A Decry for the Rational World

Last week I happened to run across an Op-Ed Piece in the Marshall University’s campus newspaper, The Parthenon. I replied to this piece, for the blatant support of ignorance eats away at society and any form of progress.

I navigate my existence on this planet by Reason. To paraphrase Sam Harris, a philosopher and author, if my reasons and arguments are better than yours then you will helplessly give yours over to mine; that is, what it means to be a rational person. And, of course, vice versa.

Here is my reply:

You say, “I Believe in God because I want to.” Why is it so hard for people to give themselves some credit and find inside their being their own strength and believe in themselves, instead of an absentee father-figure.

People take the internal creation of an abstraction, a deity that can fully understand their woes and who might even give a damn, and move it outwardly to be an external force and then decry their own weaknesses, and in so doing, bring the now external abstraction back to an internal one, only to possess the moral firmness to face the bloody day.

“Just that I want to believe in something bigger than me.” That is a purely romantic viewpoint. You are forcing a mystery where one does not need to be; we, as mankind, have enough as is.

Basically, you are spitting in the face of reality. And all that is Reason. But, of course, you and billions of others do not play inside the realm of evidence and, as you say, “logical reasoning”. Talk about the blind leading the visually impaired.


The rational world loathes the irrational one; thusly, I felt a deep calling to decry the barefaced injustice to the logical members of the former. I will add, the perception is sometimes more of a problem than the obvious. Let us hope that the problems lays in the perception.

Principles of an Abstraction

A tough, internal debate that raged within my own being for several years has been settled, at least with my mindset for the time being. I will add, though, I cannot imagine an argument that will detract from my present position.

Before launching into my brief post, I must state that I advocate for reason to prevail at the close of all modes of intercourse.

Furthermore, living a life by principle one must consciously choose with which principles to mark life’s pathways. I, as one individual, pride myself on navigating my life according to principle, and of course, in doing so, I face decisions about my present character, which will lead towards my future self.

Also, I note: always, one must confront the melee between what one was taught and what one learns, for seldom do these two ever coincide.

So, to the point, if in a time of national threat from a domestic or foreign enemy--as in war, either symmetrical or asymmetrical, as it may be--should we, as Americans, sacrifice liberty for safety?

For as long as this current war has been surging, I defended the argument--one well backed by history--that in wartimes all Americans have relinquished certain liberties for protection. Therefore, with an end to any of these particular crises, we would then reclaim our surrendered liberties as well as additional ones.

The argument that by reining in our freedoms, restricting our way of life, fettering our principles, we then have lost the war from the outset, I had heard numerous times. As well, the Revolutionary sentiment, which is often wrongly attributed to Benjamin Franklin, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

These lines of reasoning ate away at the core of what is honour, what is principle, to the basic questions of man, what is right and wrong. And to the greatest of questions: why and why not.

I viewed the sacrifice of certain liberties as a way to combat the threat in its many arrays by more flexible means, and that the resoluteness of a single, immovable stance existed only in a black and white world.

The idea liberty becomes a causality of war was rebutted with the simple proclamation that a life saved is a battle championed, yet I found these all inconstant with my value of principle.

The principles that liberty divides us from our foes and unites us with our allies, liberty mirrors the civilized and well-informed citizenry and lures the curious to our shores, liberty to all grants all the ability to accept and to be accepted and thusly to be equals.

Yes, liberty battles with one arm tied, yet liberty always maintains the upper hand in the moral, ideological battles, which run alongside the physical conflicts. Better for a thousand to die for the preservation of liberty than one to be saved by liberty's crucifixion. What value does one have, if the whole is lost?

The American Experiment displays the fragility and the power of the abstraction of liberty and the majesty of the execution of that abstraction by millions who believe so ardently in the principles of liberty that death for it is something for which countless volunteer. Not saying countless offer to wear a blindfold and smoke a last cigarette, but that countless will fight to the death for the principle that liberty must remain or the American Experiment fails, thusly, all that is fair and just or the ever attempt forwards such then fails.

What I am saying translates basically as liberty cannot be, directly contrary to my prior position, a causality of any conflict, no matter how severe, for the principle of the abstraction then unwinds and the abstraction disappears as a dream in the closing hours of a simple, commonplace twilight and there, forgotten by the time the dreamer opens his eyes.


Yes, I do not explain exactly how liberty is an abstraction, or why man needs principles, or more so why is liberty an important principle. I just lack the energy to write more tonight. I have more to say, but that will wait for another day. I will add, I am not quite sure why this revelation was so difficult in coming. I know this has been with me for a long while, yet it takes something so simple to humble one. It was more of the acceptance than anything, I gather.

Dividing of Our Rights

What divides rights from privileges? Are there “certain unalienable rights,” due to all mankind, as Mr. Jefferson once wrote?

A popular notion, which many believe, is that rights are for everyone without thought or effort or obligation, where privileges are only things which we, as “good and moral” human beings, strip from those who are not so “good and moral.” For example, education and voting are rights, yet driving is a privilege.

Our Founding Fathers and Framers were brilliant intellectuals. Yet, I must argue that so-called “unalienable rights” do not exist and never have. It is a whitewash of the human reality.

Case in point, Orhan Pamuk, Nobel Prize-winning Turkish author, in February 2005 stated a historic fact to a Swiss newspaper: “Thirty thousand Kurds, and a million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody dares to talk about it.”

What Pamuk is speaking about is the Armenian Genocide which took place in 1915. Moreover, the Turkish government does not acknowledge such a genocide ever occurred, even in the face of most historians worldwide.

In June 2005, the Turkish government passed Article 301 of their penal code. Article 301 states, “A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic, or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.” Furthermore, if a Turkish citizen denigrates Turkishness while aboard, “the punishment shall be increased by one third.”

Charges were brought after the fact against Pamuk, and another dozen or more Turkish citizens. From which Pamuk then experienced his books being burnt, photos being destroyed, and publicly being booed by his fellow citizens and once readers. He also received threats against his own life.

Turkey finally dropped charges against Pamuk in January 2006, due to widespread global outcry and pressure forced by the European Union. The EU’s upper-hand came by Turkey’s longing to join the EU.

Keeping this instance in mind, one must agree that American rights (Freedom of Speech and Expression, in this case) are not universal and we cannot expect them to be so. If we are to respect each nation’s national identity, then we must accept each nation’s chosen identity.

All rights are only privileges, granted by the government or the authority in charge. A nation’s laws guarantee a citizen’s rights; thus, his or her rights are assured only as long as the nation’s laws remain unchanged.

We may possess the romantic ideals of human rights. Yet, these ideals are not natural laws, they are societal laws. If one, therefore, knows his or her history, one will know that societies fail all the time.

The main purpose for this article comes out of witnessing people’s myopic tendencies. Some people believe that all human beings have the same rights, but that is sadly not true. The natural law of survival of the fittest stands in testimony of this reality.

I, for one, would not want to imagine living in a nation where Freedom of Expression is not the First Amendment, yet billions do live in nations contrary to this.

From the First Amendment comes the ability of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of being one’s self. As Americans, we are honored, for all privileges must pass through the First Amendment.

However, as Americans, we must understand that the First Amendment is itself a privilege granted to us by the Framers and upheld by politicians and statesmen still today.


This column came from a column I read last week, where a guy was arguing about human rights and how all men and women have them. I wish there were “unalienable rights.” However, there are none. Even the basics as food and shelter are not rights, but privileges. So, it is our job to maintain the privileges we hold dear.

America: Reality and Dreams

On the days of a soft breeze and purifying sunshine, the American flag stands, as it has in times past in rain, winds, and the light of wintry skies and the glare of bombs in flight.

When I reflect upon the glory of this flag, I am reminded of the men and women who lie beneath it due to the past wars of a nation struggling to find an identity. The identity of the nation emerged from the identity of its people: diverse, colorful, intelligent, spirited, entrepreneurial, optimistic, fortitudinous.

When I come to my feet to recite the pledge, I cannot deny the patriotic image of a battle in some distant land where the flag of liberty waves high above the blood drenched earth, where one’s countrymen stand as one’s brothers.

When I see the American flag, I see the good guy. The one, on the playground of the international landscape, who will stand for his convictions, who assists those in need, who gives continuously to those without, who will rise up against the recess bully in defense of others, as well as himself, then says, extending a hand, “let us talk this over, let us find a better way.”

Men stand before it as citizens, men salute before it as patriots, men marry with it as witness, men lie beneath it as soldiers.

The American flag is not just some piece of cloth. It is the symbol of all that the American way embodies. The American flag above any other symbol is the purest representation of us, the citizens of the freest society that this planet has ever known.

When a group assembles on the steps of a courthouse and burns the American flag, I witness, embracing two conflicting emotions. Firstly, to clap, to dance, to sing, all because a government, a nation can withstand the freedom of its people. Secondly, to bow my head, to hold my face, to wipe my tears, all for, in my opinion, the misinterpretation of whom, not what, the flag represents.

The flag embodies the wonders of the American citizens, not a particular administration. The burning of it becomes a statement against oneself, not the government officials.

The American soldier drapes his or herself in the colors of the flag, so I can be draped in the liberty of a great Republic.

If all I described seems romantically dated, overtly hopeful, possibly delusional, or simplistically innocent then I urge you to re-evaluate your views of this nation and its beloved symbol. We, as Americans, need to evoke positive perceptions, because without the purity of and advancement towards truth of our nation, we settle, then, for a jaded reality of the world.

If, to others, I describe a nation steeped in timelessness, honor, pride, and all the beloved clichés then I beg of you to step down to meet the world at large. We, as Americans, live in the proverbial Ivory Tower, locked away from the reality of the world. Furthermore, within doing so, we attend to lose sight of the actualities of the rest of the world.

More directly, anyone who rails against all the good America does by only focusing on its errors hinders his or herself from actually progressing the nation to the next level. Yet, on the other side, anyone who avoids the shortcomings of America by only emphasizing the good deeds blinds his or herself from the harshness that mobility is quintessential and must continue upward.

America is where reality and dreams coincide.

America’s new motto: Never run from shadows, but always seek light.


This week's column was thrown together last minute. I have had exams this week and I got behind in class readings, so I have been trying franticly to catch up before my paper was due. This topic is basically a simple idea: paint a noble America and then people who disagree that they are slowing progress. Yet, the people who agree have no great knowledge of the world beyond the shorelines. I can picture Leonardo da Vinci doing the same thing with the Mona Lisa, yet my own happens to be the American flag.

In Whom Do We Trust

Global Warming, or Global Climate Change, has been at the center of a heated debate for years. Yet, when one compares the evidence, he has fistfuls of bitter pills to swallow.

But is it his fault or someone else’s entirely?

In December 2004, the journal Science published an article by Dr. Naomi Oreskes, professor at University of California San Diego. Her survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed scientific articles between 1993 and 2003 found, as she summarized in the Washington Post, that 75 percent “either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view” that “Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason.”

“The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity,” Oreskes added. “None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

In contrast, the study, “Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the US Prestige Press,” by Maxwell Boykoff and Jules Boykoff found between 1988 and 2002 that the “U.S. prestige press”--New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Wall Street Journal--structured their “hard news” in the “journalistic norm of balanced reporting.”

“From a total of 3,543 articles, we examined a random sample of 636 articles,” said the Boykoffs.

Out of that, 53 percent displayed equal attention to the human contributions and the natural fluctuations of climate change. However, 35 percent of the articles spoke of human role more so, yet still presented both sides as a debate.

Six percent “emphasized doubts about the claim that human-caused global warming exists,” while the last 6 percent “only included the predominant scientific view that humans are contributing to Earth's temperature increases.”

Putting this specific issue aside: where else in our daily discourse do we encounter only two-sided issues?

The view that for one to be fair one must cover both sides is a simpleton’s falsehood. Life is not black or white, yes or no, good or bad, paper or plastic. It is the greys, the maybes, the okays, the polysynthetic materials.

The average person does not find hisself on the far edges but rather somewhere near the middle. A truly active citizen does not fall along party lines; he thinks for hisself and decides the course of action that will best benefit him and/or his relationships.

Nonetheless, the journalistic process does not seem to address this aspect. It does not filter the evidence as the scientific process does. It, sadly, tries balancing the unbalanced.

Scientists do not debate those without scientific evidence because it portrays a false perception to the layman that the opposing party has a valid argument. For example, a geologist would not enter into a formal debate with someone who believes the earth is fewer than a dozen millennia.

Yet, the journalistic norm will grant those without evidence equal space as those with evidence, and in doing so, misleads the reader by displaying a faux controversy.


This column was rushed and I am still not truly happy with it. It did turn out better than I thought it would about midways through. I like the idea but the way I worded it and the second half is sadly depressing to me. On a different note, I had a professor from here at Marshall University email and expressed his opinions of the same issue. We both agree offering equal space no matter the evidence makes a false appearance of equality.

The Gospel of Y'hoshua

In the beginning was Society, and the Society was with Men, and the Society was Men. The same was in the beginning, thus, with Family. All things were made by Family; and without Family was not anything made that was made. In Family was life; and the life was the Imaginational Foundation of Men. And the Imaginational Foundation shineth in the face of Ignorance; and the Ignorant comprehended it yet not.

Firstly, according to experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, and author Steven Pinker, “Concrete behavioral traits that patently depend on content provided by the home or culture--which language one speaks, which religion one practices, which political party one supports--are not heritable [genetic] at all.”

Yet, Pinker paints not with stark blacks and whites--that is, nature (genetics) verses nurture (environment). He says, “traits that reflect the underlying talents and temperaments… are partially heritable.” These “temperament traits” define more or less how far, in any particular direction, one will go.

No child, therefore, is born a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or any other faith-based dogmatist. Children enter this world as much a religious practitioner as a political lobbyist, a social activist, a low-skilled worker, and/or a professional careerist.

So, as Pinker argues these types of content are provided in one’s home and culture, one will have to concede that geography is not just a “causal relationship”, yet an obviously reliable one.

When, according to the CIA Factbook, 100 percent of Saudi Arabia, 97 percent of Iraq, and 85 percent of Kuwait are Muslim, one must logically conclude that roughly the same percentage of family and culture (per country) will be Muslim. By that, the children reared in these countries, based upon Family Learning and/or a modified Social Learning Theory, are evidently raised Muslim.

The same associational dialectics apply to the state of Georgia, where 76 percent embrace Protestant Christianity, and for Israel, where 76.4 percent gravitate toward Judaism.

Secondly, H. Richard Niebuhr’s The Social Sources of Denominationalism, summarized by sociologists Ralph E. Pyle (University of Nevada) and James D. Davidson (Purdue University), “stressed that a group’s sect-like or churchlike character was influenced by its social class standing. Sectarian groups--elective associations characterized by doctrinal purity, an emphasis on the priesthood of all believers, ethical austerity, and a high degree of tension with the dominant society--have a special appeal for the lower classes.”

Max Weber, political economist and sociologist, “suggested that members of different social classes adopt different belief systems, or theodicies, to explain their social situation.”

For the affluent, the good fortune theodicies emphasize prosperity as one of God’s blessing.

“Theodicies of misfortune, on the other hand,” summarized Pyle and Davidson, “appeal to the poor and present a less sanguine picture of worldly success. Theodicies of misfortune emphasize that affluence is a sign of evil and that suffering in this world will be rewarded in the next.” This type of “transvaluational orientation,” by Weber, is a lower-class characteristic of worship.

Davidson’s own findings on the relationship of religion and class show “[t]he lower classes are more likely than affluent groups to pray in private, believe in the doctrines of their faith, and have intense religious experiences,” while “the middle and upper classes are more likely to attend worship services and take part in church organizations and activities.”

As Rodney Stark, a sociologist of Baylor University, explains, the lower class demonstrates “greater religiousness in those aspects of faith that serve as a relief for suffering,” whereby the middle and upper classes for legitimacy of claims for their high status.

Therefore, if one missed it, class structure does affect religious views. Class ranking, furthermore, falls within a single society, not defined by way of comparison to other societies.

Finally, when I tell you that you are atheist, for you disbelieve in all deities of yesteryears and in many deities of today, which you brush off, you should have embraced it, instead of denying. It only strengthens one’s argument to appear rational and calculating, instead of incomprehensive and brimstone slinging.

Because of declaring it is a game of semantics or incorrect word usage displays the disdain held for the atheist minority. When one truly ruminates over the topic, it is far more logical than arguing the infallible and scientific nature of religious texts.

For every Abrahamic religion--Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Bahá'í Faith--there are three types of claims: moral claims, physical claims, and historical claims. These three claims’ contexts must be defined, as well as each claims’ relationship towards the other or others.

Science and history have put aside the physical and historic, e.g. evolution, medicine, locations, and personage. While morality, thanks to religion, proves countless times over that society is the root of morals and deviance.

However, to remain in the high status of religious certainty, when confronted by this evidence, one writes it off as metaphor.

Though in doing so--within Christianity, for example--one must, then, read the entire text in metaphor, which would also make Jesus, or at least the resurrection, a metaphor. Yet, no dogmatic Christian wants that.

So, the denial of evidence must be, to these faithful, upheld with fervor, yet making the whole illogical and unfounded.

So, according to the Gospel of Y’hoshua, this shall cometh to pass as “Good News.”


This is my second installment about religion and atheism. There were many of things I wanted to add, yet I ran into the length problem. Too many ideas and arguments, not a big enough word count. I, nonetheless, hope you enjoy.

Religious Faith Under Exam

If I told you I was an atheist, you might stop reading and say, “God help your soul.” If I told you that you were an atheist, the odds are you stopped reading and thought, “He does not know me and my relationship with God.”

Firstly, the realistic fact is you are atheist.

You will not grant credence to Santa Claus as the Justice, Apollo as the Son, Jupiter as the Father, the Flying Spaghetti Monster as anything but the figment of the imagination, for that matter.

What distinguishes God or Allah or the Godhead from these supernatural, nonexistent beings?

Nothing at all.

Sam Harris--philosopher, neuroscientist, and author--gives the example: “If I told you that I believe there is a diamond buried in my backyard the size of a refrigerator...”

Granted, this diamond is invisible as well as the little, green gnomes which guard it.

“It might,” Harris continues, “occur to you to ask me why. And, if in response I gave the kind of answers you hear.... The answers which describes the good effects of believing as I do. So, I said things like ‘Well, this belief actually gives my life a lot of meaning, or I wouldn’t want to live in a universe where there wasn’t a diamond buried in my backyard the size of a refrigerator.’”

What makes these types of beliefs appear as the first signs of mental illness? Yet, when one replaces the invisible, non-active, refrigerator-size diamond with an invisible, non-active being named, by chance, Elohim, Jehovah, Yahweh, God, Jesus, or Allah, it becomes now someone’s religion and we do not question.

Secondly, no grounds exist to favor one god over another, as popularly believed.

So, when faced with the reality that geography and economics actually indicate and shape, for the most part, one’s religious views of the world, and when the realization takes place that practitioners of other faiths believe just as ardently as one’s own self, then how does one justify that newly found knowledge in a way that God or Allah or the Godhead might have intended?

Well, first off, if you go by the Torah, you are to stone the gentile or nonbeliever. (Deuteronomy 13:1-11 and Deuteronomy 17.)

However, if you go by the New Testament, you are to slay those who do not want to be reigned over. (Luke 19.)

The point is your religious faith is directly linked to the part of the world from which you come. On the one hand, if you are a Georgian or Mississippian, you are likely to be a Protestant Christian. On the other hand, if you were reared in Saudi Arabia, you are more likely to become a Muslim.

The same is true of the financial class in which you were raised. The poorer classes are always more likely of being religiously faithful.

Finally, why does being an atheist, as reported by a University of Minnesota study, make one less trustworthy of all minorities?

Yet, when one truly considers the fact we all are atheists to one faith-based dogma and/or another, why do we not just mistrust the whole 100-percent majority?

Richard Dawkins, biologist at Oxford and author, argues that all are atheists, yet some actually take it one god further.

So, if God or Allah or the Godhead stands “knees and toes” with other mythological beings and even to a mental fabrication or two, and if one’s religious identity is based on which plot of ground he or she was raised and how many nickels are in his or her pocket, then why not go another god further?


Again, I did a poor job proofreading this week's column. Yet, in my defense, I had two Sociology papers due yesterday and I did not get started until about 4:30pm. I had the thoughts but not the structure worked out. So, I was wrestling with that and missed about five simple grammar errors. Things like, giving a plural verb to a singular subject and a forgotten word as well as leaving an article behind after reworking a sentence. I am ashamed to call myself an English major these past two weeks. The thoughts are very simple. I read several books and watched dozens of lectures on topic of atheism and the plot holes in the religious texts and thus the beliefs.

Tackling the “Common Cause”

Americans, being human beings, proclaim many assumptions about the world in which they live and, like most assumptions, could not be further from the actual-world reality. Moreover, many, hiding behind such assumptions, blind themselves from the objective, multi-communital truths.

Statements and proclamations in the nature of those presented in last Friday’s column, "The Common Cause," presumes national truths without dialectics. The random, circular thinking leads to a misunderstanding of the possible goals of such an argument.

Before I begin, I apologize that my rebuttal cannot cover all the issues addressed in The Common Cause, due to length. For example, the whole immigration issue will take another several columns alone to explain.

Firstly, blasting any president’s administration for the failures of Congress will not deliver any practical results, yet will only prove to showcase the constitutional ignorance of the blasphemer. Besides, the president needs Congress to pass the bills before he can then sign or veto.

The president, according to Article Two, Section Two of the Constitution, has power to act, basically, only "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate."

Secondly, when one argues based on assumptions, he forgets to define colloquial terms, such as "middle class."

The middle class has "but nobody--not economists, sociologists, or the U.S. Census Bureaus--[who] seems to have a clear definition of who the middle class actually is," according to an overview of Politics & Economy by PBS.

U.S. Census Bureau offers a more number-based approach. "In 2004, the middle fifty percent of households had annual gross incomes between $22,500 and $75,000. The top quarter (26.8 percent) of households earned more than $75,000 while the bottom quarter earned (25.2 percent) earned less than $22,500 annually."

Thirdly, David Brooks, New York Times columnist, summarizes a new report by Third Way, "The authors of this report… try to blend all the diverse pieces of American reality, and to expose what they call the 'myths of neopopulism.'"

The first of these myths is the "failing middle class." He continues, "It’s true there are more households headed by young and old people, who tend to have lower incomes. But if you take households headed by people in their prime working years, 25 to 59, you find those people are not failing. Their median income is $61,000. If they are married, their median income is $72,000."

What is more, "living standards are not stagnant," like usually presumed. In the last 27 years, "the percentage of prime-age households making over $100,000 in current dollars rose by 12.7 percentage points," Brooks writes.

Finally, some argue the fact of wage inequality proves the middle-class shrinkage. One of the most wage equal times in American society was during the Great Depression. The poor and rich both fell, yet only the poor had a shorter distance to fall. No one wants a second Great Depression for equality to return to the States.

Some might complain this wage inequality is a problem the government needs to address. However, when only 27.7 percent of all Americans over the age of 25 have a Bachelor's or higher and 14.8 percent never finish high school, wage inequality is going to occur, despite a government, let alone a president.

I say, it is a citizen problem, and we, the American citizens, are the ones who need to address it.

But to do that, assumptions must be put to the side.


I will have to thank the Parthenon staff member who caught the several errors I missed, when self-proofing. I am not to happy with this column. I started out by addressing every issue that "The Common Cause" stated so matter-of-factly. By the time I finished I had about 900-1000 words, so in my cutting I missed some easy errors--I forgot a word, I used "assume" in the place of "presume" twice. Oh well, it happens. The point is that assumptions mislead and block forward progress.

When in Rome, Ask Arthur?

Some Americans chant, “More troops, less politics.” At the same time, other Americans cry, “Less troops, more diplomacy.”

Which one is right? Which one is wrong? What if neither is wrong nor right?

My last two columns constructed the argumentative dialogue between both sides with both showcasing their strongest claims. The interesting thing about those two columns was—instead of an actual dialogue, as we know it—they each closer resembled a triumphantly self-righteous monologue.

Neither side addressed each other’s main points, while presenting their case with an air of condescension.

The conservative and liberal mindsets based around party lines disable the fruitful potential that a good, strong debate offers.

Two opposing parties engage in debate, not for one to come out a victor like two gladiators wrestling in the mud and the blood of the Colosseum floor, but for both to find a truth better and higher than each initially brought forth.

The conservative and the liberal both covet the applause of the crowd (us, the American citizens) so much they would rather battle to the death, then sit down at a Round Table and agree to “argue the issue, not the person.”

Each indoctrinates hisself to the degree that he is right—that is, his life is weighted on it. So, the other must and has to be wrong.

What is more is that neither side can walk into a room and say that he and his claims are not infallible.

The lack of this type of honesty and objectiveness is what divides rather than unites.

Before one can love or hate, one must first understand, Leonardo da Vinci said.

The conservative and liberal mindsets praise or decry without any understanding besides the very assumption of the other party and their stereotypical party lines.

I ask—hopefully, along with the rest of the nation—for pragmatic debate and self-honesty.

With that said, both sides of this war in Iraq have important claims that need to be addressed and not just brushed out.

I seriously do not know which course of action will result in the outcome we, as a nation and a world, need to benefit us all. I am sure that I am not alone, if we were only honest with ourselves.


This is the 3rd and final column on this topic of the Iraq War, at least at this time. The point of all this is that we just do not know. This idea of a three-part column came out of my limit of 500 words a column. I wanted to say more, so I derived this idea of creating John Conservative and Joe Liberal and giving each a column to argue.

Apropos, I do not believe that the word "himself" is correct, or at the very least, share continuity as the rest of pronouns. So, I avoid it and/or replace it with the often looked down upon pronoun "hisself", which does follow the pattern of other pronouns.

Hello. Hello. Is There Anybody in There?

Finally, a Congress with a backbone--that is, one willing to stand up against the Bush Administration. Both sides of the aisle now seem to listen to the American people, yet we will have to wait and see the outcome.

In the meantime, I have several questions, some simple and some not so.

Firstly, what happened to (I know, cliché) Gandhi’s principle of nonviolence: An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind?

Violence in Iraq, thus far, has only bred more violence. The hopes held my many of the Iraqis, as well as a substantial portion of the region, have been alienated.

Trying to win a war against a different cultural perspective and a conflicting religious doctrine by military force so far proves not to deliver the results once promised.

Can we take some pathetic fool off the street that has poor taste in clothes and pull him into a ring for ten rounds and then buy him a new wardrobe at the mall and expect him to be our friend?

Secondly, the war in Iraq is a mess and we, the People, have acknowledged this for a while. Yet our president asks for more time. Okay, Mr. President, we understand--that is, we all have our own bedrooms.

However, a timetable is out of the question with the Commander in Chief. Wait a second--we do not have limitless time to clean our rooms. If there are not deadlines (say, company will be over at six or parents are coming in this weekend), will our bedrooms and apartments be cleaned? Of course not.

A timetable gives us a reason to clean, a reason to work. So, should a timetable in Iraq not motivate Prime Minster al-Maliki, along with the rest of the governing officials, to clean Baghdad up and truly work together?

Because al-Maliki, as the rest, will have apprehend the seriousness of pulling that crumbling nation into one solid whole, by the reminder that the American troops are not as unlimited as their nation’s petroleum?

Finally, with our heads in Iraqi sand, can we see the rest of the world’s true dangers, e.g. Iran? By us holding Iraq from an all-out civil war, can we really handle other areas of national importance, e.g. Social Security, Immigration Reform?

We need our troops out and rested. We need to be preferred for a fight that someone else, actually, decides to wage on us.

In the United Kingdom, waging a war only to overthrow a current regime is outlawed. Does anyone know if it is the same in America?

Sons and daughters return Home every other day draped under an American flag. Why do we allow this nonsense, while some walk with a different gait, if they can walk at all, and others possess different eyes, if they can even see?

Is it fair that they all bring back home redefined and re-solidified definition of words, such as fear, hatred, security, love, peace?

Or is it fair that we do not know these meanings as they?

Less troops, more diplomacy.


This is my column of the term for the Parthenon. They changed the title to "New Congress has Strength" and moved my title to the first line. Somewhat? This piece attacks many Americans and our belief systems, while showing the hypocritical nature of us all.

Goodbye Baghdad, Hello Vietnam

I cannot believe that the majority of Americans thinks walking, instead of really knuckling down, will serve anyone any good.

America has screwed up many a time, as well as every other nation, yet we, America, live in 1945 and 1989, while forgetting 1953, 1975, 1991, and 1998--that is, naming just some.* [See footnote, for dates, if not familiar.]

We cannot care about how we got into this war--that is, who had the intelligence or not; who told the lies, deliberately or not; and who avoided the facts, before and still.

We have to care about how we can win this.

We cannot have another Vietnam on our hands, as a nation. If we fail in Baghdad, we failed as a country and the world will see that.

And if you are asking, "Why should we care about the world’s perception?"

We will lose more than just a war. We will lose our political pull, economic security, and national safety.

Firstly, political pull: If we cannot lead and guide now, no one will follow us later.

The nations of the world can be viewed as a team playing for, instead of the World Cup, World Progress. Winning, instead of the World Series, World Peace.

Furthermore, every team needs a captain (someone to remind the other players why they are there and to give the great, quotable speeches, which give everyone the goose bumps).

Secondly, economic security: We are the driving-force in the global economy right now. However, we are in mid-fight with China, as the fuel to this global economy.

You might be thinking, "So, everything comes from China; what's the big deal?" To answer that honestly, it is the social stability issue.

China has free-markets, which is a great thing, yet it remains socially and politically a police state. However, with the free-markets will come the free-thoughts and China will have to become a free and open government because the Chinese people will demand it.

That sounds great. Another free nation to add to the list; however, if we, as America, slip--economically, speaking--to China before this happens, then the stability of the global economy will be as sturdy as a crumbling building.

Also, the U.S. dollar is a-scrappin' with the Euro for the standard global investment currency. In other words, nations invest in us, as one does the stock market, yet if these nations change their money over to the Euro, it will be as moving one’s money from one company to another. Leaving that former company with less (or little to none).

We cannot be the country we are without these investments. For those of you who believe things are hard now, wait and see the difficulties to come.

Finally, national safety: If we lose this 2nd Gulf War, we will have lost military ranking. As the son always calls out the father, other nations and non-national groups will call us out. Hence, another war or two.

I am not a crazy fool, who believes in a Utopia. Mankind cannot live in a Utopia without de-evolving.

I am not a Christian, casting brimstone and sighting Jesus, saying, we are in the ending time, due to the "wars and rumors of wars" bull. Never a day in mankind’s history, a war was not being waged.

All I am saying is we have to fight and win, now. Or there will be deeper things to wade through, later. More troops, less politics.


Dates:*
1945: World War II
1989: Cold War

1953: Korean War
1975: Vietnam
1991: First Gulf War
1998: Operation Dessert Fox


I submitted this to the Parthenon, the campus paper, last night and they published it. It is my first column since last Spring.

I read a USAToday article this morning and it is the reason for this. This is my first myspace bulletin, which I am reposting. It is more or less a rant than anything else. America has made me so mad. There is not much more to say.