group or not, you may have differing feelings on an outsider presenting a particular group's culture, characteristics and beliefs. One may argue that in order to get a 'balanced' presentation, an outsider must do it, because in insider will tend to slant things their own way. This is perhaps true in almost all cases, but would not the converse equally be true? Won't an outsider slant things their way as well?
One of the best films I have seen is "Tora! Tora! Tora!" which showed both US and Japanese perspectives of events leading up to the attack of the naval base at Pearl Harbor. We got both points of view from separate film crews headed by US and Japanese directors.
Your point of view determines much of what you get out of a filmed presentation. By that same token, the point of view presented has a lot to do with the personal beliefs and biases that the filmmaker has.
So how do you know if a film presented as fact is actually fact? Consider: (for those of you who are Bible readers) The serpent in the garden told Eve a truth and accompanied it with a lie. Even if you are non-religious, or believe the story to be allegory, you can still see the value in this narrative. We learn that evil will often try to convince you of lies by packaging it alongside truths.
You should be skeptical. The commercials on TV with the Bill-Gates-alike as the "PC", and the younger, hipper kid as the "Mac" are a prime example of what I am talking about. The commercials imply that one of the advantages Macs have over PCs is that they are not susceptible to viruses or programming bugs. One simple search on Norton's product page will show you that they sell antivirus for Mac. Why would they do that if Macs are immune? And programming bugs can hardly be avoided no matter what platform a software is written for. Operating systems crash. It doesn't matter if it's Vista, OSX, some flavor of Linux or BSD, a human wrote it. Humans make mistakes. Humans write bugs into their code. The Mac commercials paint a picture of perfection, while making PCs seem like the stupid or boring choice.
Imagine how biased these films would be:
A Beef industry promo made by vegetarians.
A look at American benevolence made by Al Jazeera.
Taiwan's sovereignty discussed by the Peoples Republic of China.
Anything by Michael Moore
Remember that 'facts' can be presented in a myriad of ways. The way things are worded can be in ominous tones or optimistic, the colorization can be washed out or vibrant, the music can be plodding along in a minor key or trip along brightly. Context can be omitted, motives can be implied, statistics can be quoted. A person completely ignorant of a particular subject matter can end up worse than ignorant after watching a skillful lie wrapped in truths. It is done every day on a number of subjects. Global Warming is just one example.
The old adage is true: "Don't believe everything you hear", but perhaps a better way to phrase it would be:
"Don't believe everything you want to hear."
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
A Condescending Pat on the Head
[read like that movie announcer guy]
I graduated from High School and then later on from College. I don't remember going through any kind of ceremony for completing kindergarten, grade 5, middle school (used to be called Jr. High), or anything else. But I do remember receiving certificates of participation. I also remember receiving ribbons or trophies for winning races or other such competitions. Guess whether I saved the certificates or the trophies? How many framed certificates of participation do you have on your wall?
We are bringing up our children with the idea that all they have to do is go along with the crowd; all they have to do is grow a year older; all they have to do is participate, and they will have earned our praise and should feel like they have accomplished something. Do our children really need this sort of condescension? Does it really help them to say that no one is keeping score? Is self-esteem more important than correction or direction?
How is it that the so-called 'greatest' generation won a world war, and turned the US into an industrial and economic superpower, but their parents spanked them with switches and made them walk to school in the snow? Shouldn't they have been emotional wrecks unable to contribute to the good of the society?
The bar has been lowered to the least common denominator. Those who wish to excel are only allowed to do so in very controlled situations. Many kids today do not want to excel. They don't have to. 'A's are handed out too easily. Every grade level has lowered expectations of what should be learned from just a generation ago. Here is one harbinger of the downfall of Western Civilization: It is possible to make a living as a professional skateboarder. (This could also be a subject of another blog: the difference between so-called sports and recreational activities.)
With the bar being lowered, we reward the mundane (we want the children to feel better about themselves) and discourage the curve busters (we don't want the other children to feel inadequate). What are the consequences of elevating losers to normalcy and dragging winners down to stand with the common folks? We become a nation of mediocre underachievers.
If we remove the competitive nature of life, we remove incentive to excel. Perhaps this is what was intended all along. If we grow up learning less and less each succeeding generation, if we fail to learn history or the art of logical thinking, if we are ingrained with the idea that we should do just enough to get by and nothing more, then we are ripe for a fall.
What does this have to do with watching your kid in a 5th grade graduation ceremony? Maybe nothing, maybe everything. This seemingly innocuous pat on the head might be a way to encourage and reward a child for a job well done, but it might also be a symptom of a decaying society, broadcasting to the world that we are both unaware and unwilling to fight complacency within.
Put that on a Hallmark card.
In a world where everyone is special, but non-conformity is unacceptable.
In a game where there are no losers, but there are no winners.
In a time when feeling better about yourself is more important than actually achieving something.
Today is: 5th Grade Graduation day.
I graduated from High School and then later on from College. I don't remember going through any kind of ceremony for completing kindergarten, grade 5, middle school (used to be called Jr. High), or anything else. But I do remember receiving certificates of participation. I also remember receiving ribbons or trophies for winning races or other such competitions. Guess whether I saved the certificates or the trophies? How many framed certificates of participation do you have on your wall?
We are bringing up our children with the idea that all they have to do is go along with the crowd; all they have to do is grow a year older; all they have to do is participate, and they will have earned our praise and should feel like they have accomplished something. Do our children really need this sort of condescension? Does it really help them to say that no one is keeping score? Is self-esteem more important than correction or direction?
How is it that the so-called 'greatest' generation won a world war, and turned the US into an industrial and economic superpower, but their parents spanked them with switches and made them walk to school in the snow? Shouldn't they have been emotional wrecks unable to contribute to the good of the society?
The bar has been lowered to the least common denominator. Those who wish to excel are only allowed to do so in very controlled situations. Many kids today do not want to excel. They don't have to. 'A's are handed out too easily. Every grade level has lowered expectations of what should be learned from just a generation ago. Here is one harbinger of the downfall of Western Civilization: It is possible to make a living as a professional skateboarder. (This could also be a subject of another blog: the difference between so-called sports and recreational activities.)
With the bar being lowered, we reward the mundane (we want the children to feel better about themselves) and discourage the curve busters (we don't want the other children to feel inadequate). What are the consequences of elevating losers to normalcy and dragging winners down to stand with the common folks? We become a nation of mediocre underachievers.
If we remove the competitive nature of life, we remove incentive to excel. Perhaps this is what was intended all along. If we grow up learning less and less each succeeding generation, if we fail to learn history or the art of logical thinking, if we are ingrained with the idea that we should do just enough to get by and nothing more, then we are ripe for a fall.
What does this have to do with watching your kid in a 5th grade graduation ceremony? Maybe nothing, maybe everything. This seemingly innocuous pat on the head might be a way to encourage and reward a child for a job well done, but it might also be a symptom of a decaying society, broadcasting to the world that we are both unaware and unwilling to fight complacency within.
Put that on a Hallmark card.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
School shootings and what to do about them
"Something has to be done!"
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but sometimes bad things happen, and there is nothing you or anyone can do to stop it.
You can try to institute gun control, but this only removes guns from the hands of the law-abiding citizens.
You can try to diagnose mental problems in people early, but then you become Big Brother with a cadre of thought police running around forcing drugs on people.
You can try to 'educate' people but there is a certain percentage of people out there who either can not or will not absorb the letter and spirit of the lesson you intend to teach.
Face it. Stuff happens. Accidents happen. Disease happens. Evil happens. People get sick. People die.
And while some things can be done to reduce the bad things that happen, there is no way to prevent anything 100%. Its natural for us all to get that knee-jerk reaction that something more could have been done. In those times when a seemingly senseless act of violence has harmed or killed someone, we can commiserate with the ones affected by it. We express our outrage, and in our anger at the unfairness of it all we fumble about pointing fingers at anyone and anything that might have been at fault.
Let the lawsuits begin. We have to punish those who were negligent, we have to compensate those who have had a loss. (Does anyone else think it seems wrong that a death of a loved one should turn into a lottery ticket?) While we struggle to find an answer that will provide catharsis, we feel we need to "do" something. Its almost a let-down when the one who has committed the offense (as in this most recent case) kills themselves. Now there is no one from which to exact revenge.
In most cases, time is this only thing to come close to healing our wounds. Money wont do it. Revenge wont do it. Time does not even completely heal us. Perhaps a lesson can be learned from how the Amish handled the senseless murders of their children in October 2006.
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but sometimes bad things happen, and there is nothing you or anyone can do to stop it.
You can try to institute gun control, but this only removes guns from the hands of the law-abiding citizens.
You can try to diagnose mental problems in people early, but then you become Big Brother with a cadre of thought police running around forcing drugs on people.
You can try to 'educate' people but there is a certain percentage of people out there who either can not or will not absorb the letter and spirit of the lesson you intend to teach.
Face it. Stuff happens. Accidents happen. Disease happens. Evil happens. People get sick. People die.
And while some things can be done to reduce the bad things that happen, there is no way to prevent anything 100%. Its natural for us all to get that knee-jerk reaction that something more could have been done. In those times when a seemingly senseless act of violence has harmed or killed someone, we can commiserate with the ones affected by it. We express our outrage, and in our anger at the unfairness of it all we fumble about pointing fingers at anyone and anything that might have been at fault.
Let the lawsuits begin. We have to punish those who were negligent, we have to compensate those who have had a loss. (Does anyone else think it seems wrong that a death of a loved one should turn into a lottery ticket?) While we struggle to find an answer that will provide catharsis, we feel we need to "do" something. Its almost a let-down when the one who has committed the offense (as in this most recent case) kills themselves. Now there is no one from which to exact revenge.
In most cases, time is this only thing to come close to healing our wounds. Money wont do it. Revenge wont do it. Time does not even completely heal us. Perhaps a lesson can be learned from how the Amish handled the senseless murders of their children in October 2006.
you_name_it -- ist
With the current Imus thing in the news it's time again to point fingers of accusation. Buckle up, it's a long blog.
We each belong to any number of demographic groups at a given time. One person may be 63, a woman, have white skin, and regularly attends the local bingo games at the catholic church. Another may be a male black man in his 20s who attends the local community college. Another might be a hispanic woman in her 30s raising 2 children, married to an asian man, and belongs to the local wiccan coven. Still another may be an overweight hermaphrodite with 11 fingers, 62 tattoos, 14 cats, 2 goats, a ferrari, belongs to the progressive party, shops at walmart, holds a blackbelt in judo, eats garlic and peanut butter sandwiches and helps out down at the local soup kitchen.
If any one of us belongs to a particular demographic, we can feel free to poke fun at that demographic using stereotypes or otherwise. After all, if I'm one of them, then it's self-deprecating humor. It's ok. But if someone from outside my group so much as even mentions that I belong to the group I'm in, they deserve to be pilloried and then shunned.
Today, I was discussing this with a friend at work. He then called me an "idiot", for which my knee jerk reaction was to turn and start to hurl back a return volley. But then it occurred to me: "Wait it's ok. He's an idiot too!"
Is this the kind of world we want? A populace so hyper-aware of their "diversity" that they take offence at the slightest perceived "insensitivity" of another?
Lets take a look at what people say within their own demographic groups. Without going to too much trouble you can find examples of people who use the very words (and worse), that if used from outside their group, would get them riled up and frothing at the mouth. Take any racial slur. Use one referring to your own demographic and you are safe. Use one out of your own demographic and it is wrong.
I ask this: why isn't always wrong? Why isn't it always offensive? Conversely, if it is ok to use a particular word to describe people within your group, why can't another group use it to describe your group? Where is the outrage when these same words are used and glorified in music and stand-up comedy? Consider for a moment why some people are accused of being a traitor to their group.
We humans have the coinciding need to be accepted and to be unique. We want to feel like we belong. To feel like people like us. Yet we don't want to be exactly like the next guy. Many of us will attempt to fulfill both these needs by consciously joining what we consider to be an atypical group. Most of us, when we rebel against the perceived norms of society, we want to belong to a group with similar ideas, dress, language, etc. Many people actually enjoy the feeling they get when they think people are looking down on them. Especially if they can commiserate with their group. In a way, it makes them feel superior to others.
In today's US culture, it is ridiculous to think that there may be a majority of people in one demographic who has it out for any other group. "The Man" does not exist. Not in the form of a rich, fat, white, cigar smoking suit behind a desk plotting to hold down your group.
If your group is being held down, it is likely by those people who are professing to help you. Why do you need help? Is life unfair for you? Get over it, life is unfair for all of us. Whoever told you life is fair was lying. The examples of people overcoming the utter crap that life handed them are so numerous that it ceases to be anecdotal, and becomes demonstrative of what can be accomplished if one is willing to work hard and stop whining about the roadblocks put in their way.
When it comes to race, the US is no different than many other countries out there. We have a lot of people living here who belong to a lot of different ethnic groups. There is a lot of history involved with how we were peopled. Many of us have ancestors who chose to come to this country hundreds of years ago. Many of us are only one or two generations living here. Others had ancestors who were forced to come here against their will. Still others' ancestors came here thousands of years ago thus gaining them the designation "native". (This should probably be the subject of another blog: just how long do you ancestors have to have lived in a place to be bestowed the title 'native'? Mine have been here for 350+ years, but I digress.)
So here we are, living on land that was conquered, occupied, bought, swindled, annexed, or otherwise taken. We are a people who were considered indigenous, colonists, slaves, immigrants or aliens (dang Canadians taking over). As a whole, we get along better than most countries. As individuals we have problems with each other. But are those problems race based? I don't buy it. People would find a reason to be irritated with their neighbor no matter what color, creed, sex, political party they are, or what jeans they wear.
What is racism? The dictionary says this:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
How many people that you know fall within the first definition? Not many? Think again. There are millions who subscribe wholeheartedly to the first half of that sentence. Are you aware of government laws mandating we look at the color of someone's skin? In order to determine whether discrimination is going on, we must discriminate. In order to make up for prejudice, we must be prejudicial. In order to make things more fair we must be unfair to some.
I suspect that the most racist people in America are those who keep pointing the finger at others. The media is in the business of making money. It is in their best interest to generate news where there is none. The MSM is one of the biggest culprits when it comes to inciting racial disharmony. Every time someone who is not a 20 something white male accomplishes something, there has to be a story about the "first _______-American to become a _________".
If the media keeps recognizing "achievements" of people in light of their demographic group: their race, color, sex, religion, orientation, etc. then how is the public ever to accept people for the content of their character?
We each belong to any number of demographic groups at a given time. One person may be 63, a woman, have white skin, and regularly attends the local bingo games at the catholic church. Another may be a male black man in his 20s who attends the local community college. Another might be a hispanic woman in her 30s raising 2 children, married to an asian man, and belongs to the local wiccan coven. Still another may be an overweight hermaphrodite with 11 fingers, 62 tattoos, 14 cats, 2 goats, a ferrari, belongs to the progressive party, shops at walmart, holds a blackbelt in judo, eats garlic and peanut butter sandwiches and helps out down at the local soup kitchen.
If any one of us belongs to a particular demographic, we can feel free to poke fun at that demographic using stereotypes or otherwise. After all, if I'm one of them, then it's self-deprecating humor. It's ok. But if someone from outside my group so much as even mentions that I belong to the group I'm in, they deserve to be pilloried and then shunned.
Today, I was discussing this with a friend at work. He then called me an "idiot", for which my knee jerk reaction was to turn and start to hurl back a return volley. But then it occurred to me: "Wait it's ok. He's an idiot too!"
Is this the kind of world we want? A populace so hyper-aware of their "diversity" that they take offence at the slightest perceived "insensitivity" of another?
Lets take a look at what people say within their own demographic groups. Without going to too much trouble you can find examples of people who use the very words (and worse), that if used from outside their group, would get them riled up and frothing at the mouth. Take any racial slur. Use one referring to your own demographic and you are safe. Use one out of your own demographic and it is wrong.
I ask this: why isn't always wrong? Why isn't it always offensive? Conversely, if it is ok to use a particular word to describe people within your group, why can't another group use it to describe your group? Where is the outrage when these same words are used and glorified in music and stand-up comedy? Consider for a moment why some people are accused of being a traitor to their group.
We humans have the coinciding need to be accepted and to be unique. We want to feel like we belong. To feel like people like us. Yet we don't want to be exactly like the next guy. Many of us will attempt to fulfill both these needs by consciously joining what we consider to be an atypical group. Most of us, when we rebel against the perceived norms of society, we want to belong to a group with similar ideas, dress, language, etc. Many people actually enjoy the feeling they get when they think people are looking down on them. Especially if they can commiserate with their group. In a way, it makes them feel superior to others.
In today's US culture, it is ridiculous to think that there may be a majority of people in one demographic who has it out for any other group. "The Man" does not exist. Not in the form of a rich, fat, white, cigar smoking suit behind a desk plotting to hold down your group.
If your group is being held down, it is likely by those people who are professing to help you. Why do you need help? Is life unfair for you? Get over it, life is unfair for all of us. Whoever told you life is fair was lying. The examples of people overcoming the utter crap that life handed them are so numerous that it ceases to be anecdotal, and becomes demonstrative of what can be accomplished if one is willing to work hard and stop whining about the roadblocks put in their way.
When it comes to race, the US is no different than many other countries out there. We have a lot of people living here who belong to a lot of different ethnic groups. There is a lot of history involved with how we were peopled. Many of us have ancestors who chose to come to this country hundreds of years ago. Many of us are only one or two generations living here. Others had ancestors who were forced to come here against their will. Still others' ancestors came here thousands of years ago thus gaining them the designation "native". (This should probably be the subject of another blog: just how long do you ancestors have to have lived in a place to be bestowed the title 'native'? Mine have been here for 350+ years, but I digress.)
So here we are, living on land that was conquered, occupied, bought, swindled, annexed, or otherwise taken. We are a people who were considered indigenous, colonists, slaves, immigrants or aliens (dang Canadians taking over). As a whole, we get along better than most countries. As individuals we have problems with each other. But are those problems race based? I don't buy it. People would find a reason to be irritated with their neighbor no matter what color, creed, sex, political party they are, or what jeans they wear.
What is racism? The dictionary says this:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
How many people that you know fall within the first definition? Not many? Think again. There are millions who subscribe wholeheartedly to the first half of that sentence. Are you aware of government laws mandating we look at the color of someone's skin? In order to determine whether discrimination is going on, we must discriminate. In order to make up for prejudice, we must be prejudicial. In order to make things more fair we must be unfair to some.
I suspect that the most racist people in America are those who keep pointing the finger at others. The media is in the business of making money. It is in their best interest to generate news where there is none. The MSM is one of the biggest culprits when it comes to inciting racial disharmony. Every time someone who is not a 20 something white male accomplishes something, there has to be a story about the "first _______-American to become a _________".
If the media keeps recognizing "achievements" of people in light of their demographic group: their race, color, sex, religion, orientation, etc. then how is the public ever to accept people for the content of their character?
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Answer to Obama
On Yahoo, there is an Answers section where people can post questions and receive answers from the community of users.
Most of the time, questions posed and answers given are pure drivel.
Recently, I spotted a question from Barack Obama:
Even though his question is self-serving, I felt compelled to answer:
The whole point of electing people to office is so that we don't involve ourselves in every ticky-tacky decision that has to be made. Ideally, we elect people we trust to make the right decisions.
When generation after generation of lawyers and professional politicians betray the public trust by wasting time and money, by lying and committing fraud, by making the political world so distasteful as to sicken ones stomach, then the results are a public either so apathetic, so ignorant, or so sycophantic that voting might as well be done by monkeys throwing darts.
Most politicians, I am sure, start out as idealistic go-getters wishing to make things better. The trouble is, they are either completely wrong going about it, or they become corrupt or coerced after only a few years.
How can we engage more people in this process of mud-dragging, waste, corruption, lies, scandal, good intentions and flagstones to hell?
Here are some ideas:
Most of the time, questions posed and answers given are pure drivel.
Recently, I spotted a question from Barack Obama:
First of all, if anyone thinks that Obama is really asking an honest question here, they need to go back to 2nd grade. What he is doing is what Coke and Pepsi do. Competing for product placement shelf space. His face is now sitting on Yahoo Answers and has received over 12000 replies so far. Whether you like Coke or Pepsi, it doesnt matter. Their brands are now ubiquitous due to advertising. Can you say the same for RC?How can we engage more people in the democratic process?
I will be asking questions to help create dialogue around this and many other important topics so please add me to your Answers Network so that we can begin exchanging ideas and hopefully make changes that will benefit the future.
Additional Details
Yahoo! Answers Staff note: Yahoo! Answers is a forum for people from all over the world to engage with one another and to find information on topics that interest them. This is not an endorsement. We are not siding with any candidate or party -- in general or for the 2008 US elections. We're hopeful that people from all perspectives will realize the great insights that the Answers community can have, and will turn to us for future discussions.
Even though his question is self-serving, I felt compelled to answer:
The whole point of electing people to office is so that we don't involve ourselves in every ticky-tacky decision that has to be made. Ideally, we elect people we trust to make the right decisions.
When generation after generation of lawyers and professional politicians betray the public trust by wasting time and money, by lying and committing fraud, by making the political world so distasteful as to sicken ones stomach, then the results are a public either so apathetic, so ignorant, or so sycophantic that voting might as well be done by monkeys throwing darts.
Most politicians, I am sure, start out as idealistic go-getters wishing to make things better. The trouble is, they are either completely wrong going about it, or they become corrupt or coerced after only a few years.
How can we engage more people in this process of mud-dragging, waste, corruption, lies, scandal, good intentions and flagstones to hell?
Here are some ideas:
- Remove lawyers and professional politicians from public office
- Outlaw political parties
- Reduce the size of the federal government. Hamilton was wrong
- Back our money with gold again
- Stop using federal monies for charitable purposes. That way votes cannot be bought with promises
- Get the federal government out of the state's business
- Impeach federal judges who have broken their oath to defend the Constitution
Cartoons
Most cartoons today are:
Category I: Battling/Comic Book (or, as they are sadly called today: Graphic Novels)
*Reincarnation of superheroes in a "teen" form
*Nintendo-like Martial arts
*Animal/machine/digital/fantasy/gaming battling where kids play cards, use digital devices, or send their monster 'pets' into an arena that looks suspiciously like it could be used to fight dogs or roosters
*Secret agent/spy show – a kid version of MI
*action! action! action! Frenetic activity designed to dazzle and keep the slack jaws from riding bikes, and a serialized storyline designed to keep them coming back
Category II: Insipid
*children/Horses/Cats/Dogs/Aardvarks singing, dancing, and worst of all pontificating and rehashing Brady Bunch themes
*sickeningly sweet message shows designed to make kids feel good about themselves
*at least one main character of the main generic ethnic groups: white, black, brown and yellow
*at the beginning of the episode, the characters are supremely stupid, but seem smart to the viewer by the end
*usually colorful and bright, sunny and cheery designed to dazzle and keep the little droolers from playing outside in the drearier looking real world
Almost all of cartoons today feature:
*plenty of gender role swapping so that girls will feel they are just as smart and athletic as boys, and boys will feel that they can be a cook, or nurse, or wear a pink tutu
*adults that do not understand children or treat them unfairly or do not listen to them
*some sort of life-lesson to be learned
*environmentalist or socialist propaganda
Gone are the days of cartoons just for fun. There are a few left, but not many, and fewer still that just don't plain suck.
Gone are Leon Schlesinger, Friz Freleng and Chuck Jones.
Gone are references to Wendell Willkie, Edward G Robinson and Peter Lorre.
Gone are the literary references to Rip Van Winkle, Charles Dickens and Tolstoy.
Gone are musical adaptations of Mozart, Tchaikovsky and Wagner.
Yes, the cartoon medium has suffered the fate of having to play to an ignorant and apathetic audience.
Can Dexter's Lab carry the torch alone?
EDIT: Since I wrote this, my children have shown me that at least one cartoon has picked up the torch and ran with it: "Phineas and Ferb". In fact, the original air date was about 5 months after my original post. I am glad to see that there are still clever people out there willing to put together a clean cartoon that is fun to watch.
Category I: Battling/Comic Book (or, as they are sadly called today: Graphic Novels)
*Reincarnation of superheroes in a "teen" form
*Nintendo-like Martial arts
*Animal/machine/digital/fantasy/gaming battling where kids play cards, use digital devices, or send their monster 'pets' into an arena that looks suspiciously like it could be used to fight dogs or roosters
*Secret agent/spy show – a kid version of MI
*action! action! action! Frenetic activity designed to dazzle and keep the slack jaws from riding bikes, and a serialized storyline designed to keep them coming back
Category II: Insipid
*children/Horses/Cats/Dogs/Aardvarks singing, dancing, and worst of all pontificating and rehashing Brady Bunch themes
*sickeningly sweet message shows designed to make kids feel good about themselves
*at least one main character of the main generic ethnic groups: white, black, brown and yellow
*at the beginning of the episode, the characters are supremely stupid, but seem smart to the viewer by the end
*usually colorful and bright, sunny and cheery designed to dazzle and keep the little droolers from playing outside in the drearier looking real world
Almost all of cartoons today feature:
*plenty of gender role swapping so that girls will feel they are just as smart and athletic as boys, and boys will feel that they can be a cook, or nurse, or wear a pink tutu
*adults that do not understand children or treat them unfairly or do not listen to them
*some sort of life-lesson to be learned
*environmentalist or socialist propaganda
Gone are the days of cartoons just for fun. There are a few left, but not many, and fewer still that just don't plain suck.
Gone are Leon Schlesinger, Friz Freleng and Chuck Jones.
Gone are references to Wendell Willkie, Edward G Robinson and Peter Lorre.
Gone are the literary references to Rip Van Winkle, Charles Dickens and Tolstoy.
Gone are musical adaptations of Mozart, Tchaikovsky and Wagner.
Yes, the cartoon medium has suffered the fate of having to play to an ignorant and apathetic audience.
Can Dexter's Lab carry the torch alone?
EDIT: Since I wrote this, my children have shown me that at least one cartoon has picked up the torch and ran with it: "Phineas and Ferb". In fact, the original air date was about 5 months after my original post. I am glad to see that there are still clever people out there willing to put together a clean cartoon that is fun to watch.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Liberty Bell "Forever" Stamp
The new USPS Stamp will cost 41 cents.
The stamp, which will carry the word "Forever" instead of a price, will remain valid for sending a letter, no matter how much rates go up in the future.
Unfortunately, politicians think in terms of closed systems. Raise taxes, they think, and revenues will go up. They have no inkling that the higher 'price' on production will change the behavior of those doing the producing.
In the case of the Post Office there are already many alternatives in place. We have FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc. which have already carved out a large chunk of the parcel market. How is it that a federally subsidized service could not compete and win against private sector providers?
Between fax machines, email, cell phones, IMing and the like, the age of posting a letter is quickly becoming obsolete. By raising its prices, the USPS is making its services even more unattractive, and will nudge itself even closer to the brink of extinction.
Does anyone remember the cartoon where the mouse from the country visits the city mouse? The cat chases them throughout, while the city mouse educates the country mouse. One lesson that is taught involves pricing and profit margins. One mouse explains to the other that when you raise prices you increase your profit margin per sale but you get fewer purchases, lowering your profits. When you lower prices, your profit per item is lower, but you get more purchases thereby raising your total profits.
Wal-Mart knows this and practices it. Why is Wal-Mart simultaneously popular and hated? Because people who instinctively understand low prices enjoy a bargain. While on the other hand those who are for government enforced socialism see Wal-Mart as an example of capitalism in action and therefore an enemy.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Brad
Many of the classic songs now take on another meaning.
We wont forget about you, Brad.
Time doesn't wait for any of us. Our own time is coming soon enough. It's what we leave behind that matters.
We wont forget about you, Brad.
Time doesn't wait for any of us. Our own time is coming soon enough. It's what we leave behind that matters.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Last night
I went to an Asian place last night (March 9th) and this is the fortune I got:
"Faith is the answer to peace of mind"
This was a coincidence worthy of note.
"Faith is the answer to peace of mind"
This was a coincidence worthy of note.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
People have issues
On just about any subject you will find seemingly intelligent people on opposite sides of the issue. Each side will provide evidence that contradicts the other. Most of the time, a person's choice of sides is completely arbitrary, depending on what demographic to which they belong.
So who to believe? Unfortunately, most people will not even consider asking this question of themselves. They simply march lock-step in time with their chosen propaganda machine and remain blissfully ignorant - content with life as they know it. It is a sad commentary on Western Civilization that logical thinking is despised. From the time we were in grade school, anyone displaying the ability to think on a level even slightly above the average, they begin to draw the ire of fellow students and the epithets begin. Nerd, dweeb, dork, geek, etc. those lucky enough to have some athletic ability can redeem themselves by masquerading as a jock. Those who lack the social skills to overcome being the object of scorn and derision become pariahs. In addition, in certain parts of the country, in certain demographic groups, there are those who accuse their peers of being race traitors if they attempt an academic pathway in life.
Let's face it: being smart is intimidating for a lot of people. And there are a lot of smart people that enjoy lording it over other people. They mention the results on the last IQ test they took. They remember what their SAT scores were. They announce that they belong to Mensa. Anyone bragging about what they can do better than you is irritating, but smart people bragging about how smart they are is perhaps the most irritating of all. No one likes feeling inferior. When one's inferiority is pointed out to them, either directly or indirectly, they feel threatened. A usual first reaction is anger and frustration, and sometimes to return the perceived threat with violence.
The same thing happens when seemingly intelligent people find themselves on opposing sides. Rarely does logical discussion ensue (at least on television). Usually things devolve quickly into a shouting match or ad hominem attacks. The issue itself is drowned in a muddy river of insults and non sequiturs.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Government tyranny
It's been two years since I quit the major party to which I belonged. The two major parties are not interested in following the Constitution of the
The federal government has usurped control of much of our daily lives. From helmet and seatbelt laws to what kind of eggs you can eat. What's that? I know, but what do you think is going to happen once national health care is passed? Since your health will directly affect the cost of the national program, your diet will be federally mandated. Scoff now, you have been warned.
Read 1984. We are so close to what Orwell described as thoughtcrime, it's just a matter of semantics now. Consider the term hate-crime. Explain to me how anyone can know what motives prompted Johnny down the street to take a baseball bat and beat up Joey. Someone explain to me how it makes a difference to Joey's parents whether Johnny hates the group to which Joey belongs. Their son's skull has been bashed in one way or the other. You tell me: should Johnny's punishment be different based on whether he hates Joey's group, or if he just felt bored that day and picked Joey at random? The invention of something called hate-crimes is an admission that we have thought police in this country. One should be allowed to think what they want. Hate me for my political beliefs, hate me for believing that global warming is a hoax, hate me for the color of shirt I am wearing today. But if you come key my car, should it really matter why you did it? Should it really matter if someone committed some crime because they hate the ethnic, religious, or orientation group to which their victim belongs? The point is, they committed a crime and it should be punished.
The US Supreme Court has usurped power and legislated from the bench. I am going to use the Roe v Wade decision to demonstrate this. Before you have a cow and dismiss me, understand this: The US Constitution has Amendment IX, which states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And Amendment X which states "The powers not delegated to the
Now take the Kelo v. City of
Friday, February 2, 2007
Self-indulgent ignorance
Everyone is ignorant about many things. For instance, I don't have the foggiest idea about how to assemble a hydrogen-powered arcjet engine. I'm no rocket scientist.
There are two basic reasons why people remain ignorant.
1) They do not have the ability to acquire and retain the new information
2) They do not have the desire to acquire and retain the new information
Let's look at it. Most fields of study appeal to individuals in different ways. One person might have a knack for anatomy and become a surgeon. Another might have an innate ability to fix automobile engines and becomes a mechanic. Which one is smarter? It would be completely arbitrary to make such a judgment based on chosen career paths. Mechanics, perhaps, need less schooling than a surgeon does, but a surgeon only needs to know the anatomy of one body type: humans. On the other hand, mechanics need to know the insides of any number of makes and models of cars and trucks - foreign and domestic. Your local mom-n-pop grocer may have a PhD in geology, physics or art history and you would never know it as you purchase that pack of gum. And that nerdy computer programmer you know could possibly win 2 million bucks on Jeopardy. One's chosen career path has something to do with interests and abilities, but not necessarily one's capacity to assimilate new information when it is presented.
If a person's intelligence is not limiting them, then a person's desire to know something becomes the major factor deciding whether they learn it.
(What follows is an example. I do not have anything against French Impressionists.)
If I do not want to know more about French Impressionism, then I am unlikely to go out of my way to study up on it. I am also unlikely to listen closely to someone trying to explain it to me. Now suppose that I, for some reason, have a deep animus towards impressionists. Now whenever I encounter a situation where impressionists come up, I might actively resist learning anything new, or perhaps what I learn is tainted or twisted by my prejudice.
With this example, you can see that I have become self-indulgently ignorant of French Impressionism. The things that I know are combined with my feelings of dislike and become an intractable view. No amount of logic or discussion will convince me otherwise. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Until the desire to open my mind is there, my opinion wont change.
There used to be something called open-mindedness. A person does not necessarily have to change their mind to have an open mind. Too many people think the opposite. If I know that by mathematical definition 2+2=4 then it is not closed minded to reject the idea that 2+2=5. However, if someone wanted to explain the logical progression of mathematical steps on how they reach such a conclusion, then I would listen and attempt to understand their point of view. It would not do me any good to project onto this individual my own prejudice that a pair of 2s will be 4. Even if I am right, and 2+2 remains 4, it would behoove me to understand where this "5" person is coming from. They could actually have a rational explanation from their point of view. Or they could be a crackpot who is simply trying to irritate me. I should find out which.
Finding out how the other person thinks is key to understanding why they think the way they do. Seemingly intelligent people are on both sides of almost every issue. From abortion to national health care, school vouchers to school busing, the war on drugs to the war on terrorism.
Many issues are demagogued to the point where all rational thought is dismissed. Too many people have ceased to think out things and rely completely on their feelings. Feeling are good, they lead to compassion and service. But if all decisions were based on feelings without incorporating some pragmatism, then you will end up making more mistakes than need be.Thursday, February 1, 2007
My fellow human beings
People are rude. People are careless. People are apathetic.
On the other hand:
People are compassionate, helpful, and involved.
Why does it seem that I meet more folks belonging to the former group than the latter? Let's take driving for instance. Keep track of how many times in the next week someone either cuts you off, or waves you into the gap. Or how many times you see someone being a jerk as opposed to how many polite acts you witness.
People you meet driving are comparable to people you meet on the internet. In both cases, there is anonymity involved. More so on the internet, yes, but have you noticed that people in line at the grocery store are much more polite to each other than people queued up in a merge lane? I am aware that exceptions exist, however those seem more anecdotal than the general rule.
When people feel that they are anonymous, they seem to devolve into that base state of humanity where anything goes. It goes hand-in-hand with mob mentality. People in mobs loot, burn, and assault when they normally would not think of doing these things if they were alone. Folks in their cars and folks on the internet are the same way. Whatever level of depravity someone is at by default, they seem to set the bar a couple of notches lower when they feel there are no consequences.
What does this say for society in general? I am speaking from the standpoint of Western culture. If people will adjust their behavior down when they think they can get away with something, then what does it say about that individual? When a person can log on and become an entirely different person, why would they choose to be a Neanderthal rather than a Philosopher? An obscenity-spewing, racist, rabblerouser rather than a polite, considerate gentleperson.
In pseudo anonymous situations, many people choose to be themselves. Others choose their alter-ego. If the internet is any indication of these choices, it would seem that most people are boorish and moronic, while the diminishing minority of people hold themselves to at least a modicum of self-respect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
