ThinDreamer30

Capitalism and Doctors, A Reply.

2010-02-10T16:39:00.003-05:00

This afternoon a friend txted me over an article in the Marshall Unversity campus newspaper, The Parthenon. While reading the given article, I noticed a friend of mine wrote a column yesterday titled, For the Love of Doctors and Capitalism, which I then read. I found a comment on the column, which spurred me to respond.

Here is my reply:

Ms. White raises some very good points, particularly from where will innovation come when market incentives are replaced by government incentives. I applaud her for telling her “love story” of the only system that has pulled millions (within the last decade or so, alone) from the grinding poverty, which I am sure COLA would even renounce.

It was no other system than capitalism that broke mankind’s chains to what economists call, The Malthusian Trap, wherein with each increase in technology the population growth caused by such an increase would return the group or community back to the same standards of living, as if the technological innovation had never occurred at all.

What does this say? It says that mankind had a subsistence equilibrium from his appearance on the African savannahs to the dawn of The Industry Revolution. In other words, mankind was no better off in 1700 A.D. England than he was in 2000 B.C. Babylon or even just some clan or tribe wandering Northern Europe or the island of Japan prior to the written word, itself. Mankind had never truly improved his lot in life until Capitalism gave him the market incentives to break the bonds of subsistence. If COLA does not think man should return to the subsistence equilibrium, there are still plenty who would sent mankind back tomorrow, if they could.

Moving beyond the history lesson, the world lives off American health care innovation. The top five American hospitals conduct more clinical trails than all the hospitals in the developed world. If one cares about the poor of the world, then it stands that he or she should advocate the liberation of American health care, instead of afflicting it more so with perverse government incentives, which in return will harm the developing and developed alike.

To COLA: firstly, I do not think you are stupid, but many of the comments made in your name are excessively rude and very asinine; secondly, I am not sure where the “Rebel Flag” came in here, but nevertheless, that is another discussion; thirdly, I wish political scientists took more econ courses, then they might actually learn something about how the world works; and finally, how does one get to speak for the whole of a College on the Marshall University campus, or is it just too much trouble to be an individual these days?

I know it has been a while since my last posting, but to be honest, I have been busy. I hope to find the time to write up something soon, but no guarantees.

Health Care Reform and Status Quo

2009-09-22T05:47:00.004-05:00

Several weeks back, CNBC aired, “The Meeting of the Minds: The Future of Health Care.” As advertised, this seven member panel contained “leaders, thinkers, and visionaries.”

In a short and scripted film clip, our President Obama addressed the panel, as well his fellow Americans, with a clarion call, “When we talk about the future of health care, we are talking about the future of America.”

The president continued, “There are those who argue that we cannot afford to confront the challenges of health insurance reform. But the bottom line is this: deferring the reform is nothing more than defending the status quo and the status quo is unsustainable.”

Two distinguishing remarks deserve mentioning.

Firstly, deferring one is not equivalent to defending the other;--if one so weighs the proffered reform the lesser against the current set of circumstances and affairs, no defense exists for the so-called “status quo,” only simple rationality.

For example, why would one individual acting rationally purchase a new calling plan for her cell phone wherein she will be paying substantially more for a coverage area that appears unchanged, however, now she will experience a guaranteed rise in dropped calls and additionally have more of her incoming calls sent directly to voicemail?

She simply would not, as a rational consumer. The current calling plan, no matter its shortcomings, persists as the better buy.

The task is gravely more subtle and difficult: to provide her with greater coverage with fewer dropped calls for lower the cost.

Yet, the health care reform pushed by Progressives and modern Liberals does not meet this task. These advocates forget economic data.

For example, health economist Linda Gorman notes, since “health coverage stabilized in the 1980’s,” only thirteen to sixteen percent of people have at any given time been not covered, “despite numerous expansions of government coverage programs and a massive increase in illegal immigration.”

Moreover, the only increase with government’s expansion into the health care sector has been costs. There surfaces an inverse relationship between the number of those covered and the cost of said coverage, as predicted by elementary economic theory.

Secondly, if the status quo is unsustainable, then even a “cost neutral” plan is unsustainable;--that is, if costs and the rise therewithal remain the same, then per capita costs and GDP percentage remains the same.

As Washington Post columnist, and once medical physician, Charles Krauthammer points out, “[T]he president argues that health care is killing the economy--that the costs are--and he is right in that, absolutely right.”

Krauthammer though adds, “If health care today is destroying our economy because of its costs, revenue neutrality leaves us on the same net trajectory to insolvency and ruin [the president] himself has said is going on right now.”

Only two major schemes prove to reduce costs: free markets and government rationing. The former, unlike the latter, also supports and delivers technological and procedural innovations, in so doing drives costs even further downwards.

For example, health economist John Goodman identifies lasik eye surgery--a section of health care not covered by government or even private insurers--and its rapid innovation as examples of freer markets at work.

Yet, more importantly, he mentions, compared to health care funded by government programs or paid for by insurance, the “prices on average have gone down by 30 percent.”

In sum, when President Obama says he will “not accept the status quo,” or opponents only think it is “better politics to kill this plan than improve it,” he conveniently misses that his current plan with its dubious measures is equal to, if not worse than, the status quo.

And he, therefore, overlooks the “rational consumer” in each of his fellow Americans.

This is another installment into my series on health care reform. I find the topic interesting and I hope all reading this piece does. Also, this mounts a hopeful return to writing columns for the Parthenon this term, but as a regulator, more as a fill-in on days that a weekly columnist cannot fulfill his or her deadline.

Health Care Reform and Existing Regulations

2009-07-23T19:16:00.007-05:00

Earlier this week, our President Obama, not knowing the truth to which he spoke, stepped forwards to assert, “Time and again, the American people have suffered because people in Washington played the politics of the moment, instead of putting the interests of the American people first.”

He continued, “That is how we ended up with premiums rising three times faster than wages; that is how we ended up with businesses choosing between shedding benefits or shutting their doors; that is how we have been burdened with runaway costs and huge gaps in coverage.”

The president undoubtedly believes more government involvement in the health care sector can “pressure” America to better-controlled costs, whilst covering an even larger segment of the American citizenry.

When he says, “[T]here are going to be some areas where we want to regulate the insurers a little more,” what is one to gather other than such?

Yet, few in Washington acknowledge--let alone accept any responsibility for--the political catastrophe wrought by decades of shortsighted regulations, instead they seek perpetually to portray this health care situation as a free market failure.

However, government-run health care, if when one views the economic literature, cannot with all its poorly channeled incentives, insulated inefficiencies, and scores of hidden costs provide patients with the quality of care and reasonable prices as well as a well-designed private sector.

With such said though, health economist Patricia Danzon wrote, “The performance of the current U.S. health care system does not provide a guide to the potential functioning of a well-designed private market system.”

She further noted, “Cost and waste in the current U.S. system are unnecessarily high because of tax and regulatory policies that impede efficient cost control by private insurers…”

The health care industry stands as one of the most heavily regulated, and thusly strangled, sectors in the American economy.

Although the multitude of these ill-starred regulations commenced rapidly in the New Deal era and developed ever-increasingly thereafter, America’s economic history has never been as laissez-faire as some, for better or worse, want to perceive.

For example, Congress insipidly mimicked the British in 1789 by funding the Marine Hospital Service by monthly taxation of American seamen.

Health economist Linda Gorman observed, “As U.S. government grew, [politicians] continued passing laws to regulate the kind of health coverage people could purchase.”

These regulations run the gamut from blocking entry into the medical profession to limiting extensively selective options for managed care plans, from artificial cost controls on insurers, hospitals, and pharmaceutical providers to numerous moralistic laws that dictate the very lives of individual Americans.

All these added regulations do not come without their own set of unpleasant economic consequences;--that is, imposed regulatory costs push up health care prices which directly lead to increased numbers of uninsured.

The economic phenomenon, known as “The Regulatory Wedge,” pilots inflation upwards due exclusively to government prescribed regulations.

With the given amount of existing regulation, some health care analysts have reported that the regulatory wedge to be larger than eight percent of total cost spent annually in this sector.

Gorman, also, remarked, “The true cost of health care was hidden from covered individuals. Vast spending increases were the result. The introduction of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 made the situation worse.”

For example, National Bureau of Economic Research’s Amy Finkelstein discovered that Medicare itself increased real hospital expenditure by some 23 percent within the first five years of the program.

The myriad regulations, broad and minute alike, enforced by government to lessen the weight of costs below the given market equilibrium only distorts the supply-and-demand factors, whilst shifting the true cost to less seen areas.

President Obama, alongside many congressional members, lacks the economic comprehension to understand it requires more than just regulating costs, for prices are signals, or more fitting symptoms, of markets actually working, healthy or otherwise.

Several issues arose with this column. One being that the last paragraph was published without “economic,” “actually working,” as well as “otherwise” was not changed from “not.” Second being that it lacked a certain "smartassness" that I felt the other two in the series had.

Health Care Reform and Gov’t Bureaucracy

2009-07-16T01:03:00.003-05:00

Within the past week, House and Senate Democrats delivered Congress two Health Care Reform bills, each meeting the nonsensical guidelines set forth by our President Obama. As well, the president released a statement praising and endorsing the House bill, saying this “proposal will begin the process of fixing what’s broken….”

According to Fortune’s senior editor at large, Shawn Tully, “The two bills [will] require states to establish insurance ‘exchanges’ that [will] offer a variety of plans.” Interestingly, each state’s ‘exchange’ will exist as completely separate markets, not benefiting from national competition--thusly, not benefiting consumers and taxpayers.

For all of these plans, the federal government will impose across all states minimum standards;--that is, standards “often more stringent and expensive than the existing laws require.”

The Senate bill already has a preliminary menu, including mental health and substance abuse programs.

Tully continued, “A special panel of experts [will] add to that list, and [one] can bet that the additions [will] be substantial and costly.” Noteworthy, added regulations and more bureaucracy have only augmented and exacerbated costs and inefficiencies, never lessening.

The myopic idea that a “public option” will compete squarely against private plans--let alone spur innovation--lacks basic economic realism. Ultimately, this “public option” will spur private insurers thoroughly out of the marketplace altogether.

In the 2005 article, “The Thing Itself,” political economist Michael Munger wrote, “We [cannot] make government more efficient, or more like business, because it insulates officials from such pressures by design.”

Government bureaucracy, or as Calf. Rep. Henry Waxman wants it known as “accountable organizations,” shares not in the incentive mechanisms by which the private sector must abide.

Public options, merely by the inescapable nature of bureaucracy itself, cannot efficiently allocate its resources to meet its demand; from this occurrence, a deadweight loss materializes. With such a loss, we can only expect unparallel shortages and surpluses nationwide, as witnessed in energy markets through the 1970’s.

More so, bureaucracy with its prodigal incentives survives solely by undercutting its inefficiencies and incompetence through government appropriated subsidies at the taxpayers’ expense.

Private insurers, however, lacking such profligate capacity, compete by addressing their allocation of resources efficiently and doing so continually.

By maximizing profits, whilst minimizing costs, they are impelled perforce through competition to provide better benefits at better prices to their consumers, or they simply cease operations, in which freeing up resources for others to use more efficiently.

This--Capitalism--is what spurs innovation, not government monopolies, dancing on political heartstrings at bureaucratic impulses.

As health economist Patricia Danzon explained, “Both economic theory and a careful review of the evidence… suggest that a government monopoly of financing and provision achieves a less efficient allocation of resources to medical care than would a well-designed private market system.”

In addition to the forgone benefits experienced by the consumer, government health care structures and systems harbor numerous hidden costs, unlike free market systems.

However, when by good intentions government gets involved, consumers and taxpayers get taken obligatorily in lordotic fashion by roughshod bureaucrats.

The president, nonetheless, has proclaimed from the stump to the Oval Office: “[I]f you’re happy with your plan… you keep it.” Yet, with the federal government underwriting costs artificially by use of taxpayer subsidies, no private insurer will be able to compete.

Our President Lincoln once said, “You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”

Undoubtedly, President Obama, as most, has heard this hackneyed passage before, yet one must question if he bides by such an overtly honest sentiment.

This my second column in the series on Health Care Reform for Marshall University's campus paper, The Parthenon. It is presently the Featured Article at the Marshall Libertarians website. Links to both site in the top left-hand links' box. The column itself turned out to be better that I thought it might at moments.

Health Care Reform and the Individual

2009-07-09T04:46:00.005-05:00

Two weeks back, ABC News hosted, “Questions for the President: Prescription for America”--that is, a Health Care Reform forum with our President Obama.

The president fielded, and vacillated himself through, a number of intentionally severalfold questions. These questions were posed by an array of individuals, representing the medical profession, patients, and just simple taxpayers.

The president attempted, struggling to maintain his notedly disarming ease throughout the evening, to assured his fellow Americans that this reform bears no similitude to big government bureaucracy.

The president reached to comfort some by downplaying their Orwellian anxiety, as he put it, “the whole big brother fear,” by playing up his usual soundbite: “[I]f you’re happy with your plan… you keep it.” Yet, a soundbite only simplifies the complexities of the world at the bastardization of reality.

Nonetheless, one audience member told of her 105-year-old mother and how five years back the mother came into need of a pacemaker.

The mother’s general physician was honest about the apparent unlikelihood of the procedure after one arrhythmia specialist claimed the patient was just too old, yet he sent the mother to another arrhythmia specialist. This specialist, however, taken aback by the mother’s “joy of life” agreed to perform the operation.

After this situational explanation, the questioner poised her query: “[I]s there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?”

The president joked and bloviated through his response to finally conclude: we cannot “make judgments based on peoples’ spirit,” noting that to “be a pretty subjective decision.” Clarifying simply, he said, “[W]e have to have rules…”

However, when pushed by the same questioner, President Obama stated, “[I]f we’ve got experts… advising doctors across the board that the pacemaker may ultimately save money, then we potentially could have done that faster.” The potentiality of government efficiency has not been backed by the numbers and/or by history.

One cannot escape pondering, who shall these “experts” making these “rules” be?

The answer austerely remains the same even amongst Washingtonian doublespeak. These “experts,” no matter political titles, are bureaucrats.

How can this Health Care Reform be patient-based, when the individual is left out?

When the president claimed these decisions cannot be based on so-called subjectivity, he simply should have mentioned it as it is: decisions cannot bear on individuality.

However, no physicians cannot acknowledge that each patient comes with a different medical background, a different attitude, a different “quality of life.” This is where doctors, along with patients’ guidelines, make the final judgment based on these individualities.

What is lost upon advocates of this type of Health Care Reform is that all patients and doctors are making the cost-and-benefit analysis. When we outsource these analyses to government bureaucrats under compulsory laws, we cannot expect but to out-ship patients, as did Norway several years back, by sending patients to private, foreign hospitals.

“I don’t want bureaucracies making [the] decisions,” the president told the audience, “but understand… [the] decisions are already being made….” He cited that they are “being made by private insurers.”

The president fails jejunely to recognize the individual element. Individual patients are individual consumers in the health care market, in which goes medical insurance. And under a free market system, as Disney CEO Bob Iger said recently, “The consumer is king, not us the content provider and not you the distributor.”

This discussion is not solely societal, political, economic, or even medical. It is all of these and as well a philosophical one. We must be willing to ask ourselves some deeply rooted questions about our own individuality, such as where does the individual stand when against the collective.

The answer historically is in a line with a number.

This column is the beginning of a series on the issue of Health Care Reform. I find the topic interesting, yet more so it seems in need of serious and thoughtful discussion.

Batman and One's Moral Philosophy

2009-07-02T14:28:00.003-05:00

Firstly, the most dynamic of heroes and villains must be neither contrived solely of evil nor good, of black nor white, yet exist within the myriad greys of life for a viewing audience to relate. No longer the starkly poised construct of idiosyncratic foiling will pass simpleton critique. The fundamental distinction, however, arises in that the villain finds meaninglessness in the grey reality of the present world of circumstance, while the hero develops out of this chaotic veracity a moral paradigm wherein a black-and-white system must evolve, separating the blurring shades into two demarcated groups.

Secondly, an example of this is shown in our mythology of Batman. Here is a man who is struggling for order out of an arbitrary world, where his foes find only the opposite. What divides him from the rest simply is that he strives for a moral philosophy, while the rest accept none. A world without man is a world without moral philosophy, for only he can rein in his environment;--it stands so for his survival. So, the mental fitness of man basically is all with which he is equipped.

Finally, once I would have agreed with the relative nature of morality, yet coming away from that stance wherein I developed (as we all must) a personal philosophy, mine being of productivity. In so saying this, a society grows and prospers where the morality is steered by personal property, personal responsibility, personal choice, etc. Myths and folklore find little space, if any, in the era of science and reason. I can justify many actions founded on a cost-benefit analysis, due to personal responsibility, yet no form of rape can be justified, for it attracts personal property and personal choice;--thusly, undermines the very fabric of efficient and productive civilization.

This is a cleaned-up YouTube reply I penned several months back. I find interesting in some fashion. I hope it is enjoyed.

Human Nature and the Institutions that Retain It

2009-04-19T23:14:00.010-05:00

Mankind has not civilized itself by advancing as moral, or even ethical, beings, yet on the contrary, by the sole erecting of institutions to assist in the mitigating and the isolating of man’s nature.

Firstly, many thinkers from the French Enlightenment to modern Marxists, as well as numerous philosophers and social scientists, have emphasized the role of society over human nature.

English Philosopher John Locke thought of human nature as a “tabula rasa” or a “blank slate” with no rules or guidelines, only social experiences to direct the mind of the individual.

According to Australian Historian of Philosophy John Passmore, English Philosopher David Hume had “one thing he never doubted [that] was that there was such a thing as human nature. This was a point that he differed from Locke.”

Passmore added, “[Hume] says he thought [to deny human nature] was a ridiculous view, human beings do have angers, fears, all the rest of it… which are innate, which are inborn in them, and which are constant throughout human history.”

For one to aggressively underrate, or to casually dismiss, the historic observation that man seeks today the glories and treasures for which he sought at any yesteryear in his existence, denies flatly his biological nature and the limitations thereof to which these neurological attributes adjourn.

Secondly, the Framers of the American Constitution and the American System, in general, comprehended the role of human nature in mankind’s progress.

For example, James Madison stated, “What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

With this perspicacious understanding, the Framers constructed fundamental institutions to check and balance, not the institutions themselves, but the human factor involved.

Due to these institutions, any individual spending time researching America’s prosperity, as well as much of the Western World’s, and the poverty of much of Latin America, Asia, and Africa will unearth much of the variance.

These nations lack the institutional structure to palliate the nature of man, himself. They rely on what American Economist Thomas Sowell would call the “Unconstrained” archetype of a leader.

Thirdly, in Sowell’s book, A Conflict of Visions, Sowell discusses two countering “visions”: the “Constrained” and the “Unconstrained”.

To clarify, “visions” are “the implicit assumes with which [one] operate[s].”

The “Constrained” maintains that human nature is flawed, yet fixed. The question then presented is how to design institutions to retain the flaws, while permitting one to live in the best social situation possible. More so, mankind is “Constrained” by his own human nature.

The “Unconstrained” argues that “the things that we suffer” are “the failure of other people to be as wise and as noble” as oneself. From this notion comes the Thomas Paine line, “to begin the world anew,” for institutions and virtueless men are causing this pain and suffering.

For examples of the applications of these “visions”, one need look only to 18th Century France and America.

Sowell explains, “In France, the idea was if you simply put the right people in charge and create the right institutions then all these problems would go away.”

Basically, with stationing a “political messiah” in power that loves the people, all then becomes well and good.

However, “[i]n the United States, it was assumed from the outset that there were very limited things you could do. What you needed to do above all was to minimize the damage done by the flaws of human nature.”

With this acceptance of human nature, constitutions and institutions are constructed for the purpose of diversifying the governing powers, so one may not control the multitude.

Finally, few current Americans--particularly, young ones--gather much in the way of political lessons from the Scottish Enlightenment, the Framers, and just history, in general.

With electing President Obama, America forgot or just dismissed the concerns of the Framers or the Founding Fathers, in general. But, Americans only shortly remembered the “Spirit of ‘76” once nationhood came to be. So, nothing is truly new.

Nonetheless, though, the elected individuals on the whole attempted and still so to implant the “Unconstrained” view in their constituents, for institutions bar their governing powers; hence, for the fortification of our liberty and individualism.

The fundamental institutions assembled by the Framers and at few other periods in our nation’s history have been the protection for us, as a people, not the men and women we have elected or will in the future do the same.

This column was not published this week for conflicting opinion on the use of the Opinion Page in a newspaper. I enjoyed the research for this column.

Marketplace of Ideas and the Student’s Role

2009-04-13T00:03:00.001-05:00

In 1967, the Supreme Court in Keyishian v. Board of Regents summarized in its decision, “The classroom is peculiarly the marketplace of ideas.”

This construct often enough is attributed to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. His 1919 dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States carries as far the implicit, without the explicit: “[W]hen men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas…”

Holmes continued, “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which [any of man’s] wishes safely can be carried out.”

As in the market for any other commodity, competition delivers the consumer with a better product at a better price.

When ideas are exchanged in this marketplace time is given to the argument, the act of criticisms and rebuttals. Whereby, the idea that remains stands less porous and more strengthened—that is, better intellectually, as a whole or more often amended to the new information gathered in the argument experience.

The other ideas linger on with pockets of individuals still speaking the gospel of his or her determined convictions. For no idea dies, no matter how poor, how corrupt, how wrong it may be. Once an idea is brought into the world, it exists with no regard to mortality.

Likewise, ideas carry no burdensome message of value, such as good or bad, moral or immoral, righteous or evil. Ideas just are, as an apple just is an apple.

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Roscoe in 1820 wrote, “This institution [University of Virginia] will be based upon the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”

Jefferson spoke poetically, yet in this he struck upon the utmost ideal of an academic institution.

In the present day, however, the competition in the marketplace for ideas wanes.

Economist Thomas Sowell wrote recently, “Elementary as it may seem that we should hear both sides of an issue before making up our minds, that is seldom what happens on politically correct issues today in our schools and colleges. The biggest argument of the left is that there is no argument--whether the issue is global warming, “open space” laws or whatever.”

Granted that many a time more than only two sides of an issue exist, Sowell succinctly notes “the biggest argument” is to argue that “there is no argument.”

As consumers of education in the marketplace of ideas, we, as students, are told that no competition--no ideas, no debate, no thinking--is needed to uphold the high quality of our education. And we are foolish enough to believe this economic fallacy and to gaily digest the asininity.

Many causes have led to this effect: bad institutional incentives, academic politicization, societal complacency, etc. Maybe, however, the biggest is the student body itself.

The individual students remain not as victims, but as co-conspirators.

We aid and abet the crimes perpetuated against us. We seek not to push ourselves, personally or jointly; more so we accept naively, for to accept and not to question is the path easiest to stumble on Friday and Saturday nights.

Mark Twain may well have been correct, “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”

This week's column came into form after reading a campus editorial and listening to an interview from the Hoover Institution with Justice Antonin Scalia, as well as with further reading of Thomas Sowell, John Dewey, and Oscar Wilde recently.

By a Few Great Minds

2009-03-15T23:32:00.011-05:00

In Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, Francisco d’Anconia tells Dagny Taggart, “You can’t have your cake and let your neighbor eat it, too.”

With this turn-of-phrase, one discovers a long running economic fallacy: the villains, as in relation to Rand’s work, want to “have” a bigger piece of the cake, whereas the heroes perceive society as a bakery to continually “make” endless amounts of said cake.

Milton Friedman, Nobel prize-winning economist, once stated, “Most economic fallacies derive--from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.”

The heroes take the world as wherein party one has a price at which he will sell and party two has a price at which he will buy and the price is set and the transaction made if and only if through this each benefits, yet neither will proceed if harm is to befall either.

The “looters,” however, live by a code that reflects the misconception;--they can only mentally grasp this world as the proverbial fixed pie, wherein “wealth [is] a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor.”

Francisco expands on such logic, “That phrase about the evil of money… comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves--slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody’s mind and left unimproved for centuries.”

These were “centuries of stagnation and starvation”, in which looters through force, inheritance, and government bureaucracy, not producers, not traders, not entrepreneurs, stood as the exalted among men.

“Stagnation”--the very word helps the reasoning mind to pause and then take the leap into the internal workings of the looter’s. If money is a “static quantity,” then, the cake and the dividing of it, would be a somewhat reasonable motive for the actions and reactions to the consequences of the prior actions by the looter.

Yet, time and again, the looters and the moochers witness, such incidents, as Rand’s fictitious Twenty Century Motor Company, where money lays abandoned, because they “look upon money as the savages did before [them], and [they] wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of [their] cities.”

As a torpid crowd comprised of looters and moochers at a wedding listens to Francisco explain that “Money is made possible only by the men who produce,” and that “Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think,” one learns the value of ideas and the production by which these ideas are manifested in society.

When Francisco asks rhetorically, “Have you ever looked for the root of production,” he elaborates by drawing to the forefront of his audience’s minds that the electric generator was not “created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes” and he even challenges them to attempt to grow “wheat without the knowledge left [them] by men who had to discover it for the first time.”

Francisco succinctly phrases, “Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions--and you'll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed…”

However, in this present time of political correctness, none seems to be comfortable with stating the unquestionable: civilization presses forwards only by the very few great minds, not by the numerous strong backs.

These great minds with solely their “virtue of selfishness,” not their altruism, expand for us all the knowledge of the once tribal to the now celestial. On the mental coattails of these, ever we all ride into prosperity and betterment.

I hope this is a clearer understanding of a post or two I added a while back. This column was to run today, yet I cannot find it on the paper's website. I do not know to what reason it might not have been published. Unless for stylistic differences.

Belief in Miracles is Irrational

2009-03-09T00:09:00.007-05:00

No rational person can believe in miracles, to put it simply.

A miracle is by definition a given act or revelation of a supernatural being that defies and denies the natural order and the cosmological laws.

Miracles, ergo, mock nature and disregard reality. The belief in them, quintessentially, tears at the fabric of intelligence.

Thomas Paine greatly understood and boldly states in his 1793 work, “Age of Reason: Part I,” that something revealed to one individual is a “revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.”

In the paragraph following, Paine adds, “[A]nd though he [the individual to which the revelation was revealed] may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.”

One must notice that lying is a part of the human condition; all human beings at one point or another become economic with the truth and commit, thusly, their fair share of perjury.

With this fact, how can one rationally side on the abrogation of nature’s laws in the light thereof of human nature itself?

One simply cannot.

Paine illustrates, “When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so.”

Another example, Paine uses, “When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes too near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second-hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and, therefore, I have a right not to believe it.”

To consider Christianity, a religion with its unmitigated doctrine entirely based on the notion that the miracles of Jesus Christ denoted in the Gospels are nonetheless true; thusly, proving that Christ was the son of God and worthy of worship. A textual problem arises, since everyone recognizes the Gospels were penned no less than a generation after Christ’s supposed crucifixion.

Sam Harris, neuroscientist and author, explains that “The truth is even if we had multiple contemporaneous eyewitness accounts of the miracles of Jesus it still would not provide sufficient basis to believe that these events actually occurred.”

One might ask, Why not?

Harris continues, “Well, the problem is that first-hand reports of miracles are quite common even in the 21st-century.” He tells further about hundreds of Western educated men and women who think “their favorite Hindu or Buddhist guru has magic powers. The powers ascribed to these gurus are every bit as outlandish as those ascribed to Jesus.”

The foundational Christian claim that miracles of the sort, as by the present Hindu swami Satya Sai Baba, Harris explains, “become especially compelling when you set them in the pre-scientific religious context of the first century Roman Empire decades after their supposed occurrence.”

With at least a million eyewitnesses to certain miracles of Sai Baba, this man still does not, as Harris states, “even merit an hour on the Discovery Channel.”

Man’s two countering dispositions, as a creature, are to question and to accept. These two temperaments led man to battle himself socially and personally. However, only through questioning, not by accepting, did he come to a better understanding of his place in nature.

He began to simply understand. He began to place miracles in the same drawer as commonplace parlor tricks.

The paragraph before “To consider Christianity...” did not appear in the column published in The Parthenon, due to my attempt to be under 600 words this week. I like the paragraph because it hits on another religion. I dig this column.

Cradle of an Abstraction

2009-03-02T16:04:00.004-05:00

If in a time of national threat from a domestic or foreign enemy--as in war, either symmetrical or asymmetrical--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 relinquish certain liberties for protection. Furthermore, 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 heard numerous times.

As well, the Revolutionary sentiment, often 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 honor, what is principle, to the basic questions of man, what is right and wrong. And to the greatest couplet of questions: why and why not.

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

The idea liberty becomes a casualty 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.

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 such 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 risk their lives 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 a casualty 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.

Paramount with all that said, politics is not a science rather a game of strategy;--hence, of compromise. Liberty and safety exist not divorced of each other, as above here summarized and as many may as well portray. We, as individuals, need the balance of this temperamental ratio of liberty and safety.

What one should come to understand, accept, and expect is for an individual--when the lines are not clearly demarcated, when the costs and benefits are not so certain, when ethics are dissociated with their functional construct--to then err on the side of liberty, the great attraction.

For from the cradle of safety comes only withering of tender liberty, while from the cradle of liberty, safety flourishes in all its yields.

This column was taken from an earlier blogpost. The title was changed by the paper for their reasons, which it is fine. It was changed to "Seeking only safety hurts liberty". Some sentences were changed as well. The last three paragraphs critique the afore read paragraphs, yet the deletion of the transition makes the argument seem inconsistent. But life goes on.

These Scars, Part Three: Responsibility

2009-02-09T12:02:00.011-05:00

With The Dark Knight pinned beneath a steel rail, stories above the pavement, and with the weight of The Joker compounding the existing encumbrance, Batman remains on his back immobile. When The Joker mentions that “It’s a funny world we live in,” The Joker stops and looks at his incapacitated foe.

Continuing, he says, “Speaking of which, know how I got these scars?” Batman, drawing from an earlier scene in which he receives from Lucius Fox a new batsuit, responds, “No, but I know how you get these…” With his spiked vambraces now equipped to propel the spikes forth, he does so, striking The Joker and giving himself the ability to become free.

As we have learned from The Joker’s two differing tales of the origin of his scars, scars originate and manifest in equally different manners, nevertheless, leaving the same result--a scarred individual.

In the past two weeks, The Joker, as we have come to understand, actually, highlights within his own unique allegoric pedagogy and acute blend of postmodernist surveys of anthropology, psychology, sociology, and the neurosciences.

First, we discover that high stress experienced in the early developing years of childhood can alter the essential structural hardware of the brain, having a direct effect on the mind’s software. One cannot simply delete or erase these neurochemical scars.

As English poet and polemicist John Milton penned in Paradise Regained, “The childhood shows the man / As morning shows the day.” More often never does it seem that a bad morning extends into a good day.

Second, we find that empathy, one of the key elements to our very humanity, can be what initiates the trauma that separates us from our fellow man, leaving each to mirror the scars of the other.

As economist and ethicist Adam Smith observed, to merely draw into one’s mind the plight of “our brother upon the rack” was enough for one to “enter as it were into his body, and become in some measure the same person with him.” As keen as this notion of “fellow-feeling” is, he ends before mentioning how the “brother upon the rack” sees his fellow man, and in that, comes the “personal distress” and the separation.

Yet, how far can society go in addressing these types of issues and the actors that propagate forth from such?

The Greek philosopher Diogenes of Sinope states, “No man is hurt but by himself.” If seeking a more modern translation of this concept, one need look no further than a recent Country song, in which one will hear, “[W]e all live with the scars we choose.”

One should question if a contradiction exists between the science and the philosophy. However, no contradiction does.

When examined further we come to find that trauma, and thusly, its scars, can be navigated through in time and with fortitude. The mind can never be swiped clean, yet it can learn to augment itself with new software to assist in the participation of the traumatized with the societally functional.

Jean Decety, a neuroscientist at the University of Chicago, notes, “One way to regulate emotion is to get more information.” From this, he continues, “[I]f you are able to separate yourself, then the non-overlap in the neural response frees up processing capacity in the brain for formulating an appropriate action.”

We have the choice in how we approach our trauma;--that is, to let it affect us, or for us to control it, to funnel it into something productive or just something that does not obstruct our progress.

Take Bruce Wayne--a child left in a damp alleyway alone holding the hand of his dying father, after witnessing both his parents being shot--he made a choice about his trauma, he learned through information and the acquisition of knowledge how to understand his trauma, and he focused his mental and physical being around these scars.

Batman comprehends that each individual--no matter his chaotic childhood, no matter his emotional trauma, no matter his past, in general--is responsible solely for his actions and must bear the consequences thereof.

To understand why and how one does as one does is to only prevent future traumatic experiences, and therefore, similar situations, yet negates naught of the actions that have already befallen.

This finishes this thought on The Joker's Scars and the society. It was not the most actively received of columns, yet life goes on.

Always Smiling, Part Two: Empathy

2009-02-02T00:05:00.010-05:00

Sen. Patrick Leahy, portraying an unidentified gentleman at Bruce Wayne’s party for the new District Attorney Harvey Dent, replies to the green-haired man, “We are not intimidated by thugs.” The Joker momentarily contemplates, examining this man’s facial mien, before replying, “You remind me of my father; I hated my father.”

With The Joker’s knife blade seeking a new victim, Rachel Dawes interrupts by stepping forward. The Joker comments ostentatiously on her beauty and notes her nervous nature. He asks, drawing close, “Is it the Scars? Wanna know how I got them?”

After forcefully compelling Dawes to look at him, he explains tenderly, “I had a wife, beautiful like you.” His wife gambled and got “in deep with the sharks,” yet she thought he need not “worry” and to just “smile more.” When the “sharks” collected their returns out of her facial assets, the young couple had “no money for surgeries.”

His wife did not handle the scars well; moreover, he “just want[ed] to see her smile again” and for her to know he did not “care about the scars.” So, he inserted into his mouth a razor, thusly scarring himself, but because of this, she would not even look of him. She eventually just leaves.

The Joker mentions he found understanding, “Now, I see the funny side;--now, I am always smiling.”

With understanding that through caring, physically and emotionally, for the traumatized one also becomes such himself, we learn the infectious and destructive nature of trauma.

Giacomo Rizzolatti, a neuroscientist at the University of Parma, states, “Mirror neurons”--neurons that fire both in the response to an individual’s actions and in the observations of these acts by another--“allow us to grasp the minds of others, not through conceptual reasoning, but through direct simulation. By feeling, not by thinking.”

These simulations are what allow one individual to share in another’s joys and/or another’s sadness. It is these mirror neurons that direct us in our emotional comprehension of others, particularly, through “empathy.”

“And if you see me choke up, in emotional distress from striking out at home plate,” Marco Iacoboni, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, exemplifies, “you automatically have empathy for me. You know how I feel because you literally feel what I am feeling.”

Empathy, in general, as Jean Decety, a neuroscientist at University of Chicago, explains begins with the involuntary “shared emotion.”

“This is something that is hard-wired into our brains--the capacity to automatically perceive and share others’ feelings.” He notes, how when a baby hears another cry how it begins to cry, as well.

“People of all ages,” Decety continues, “will unconsciously mimic the facial expressions of those they see.” Difficult it is to refrain from laughing, when amongst a crowd of a jovial character.

When an individual loses himself in another’s pain, Decety explains, the self experiences “personal distress.” The “other-oriented” nature of empathy is put to the side and “personal distress turns inward.” So, basically, one now forfeits his ability to assist in the recovery or treatment of the other.

The scars The Joker’s wife received, in consequence for her own actions, and then compounded and internalized by his love for her leaves him equally scarred. It is through the trauma, in direct relation to his empathy and compassion, that he now faces the world, at large.

Interesting how the traumatized despises the traumatized, as in his wife’s leaving, after he eventually becomes the same as she, yet nonetheless.

Just curious how trauma is passed from one to another, as simply as a joke or even just a smile, if only it faded as soon.

This is the most interesting story for which The Joker gives as an origin to his scars, at least in the The Dark Knight film. I have for a few years now found Neuroscience quite interesting;--one of the many fields of economics that I enjoy is the peripheral branch of Neuroeconomics. Nonetheless, important it is to understand the effects of trauma, if it is from childhood stress or empathy at any age. Once we understand that a little is good, a little is natural, a little is evolutionary, then we can be able to deal with ourselves more fully.

Why So Serious, Part One: Child Abuse

2009-01-26T04:55:00.005-05:00

As the purple clad and face-painted Joker springs forth from the pool table with knife in hand, he commences somewhat in meekly manner in his own self-indulgent query, “You wanna know how I got these scars?”

The Joker continues detailing a narrative of a father that “was a drinker and a fiend.” Recalling one night when his father goes “off crazier than usual” and how his mother “gets the kitchen knife to defend herself,” he tells that his father does not approve of this and how he “takes the knife to her, laughing while he does it.” As a matter of consequence, the young child witnesses this gruesome scene, yet whence his father realizes his son’s presence, he turns to the child saying jovially, “Why so Serious?”

From there the father inserts the knife blade in his son’s mouth and blares, “Let’s put a smile on that face.” Then, The Joker nonchalantly asks his present victim, “Why so Serious?”

Yet, seldom does a father so intentionally, so deliberately, so literarily scar his child. Nonetheless, the actions of our parents and the mentors of our youth bear heavily on our psychological, sociological, and neurological development. We are the products of our up-bringing.

As Jill E. Korbin, a cultural and medical anthropologist, Case Western Reserve University, explains “[t]he intersection of childhood and violence raises several problematic issues that demand a synthesis and reformulation,” she continues “[a]lthough it is perhaps simplistic to say that both childhood and violence are culturally constructed categories, it is nevertheless the case that violence is not a unitary phenomenon nor is childhood experienced similarly everywhere.”

For without these fundamental assumptions being explicitly stated, “it is impossible to understand the variability of experience involving children and violence.”

Martin H. Teicher, a psychiatry professor, Harvard Medical School, notes that “in the early 1990’s mental health professionals believed that emotional and social difficulties occurred mainly through psychological means.”

Interestingly, “[c]hildhood maltreatment was understood either to foster the development of intrapsychic defense mechanisms that proved to be self-defeating in adulthood or to arrest psychosocial development…”

Basically, the mind was viewed by researchers as essentially software in which any problem could be amended, reprogrammed, or just altogether erased.

The research of Teicher and his colleagues seems to lead to a failure in the hardware of the mind, due to biological and chemical alterations. Teicher explains that significant brain-wave abnormalities were clinically found “in 54 percent of patients with a history of early trauma but in only 27 percent of non-abused patients.” These electroencephalogram (EEG) anomalies reached 72 percent in those with “documented histories of serious physical and sexual abuse.”

When abuse of children occurs, it happens during the critically formative time of experience, as the brain is physically sculpting its structural self, as an artist with a chisel. The severe stress of these experiences “can leave an indelible imprint on its structure and function. Such abuse, it seems, induces a cascade of molecular and neurobiological effects,” as Teicher states, that are irreversible.

Ross Macmillan, a sociology professor, University of Minnesota, records that while “[c]ontrolling for earlier involvement and a host of sociodemographic characteristics, adolescent victimization almost tripled the odds of both violent and property offending in adulthood, doubled the odds of domestic violence, and increased the odds of problem drug use by almost 90%.”

So, basically, each generation lives out the habits, violence, and scars of the preceding generation. It can be said, that the “life trajectory,” which Macmillan discusses more in his research, would be to describe The Joker, as a stray bullet, without any form of agency.

The Joker embodies the now embrowned sins of his father, as we embody those of our parents, and as our children will embody from us. If only each lived in a vacuum, one would not be burdened by the scars of his elders, yet we live not as such, but as institutions produced by many.

This is my second column for the term, and it commences a three part series drawing on The Dark Knight;--mainly, outlining the different stories given by the Joker about the origins of his scars. I use actual scientific research to explore the macro-picture of this subtle and differing stories.

Some Things Never Change

2009-01-21T14:47:00.006-05:00

Nathaniel Hawthorne, 19th Century American writer, in his masterful work, The Blithedale Romance, steals from an American period of revolutionary economic, societal, and political reform, mostly in the present grim face of the financial crisis experienced in the late 1830’s and early 1840’s, and the foreboding tensions of socio-political conflicts destined to lead our young nation to war. Here warns that vigorous reforms may bestow the United States with adverse results and unforeseen consequences to such lofty ideal goals put into practice hastily.

Firstly, in May of 1837, the young nation of immigrants, freedom, and opportunity discovered it faced a swarm of hardships to the likes it had not yet experienced and to which many doubted it ever would overcome. The American economy, actually, embarked on its severe downturn in 1836, following President Andrew Jackson’s eight years of hickory-like leadership. Jackson’s Vice President, Martin van Buren, came to the Oval Office with his primary concern being the struggling economy and its shaky financial institutions.

Economists and historians alike agree upon the identification of three root causes of the depression, as noted by Miller Center of Public Affairs (MCPA), that ensued the financial crisis: “First, English banks--responding to financial troubles at home--stopped pumping money into the American economy,” the importance of this reversal being these funds financed much of the economic growth during the preceding decades; “Second, U.S. banks, which had overextended credit to their clients, began to call in loans after British banks cut their money supply; Third, President Jackson’s ‘hard’ money policies… only exacerbated the credit crunch.”

On May 10th, with rapidly depleting hard currency reserves, a group of New York state banks began the refusal of converting paper money into precious metals. Throughout the nation many more banking institutions followed the same practice. Thusly, the financial crisis, Panic of 1837, commenced: “Loans dried up, and so did new purchases; businesses and civic projects collapsed…. Creditors refused to accept paper currency that seemed to be losing its value by the hour,” as stated by MCPA.

Secondly, with all these actions, unemployment rose and many started to question the fundamentals of the economic system that only seven years earlier gave them a booming economic expansion; nonetheless, the American economy accelerated its spiral downwards.

The days of the late 1830’s drew themselves longer, as a shadow in a never-ending evening, as the rumors propagated about the failure of capitalism and its greedy pawns dressed in business and banker clothes. Even, President van Buren blamed the greedy actions of domestic and foreign businesses and financial institutions for the gross overextension of credit by American banks. In the midst of these dire times, ideas on the community, civil rights, labor conflict, and general economics grew in the States and aboard, while mostly the germs of these ideas were imported from Europe by the American thinkers and artists.

However, the pensive Hawthorne dwelt on these ideas, especially, on community and transcendentalism, and apparently found some merit enough to join such an undertaking, as the Brook Farm, with, as he recorded, those “in their haste to begin the reformation of the world.” Yet, faint doubts must have stifled his thought of and passion for the community, for little was it that revealed the cracks and the ever-growing width and depth of them.

Thirdly, according to Hawthorne biographer, Arlin Turner, Hawthorne’s Blithedale narrator, Coverdale, embodies much of the author, “hold[ing] in common… most of his attitudes toward the current interests in, for example, philanthropy [socially moral activism]…”

Within this work of a prophetic and admonitory nature, it cannot be lost upon the reader the bluntness, in realizing and noting, that “real life never arranges itself exactly like a romance,” for this demonstrates maturity and wisdom. By having Coverdale disclosing this directly, following the said statement, and his inability in an early scene to extract fully the discussion from two individuals beneath the tree in which he sits unbeknownst, Hawthorne’s juxtaposition of these two details leads the reader to an understanding that this romance shares naught with others;--that here there may exist some real world applications, some knowledge of wisdom or some awareness of reality.

As with for such, Hawthorne clarifies his overarching moral theme to life in general, much less the romance, “People never do get just the good they seek.” So, boldly and succinctly structured, he adds, “If it come at all, it is something else, which they never dreamed of, and did not particularly want.” Never did more destructive horrors than one striving solely for the betterment of the good for the many. The whole of the romance testifies to this end.

Finally, for the modern reader and in the afterglow of a presidential election season of reform on the right and change on the left, Hawthorne boldly strolls through the middle of the two with pragmatic sense. He wrote in 1852 in the campaign biography of future President Franklin Pierce that reformers never obtain the goals for their desired achievements. A little more absolute than Hawthorne’s normal stances, yet as David Brooks, New York Times Columnist, points out, it was not until Teddy Roosevelt that Americans had presidents campaigning on change against change, instead of change against non-change. So, the absolutes of the terminology can be understood, if Pierce ran as the “not change” candidate.

Nevertheless, Hawthorne’s belief on these matters stated laconically by William E. Cain, professor at Wellesley College, “came from serious reflection on the range of reforms that crisscrossed the United States in the 1830's, 1840's, and 1850's. Hawthorne did not doubt that the nation could be made better, but he balked at the notion that everything could be made better quickly. He perceived reformers turning narrow-minded, hard-hearted, and intolerant, and thereby causing harm as they took away other persons’ liberty in the attempt to gain an immediate moral good.”

All that said, our America and man’s history welcome you, my President Obama.

Today is the official return of my Parthenon column, Parsons’ Pulpit. I have written a column for The Parthenon before and I calculate all together it would be two and half terms. This column came about an independent study I did on the work of Nathaniel Hawthorne. It is obvious my economic interests. Quite a bit longer than planned, but quite a lot of information, as well. Hope the reader enjoys.

A YouTube Correspondence about Race and Culture

2009-01-07T05:33:00.006-05:00

I must commence with a word or so about this post. I entered into a correspondence with a gentleman a couple of years old than I on YouTube.com several week past. This individual came to my attention while I was pursing a few videos on the newest Brad Pitt film, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which is based on a F. Scott Fitzgerald short story by the same name. You will read the simple, yet direct, statement he left on the video’s comment wall. From there, all, but the final reply, went from his YouTube wall to my YouTube wall and so on. The final reply was sent in a private message to me.

If one finds his or her way to his page, one will find the following self-description. I add it here to give the reader a further understanding of the reasoning behind some of the questions and responds. I did not enter into this discussion to sway this gentleman’s mind, only to better understand it. This is the same principle on which I go to church when home, just to have something or someone with to argue.

Here is this gentleman's self-description:

Name: Sean
Age: 26

.....WARNING: DO NOT ACCEPT SUNDAY AS SABBATH DAY
.....WHEN THE POPE/VATICAN MAKES IT A WORLD WIDE
.....LAW!! IT'S THE MARK OF THE BEAST!! NOT THE MICRO-
.....CHIP! ARM YOURSELFS WITH KNOWLEDGE!

.....“Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We
.....ought to obey God rather than men.” -- Acts 5:29

.....I support White Nationalism; I'm against interracial relation-
.....ships for various reasons; and I do my best to be a Christian.

.....The reason why I strongly disagree with interracial relation-
.....ships is because I don't enjoy watching the destruction of the
.....white race, which now only makes up 8% of the entire human
.....population that's 8% out of 100%. The way I see it, people who
.....support interracial relationships are mindless idiots that let
.....others think for them, genocidal racists who want to see my
.....race gone, or scoffers walking after their own lusts.

.....I'm a dedicated Christian and I care a lot about people, unless
.....they dislike me first then I just ignore them and deem them
.....arrogant and simple minded, I always consider other people's
.....opinions instead of just passing them off as ignorant. I try my
.....best to follow all 10 commandments, including observing the
.....Sabbath day (Saturday). I'm also aware Halloween, Christmas,
.....Easter, etc. are pagan holidays, instead of observing those days,
.....I observe the 7 “Holy Days” because when Jesus came he never
.....came to implement or take away any laws, he came to save
.....humanity and fulfill God's promise of a savior.

.....So, I'm pretty much Pro White and a Christian.

Here is his and my correspondence:

xScrappiex: I can’t believe you perverts condone the message in this movie.

ThinDreamer30: Two things. One, to what message were you referring, as in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, or should my next question answer this for me? Two, and I am sure you have heard this before, to what reply do you give that Jesus was not white?

xScrappiex: Number 1: That movie promotes pedophilia.

Number 2: I never said Jesus was white. No one knows what his race was. No one. And to make an image of him and worship it is blasphemy and idolatry. What brought that question up anyway?

ThinDreamer30: To reply. One, I disagree about the pedophilia, since the film portrays the mental state of the characters as developing on the same linear trajectory, not their physical appearances, which do progress counter to the other. That is, a relationship of the minds, not the bodies, wherein one may argue emotions and attractiveness abide. Two, I was just reading the comments on here and the summary on the left-hand side of the screen before posting, that is all. I probably was a little presumptuous. Nonetheless, would it not stand to reason that a man born in a particular geographical location at a particular historic time might be the race of that region and period, at least the odds seem to testify to such a conclusion?

xScrappiex: Let me ask you this: shouldn't every race be allowed to have their own homeland or is that a racist way of thinking?

ThinDreamer30: To reply to the homeland question. I simply see it as not being practical and more harmful than beneficial. All men possess ideas, and through the voluntary exchange and expansion thereof of these ideas, mankind creates his prosperity. I find any type of action taken in the form of tribalism, be it cultural, racial, or religious, to be an attempt by the collectivist, in which degrading the individualist, and as well the retardation of progress. That being said, each may do or try as each pleases as long as no harm befalls another who shares ideas counter to which.

xScrappiex: So Africans get Africa; Asians have China, Japan, etc.; and Arabs get Saudi Arabia, but Europeans aren't allowed to have a place they can call home? Why does Europe have to be a multicultural land?

Also, what race are you? Do you think whites are less than human or something?

ThinDreamer30: To replay to a place to call home. Firstly, Europe and America have such diversification due to their prosperity and as the rest of the world prospers these nations as well will also become more diverse. It is only a matter of time. Secondly, home is not simply a piece of ground or even a race, but a shared idea. As man moves away from physical demarcations, such as race and blood, he then finds a community of individuals with shared ideas;--that is, the mind, itself, is what defines a man, not anything else. Thirdly, I do not approve of culture as means of fact or justification: it is a form a collectivism and stagnation. Fourthly, I am quite a pale white guy, mostly German, Irish, English, Polish. Yet, forthrightly, I care little about such matters, for I view myself as American only, because The America Experiment is an experiment of ideas, not land or colour. Finally, white individuals are no less and no more human than any other. We, as all races, are equal in our humanity, if nothing else.

xScrappiex: I noticed you assumed I was a supremacist like the asshole you are. ;)

Just because someone supports white nationalism doesn't mean he thinks he is more supreme than anyone else. I shouldn't have to tell you I have a Jewish friend or a black friend to prove I'm not a supremacist, (even though I do have a Jewish friend).

Your ideology is false. You, like most people, assume a culture is not static;--nations defend their cultures so they remain static. By saying, “It's only a matter of time,” it's kind of like saying, “Why take a bath if you are just going to get dirty again.”

ARROGANT people like you THINK they know it all as if they were intelligent, but you are just as close minded as you claim me to be.

I do not believe I have finished with this discussion. I just have not yet replied. I worry about man’s ability to live with inconsistencies. My grandmother often uses the old saying, “Speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth.” It seems so glaringly obvious. I will note, I corrected most of his spelling and grammar errors for this post.

Intro of Self, Revised

2009-01-03T08:53:00.006-05:00

I am an undergraduate student in Economics at Marshall University, while also minoring in Mathematics and English. I plan on obtaining a Ph.D. in Economics. Economic research is my passion and joyance. I know within myself harbors and labors a scholar of a real Asimovian mathematical psychohistorian, the economist. Also, I expect to one day be a man of letters: fiction, both novels and short stories, in the forms of the philosophical and the allegorical; non-fiction, both novel-length and pamphlet-size, in the forms of either technical or popular. A few short stories have been completed and I have mapped out in detail my novella, The Cage. Furthermore, I have commenced to researching and modeling my first non-fiction work, The Godless Society: An Economist Explains a World without a Deity.

My grandparents raised me from the age of four years, and due to my grandfather's practical nature, moral influence, and his tales from his years as a police officer and public figure, as well as his life in general, I seek answers through reason and evidence with always a healthy skepticism of convention, authority, and collective organizations. Moreover, as child, my grandparents entertained company weekly discussing local and national political and economic issues, and in these gathering, I sought to join, for one reason or another. I was advised when I had something to contribute then I was allowed the floor, figuratively, of course. I remember still the feeling I got, the rush, when the adults stopped and listened to what a seven year old had to say; I remember still the placement of all in the room, where I sat and the colors of what I was wearing; however, not a damn idea to what they were discussing or to what I even said.

Almost all my discussions, today, therefore, embrace an academically argumentative tone, wherein I beg of all parties engaging in the given discourse to argue the issue, not the person;--personal attacks display only the whipping asininity of one's lacking reason and evidence. The maintaining of ones temper and mannerisms when pressed by an argument that is or is not rooted in logic and/or backed by data which may weaken or even counter one's own, defines one's maturity, civility, and rationality.

I value, myself, a political philosophy of Pro-Choice in all matters, Transparency in all cases, and Self-Responsibility at all times over any third-party Accountability. I believe in Efficiency, noting that self-sufficiency is seldom the same thing. What's more, I value a personal philosophy wherein Perspicaciousness, Comprehensiveness, and Consistency held by the great minds with their self-interest and personal curiosities expanded for us all the knowledge of the once tribal to the now celestial. Remembering that civilization presses forwards by the very few great minds, not by the numerous strong backs, I strive for knowledge.

As a bright-eyed child, I watched and drew from certain fictional characters, in which I now find their traits. These characters are, to name a few, Batman, Zorro, MacGyver, Highlander, Maxwell Smart, Jefferson Smith. As an analytic teenager, I witnessed and learned from several in my small town who were entrepreneurial in spirit and laboring in body. These individuals I became close with and also had the honor of working under at times.

As a young man, I desire mental stimulation on nearly an hourly basis, that being, I love knowledge and advocate education;--education in the forms of seeking and reading and analyzing facts in an opinionated world, ergo, wielding tough questions and demanding solid answers. That being said, education does not come from a nightly television show, yet from reading, not newspapers, but books and journal articles.

Political Views: Libertarian Republicanism
Religious Views: Atheism
Philosophical Views: Objectivism

I thought it was time to readdress my description of myself, since to last done in another blog post, Intro of Self. Hope someone cares.

By the Few Great Minds, Not by the Numerous Strong Backs

2008-11-20T09:27:00.005-05:00

On cold mornings, as this one, I sometimes choose to check my email while still in bed. Therefore, I usually find an email each morning from Tuesday through Friday from The Parthenon with stories of campus life and campus opinions. This morning is no different from the others, yet this morning I replied to a column titled, American People Deserve Their Fair Share.

Here is my reply:

Firstly, my principal complaint, as always, is the author’s inability to check his facts. I have tried to assist in the past, yet to no avail. I penned a whole column deconstructing one of his porous arguments and still no change. These types of lacking intellectual rigor are to blame for the protracted periods of trammeled freedoms scorching the pages of history, yet the masses seek out the local raconteur for titillatingly picayune tales of the David-like poor folk and Goliath-like rich tycoons.

Secondly, the two most pervasive prejudices in this gregarious world--simply stated--are the poor man despises the rich man, as the obtuse, the intellectual. Yet, the correlation between the intellect and the wealthy, as well as the obtuse and the poor, strikingly displays the unmentioned truth that through knowledge comes power.

Finally, though, I desire to mainly note: Civilization presses forwards by the very few great minds, not by the numerous strong backs. With no aversion to risk, these great minds with their “virtue of selfishness” expand for us all the knowledge of the once tribe to the now celestial. Not to borrow too heavily for the Ayn Randian lexicon, these men are the movers of society, the motors of the world, not the uneducated, not the labor class, but creative class of visionaries and entrepreneurs.

I turn more jaded as I age. I read these types of opinions and realize these people with these opinions vote. I feel as John Adams sometimes felt, thinking, why do I try to help these people?

Election Day Ranting

2008-11-13T17:31:00.003-05:00

Firstly, I value, myself, a political philosophy of Pro-Choice in all matters, Transparency in all cases, and Self-Responsibility at all times over any third-party Accountability. I believe in Efficiency, noting that self-sufficiency is not the same thing.

Mainly, I find exceedingly, a problem raises with the idea that change comes once very four years. I hear "change" and "reform" and I am like what in the hell do you think the other 364 days of this year is for or the 1095 days before the last time the big ball fell in Time Square.

Real change is a consistent activity: it is chatting with your friends and co-workers at lunch or over a cold beer at the end of the day, it is education in the forms of seeking and reading and analyzing facts in an opinionated world, it is wielding tough questions and demanding solid answers.

Change is coming? What? Who? When? Where? Why? How? Dammit to Christ, change is here in the lives and ideas of us all.

This a short rant from election day afternoon. I left it on my best friend's facebook wall. She was kind enough not to delete it.

Accountable to Whom?

2008-10-27T21:08:00.006-05:00

A young gentlemen I went to church with back in my high school years posted a facebook status stating, Atheism is “a poor excuse for not wanting to be accountable for your actions!” I naturally disagree. This young man and I exchanged a few comments.

Here is his and my correspondence:

Parsons: I exceedingly disagree with you. An atheist must bear his actions and the consequence thereof fully, without a scapegoat or one to divert the severity of foresaid actions. Atheists, if compared as a group to others, comprehend responsibility on a more individualistic level and only on that level can one reap as one sows. Nonetheless, religion testifies to the collective state and to its drawing power of anti-individualism in all men. Yet, you stated “to be accountable,” not “to be responsible”; however, accountable to whom? It sounds as if a politician declared this status;--that is, “We need more accountability on Wall Street.” Responsibility, pulling up its collar, divagates the icy streets alone. In this particular case, the government redirects and distracts the public’s attention, so no one stands bearing his responsibility for the actions did in his name; the same holds true, if instead of the government, a deity is placed. If one believes that it is a deity to whom accountability must be given over, one should expect the government to be more readily available than his absentee scapegoat.

Gentleman: My status describes the majority of aetheists. The rest are like yourself... you think way too much. Now, you're probably thinking, “this guy is ignorant and doesn't have an answer. It's not bad to think these things through.” But no one will ever understand God or how He works. Therefore, as Christians, we live by faith. Hebrews 11:6 says, “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” Thinkers like yourself (and I know many more like you) try so hard, but you just can't fathom the thought of there being a God. It just seems impossible and our feeble minds just cannot grasp it. Therefore, many people try to disprove Him or in your case defend your theories and beliefs.

Please, understand I'm not trying to strike back at you either. I've read some of your blogs. I remember you and you're a good guy. You use to come to our church. I'm not sure what happened, but you'll definitely be in my prayers. God bless!

Parsons: Before commencing I doubt not you are a caring and good-hearted individual full of love for your friends and family, as well as bringing positive energy to many a situation, as I remember your parents doing so often. However, you and I discover ourselves at a fundamental, yet preponderant, divide of ideas and on approaches to life.

Firstly, to labor over the points you probably read in my blog posts is not my intension, so thusly such things as, we are all atheists to some opposing theology or what in the scriptures could not have been written by a man of that period and geographical location or the demarcation of faith (in the supernatural) and trust (in the nature) or the three basic claims of spiritual texts which must be examined--physical, historical, and moral--will not be discussed in my subsequent argument.

Secondly, how one can handicap oneself so readily? That is, man’s mental capacity is his only tool of survival, yet I heard many times as a child, “You think too much,” or some variance thereof. Whatever the variegation of such a declaration, however, it ensues still to this day by the members of my own family and fellow friends. I mind you, Christians possess not a monopoly on persecution.

Thirdly, it seems as if a man is fine with benefiting from the mental labors of his fellow, yet does naught to assist. Whilst that would be more fruitful, the man actually publicly obstructs his fellow and many a time limiting the positive correlation between he and his fellow in the advancements of society. Civilization presses forwards by the very few great minds, not by the numerous strong backs. With perspicaciousness, comprehensiveness, and consistency, these great minds with their self-interest and personal curiosities expand for us all the knowledge of the once tribe to the now celestial. These men are the movers of society and the motors of the world. (Not to steal too much from Ayn Randian lexicon.)

Finally, please, I ask in earnest, explain the following, from where does the contempt, if that is what was intended, in this statement come, “thinkers like yourself”? For without thinkers, where would mankind be as a race?

Gentleman: That's the problem. You stated earlier, “Atheists comprehend responsibility on a more individualistic level.” You also asked, “How can one handicap oneself so readily? That is, man's mental capacity is his only tool for survival.” If that was the case we'd all be screwed. The quicker we, as humans, find out we cannot do it alone the better off we'll be. Don't get me wrong, I'm thankful for the intelligent minds in the world. However, no one can handle that much pressure or responsibility. I guess, this is where you would call Jesus my scapegoat, but I thank God for His grace and His mercy. I sin everyday of my life and if I wouldn't KNOW that he still loves me and that he died for my sins I don't know where I would be. Probably dead! No one can live with that guilt. That is why we need a savior.

I have personally experienced God and there is nothing like it! Nothing anyone ever tells me will convince me that there is no God.

But to answer your question, as I stated earlier, I'm thankful for the “thinkers” to a certain extent. However, I have a problem when these brilliant men use the gift that God gave them to try and disprove their maker. To say that they figured the world out and that there is no higher being is arrogance in my opinion. Some people are more intelligent than others but NO ONE will ever figure out life. We can only truly know what God reveals to us. He allows men to make discoveries, but then they twist it and use it to try to disprove him. When I see these discoveries it just confirms how great my God really is that he created the world to work the way it does.

To engage in a point by point argument would take a while and the agreement to do so from both parties, yet I doubt he intended on sparking a corrspondence of this manner and I know I was not thinking of it on the day I replied. So, he and I, I gather, are leaving each in peace. This post turns into a glimpse inwardly of the young, modern Christian and the young, modern Atheist. Also, as I have pointed out before I find religion to be a collective state, same as national socialism. I also used my first reply as a beginning to the philosophical difference I view between accountability and responsibility.

Party Politics in the Mountain State

2008-09-23T07:58:00.005-05:00

Just this amazing morning, I read this asinine Op-Ed Piece in the Marshall University campus newspaper, The Parthenon, claiming that Democrats in and from West Virginia have shown proven leadership.

Here is my reply:

Firstly, if one countenances the facts that West Virginia's state government doubled in size in the last fifteen years and her citizens see much less for this growth, that West Virginians' average incomes stand about 75% the national average, that while most states since 1965 nearly tripled their per capita income West Virginia did not even doubled hers, that West Virginia's ranking dropped consistently from 30th to 49th in the last 74 years (thank goodness for Mississippi), that West Virginia's economic freedom settles dead last in the Union, that we have the worst wealth equality in these United States, and that West Virginia ranks at the bottom of lists, such as, State Business Tax Climate Index, State Competitiveness Report, State Technology and Science Index, New Economy Index, State Liability Systems Ranking, then West Virginia's Democrats have led to those things which you approve.

Secondly, for one to believe that a West Virginia state democrat and a national-level democrat process a similar political philosophy, one mistakes sadly. Democrats in the mountain state are mostly big government and ever-reaching social controllers, if they belonged to the republican camp, they would be branded, as "Compassionate Conservatives"; the same as the current Administration, which so many love to decry. Our tragedy mounts the stage by our state politicians gallantly storming the set lacking the brain capacity to be what West Virginia needs most right now, pragmatists. No party has a monopoly on Freedom, Equality, Leadership; they all share, for the better or worse.

Finally, how is a truly concerned citizen of a state, as West Virginia, and a nation, as United States of America, to take what simpleton excrements that rest in this type of column and still stand against the grand slayers of a myriad of governments--the willful ignorance of facts and the myopia of the never-ceasing delusions in party politics?

I cannot stop single-handedly this stupidity, yet I continue onwards. Party loyalty ruins the ideas of the individual and strips him of his liberty and humanity, making him a slave to the collective.

How Far Does a Falling Object Fall

2008-09-15T01:43:00.004-05:00

For all those of a curious temperament or whoever pondered a basic question in physics, "How far does a falling object fall?", I have your answer. Firstly, I state the question posed my professor and then I followed, directly, with my textbookish answer:

Here is my reply:

How does an object behave when it is launched horizontally? (Which hits first, the launched or the dropped ball?)

The acceleration due to gravity, noted as g, of said object remains the same whether dropped or thrown--upwards, downwards, or sideways. Thusly, g depends not on the horizontal throw.

The said object, when thrown horizontally, experiences velocity in two distinct directions, one horizontally and the other vertically. The horizontal velocity stays at a constant speed (taking for a moment that said object undergoes no recognizable resistance from the surrounding air) and the vertical occurs from the acceleration due to gravity acting on said object at 9.8 m/s2.

Ergo, if a ball--launched or dropped--befell from a given height, its lag time until it reaches the impact with the ground below would in both instances be matching, due solely to the g. Note that the horizontal acceleration affects not the g;--that is, the ball falls, nonetheless, despite its horizontal travel. More distance by the thrown ball, yes, is covered, yet the additional distance belongs entirely to course of the ball’s horizontal trajectory.

Succinctly, acceleration due to gravity g remains the equal on either the launched or the dropped ball, so the ball reaches the ground in the same allotted time given.

I feel this answer I am be redundant, yet I hope for forceful. It was for a classes on the physical universe. Not much else to say, but that I hope you learnt something or better yet you already ruminated the question to discover the truth of the matter.

Expelled: “Reason!” and “Evidence!” Report to the Principal’s Office

2008-08-31T01:48:00.030-05:00

In response to a friend’s Facebook posting of the film trailer, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, I composed what is about to follow, with a few amendments and afterthoughts. Additionally, this post contains several quotations--some rather lengthy, yet all good reads.

Here is my reply:

Debate in science is fine; it is, in fact, encouraged. For without it, there ceases growth and maturity of the scientific disciplines. Organizations, like the Discovery Institute, exist and their work is judged by the scientific community for what it is and what it is not.

In economics, a similar argument occurs by the Marxists, as in the Intelligent Design camp, alleging that the Capitalists, as do Evolutionists, judge their ideas out of the debate. The facts explicitly and continuously demonstrate that collectivism and Intelligent Design cannot withstand the over-whelming evidence in support of free market enterprise and biological evolution. One hardly passes hours awaiting the diminuendo of these two. (See 1a & 1c quotations.)

The supernatural cannot be measured or studied in a scientific manner, and ergo, to say it can, negates the supernatural label itself, bringing phenomenon into the natural realm. In so doing, science explores its new jurisdiction, as it does all that which falls into natural heavens. (See 3a quotation.)

Difficult, life is not. All the four elements for life are found in nature: Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. Science is about harmony, where the supernatural--including, therefore, religion--is dysfunction and deconstruction of said harmoniousness. (See 1c, 1d, & 2a quotations.)

Science is not stepping on supernatural toes; it is the supenaturalists that attempt to force the natural sciences into the corner by decrying reason and evidence. (See 1b, 2a, & 3a quotations.)

Evolution explains all life on this plant in a very graceful and poetic manner. Also, to say that evolution is life by mere chance insults the biological sciences and the evidence that supports the theory of evolution, or in layman, the fact of evolution. (See 3b & 3c quotations.)

The thing about science is that it has to agree with itself. The theory of gravity cannot only work under certain conditions; that is, it must work at all times, in all places. The theory of germs and countless more theories must be multi-communital for them to hold true.

As a student of economic science, I discovered early that Capitalism and Evolution share the same basis: natural selection. Businesses and individuals succeed and thrive do to their abilities to adapt to the economic climate in which they find their given state of affairs, and the same holds for living species on a biological level.

In saying this, I draw the strengthen of reason between the two;--that is, the evolutionary survival behaviors we possess, may not be the must divine in manner, yet to put it succinctly, the socio-economic system cannot rest its endurance on the noblest motive, yet must utilize the strongest motive in the most efficient ways manageable. (See 5a quotation.)

The motive, above here mentioned, is simply personal self-interest, on a conscious or a cellular level. For without self-interest, as an individual's sole purpose, we all pass into extinction and the dusty unfriendly pages of history. (See 4a, 4b, & 5b quotations.)

Quotations 1’s, by John Stuart Mills, Economist and Philosopher
Quotations 2’s, by Sam Harris, Neuroscientist and Philosopher
Quotations 3’s, by Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist
Quotations 4’s, by Adam Smith, Economist and Philosopher
Quotations 5’s, by John Maynard Keynes, Economist

1a: “Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men.”

1b: “Miracles have no claim whatever to the character of historical facts and are wholly invalid as evidence of any revelation.”

1c: “It is accordingly on this battlefield [that is, religious belief], almost solely, that the rights of the individual against society have been asserted on broad grounds of principle, and the claim of society to exercise authority over dissentients openly controverted. The great writers to whom the world owes what religious liberty it possesses, have mostly asserted freedom of conscience as an indefeasible right, and denied absolutely that a human being is accountable to others for his religious belief. Yet so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about, that religious freedom has hardly anywhere been practically realized, except where religious indifference, which dislikes to have its peace disturbed by theological quarrels, has added its weight to the scale. In the minds of almost all religious persons, even in the most tolerant countries, the duty of toleration is admitted with tacit reserves. One person will bear with dissent in matters of church government, but not of dogma; another can tolerate everybody, short of a Papist or an Unitarian; another, every one who believes in revealed religion; a few extend their charity a little further, but stop at the belief in a God and in a future state. Wherever the sentiment of the majority is still genuine and intense, it is found to have abated little of its claim to be obeyed. ”

1d: “On religion in particular, the time appears to me to have come, when it is a duty of all who, being qualified in point of knowledge, have, on mature consideration, satisfied themselves that the current opinions are not only false, but hurtful, to make their dissent known.”

2a: The “problem with arguing for the truth of religion is that the evidence for our religious doctrines is either terrible or non-existent. And this subsumes all claims about the existence of a personal God, the divine origin of certain books, the virgin birth of certain people, the veracity of ancient miracles, all of it.

“Consider Christianity, the entire doctrine is predicated on the idea that the gospel account of the miracles of Jesus is true. This is why people believe Jesus was a son of God, divine, etc. This textual claim--this textual claim is problematic because everyone acknowledges that the Gospels follow Jesus' ministry by decades and there is no extra biblical account of his miracles. But the truth is quite a bit worse than that.

“The truth is even if we had multiple contemporaneous eyewitness accounts of the miracles of Jesus it still would not provide sufficient basis to believe that these events actually occurred. Why not? Well, the problem is that first-hand reports of miracles are quite common even in the 21st-century.

“I have met literally hundreds at this point of Western educated men and women who think that their favorite Hindu or Buddhist guru has magic powers. The powers ascribed to these gurus are every bit as outlandish as those ascribed to Jesus. I, actually, remain open to evidence of such powers. The fact is that people who tell these stories desperately want to believe them. All to my knowledge lack the kind of corroborating evidence we should require before believing that nature's laws have been abrogated in this way. And people who believe these stories show an uncanny reluctance to look for non-miraculous causes.

“But it remains a fact that yogis and mystics are said to be walking on water and raising the dead and flying without the aid of technology; materializing objects, reading minds, foretelling the future. Right now, in fact all of these powers have been ascribed to Satya Sai Baba, the South Indian guru by an uncountable number of eyewitnesses. He even claims to have been born of a virgin, which is not all that uncommon a claim in the history of religion or in history generally. Genghis Khan, supposedly, was born of a virgin, as was Alexander. Apparently parthenogenesis doesn't guarantee that you're going to turn the other cheek....

“...You can even watch his miracles on YouTube; prepare to be under-whelmed. Maybe it's true that he has an Afro of sufficient diameter as to suggest a total detachment from the opinions of his fellow human beings. But I'm not sure this is reason enough to worship him; in any case.

“So, consider as though for the first time the foundational claim of Christianity. The claim is this that miracle stories of a sort that today surround a person like Satya Sai Baba become especially compelling when you set them in the pre-scientific religious context of the first century Roman Empire, decades after their supposed occurrence. We have Satya Sai Baba's miracle stories attested to by thousands upon thousands of living eyewitnesses. And they don't even a merit an hour on the Discovery Channel. But you place a few miracle stories in some ancient books and half the people on this earth think it a legitimate project to organize their lives around them. Does anyone else see a problem with that?”

3a: “Either Jesus had a father or he didn't. The question is a scientific one, and scientific evidence, if any were available, would be used to settle it. The same is true of any miracle--and the deliberate and intentional creation of the universe would have to have been the mother and father of all miracles. Either it happened or it didn't. It is a fact, one way or the other, and in our state of uncertainty we can put a probability on it--an estimate that may change as more information comes in. Humanity's best estimate of the probability of divine creation dropped steeply in 1859 when The Origin of Species was published, and it has declined steadily during the subsequent decades, as evolution consolidated itself from plausible theory in the nineteenth century to established fact today.”

3b: “In 1859, Charles Darwin announced one of the greatest ideas ever to occur to a human mind: cumulative evolution by natural selection. Living complexity is indeed orders of magnitude too improbable to have come about by chance. But only if we assume that all the luck has to come in one fell swoop. When cascades of small chance steps accumulate, you can reach prodigious heights of adaptive complexity. That cumulative build-up is evolution. Its guiding force is natural selection...

“Natural selection is quintessentially non-random, yet it is lamentably often miscalled random. This one mistake underlies much of the skeptical backlash against evolution. Chance cannot explain life. Design is as bad an explanation as chance because it raises bigger questions than it answers. Evolution by natural selection is the only workable theory ever proposed that is capable of explaining life, and it does so brilliantly.”

3c: “Natural selection is not just an alternative to chance. It is the only ultimate alternative ever suggested. Design is a workable explanation for organized complexity only in the short term. It is not an ultimate explanation, because designers themselves demand an explanation. If, as Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel once playfully speculated, life on this planet was deliberately seeded by a payload of bacteria in the nose cone of a rocket, we still need an explanation for the intelligent aliens who dispatched the rocket. Ultimately they must have evolved by gradual degrees from simpler beginnings. Only evolution, or some kind of gradualistic 'crane' (to use Daniel Dennett's neat term), is capable of terminating the regress. Natural selection is an anti-chance process, which gradually builds up complexity, step by tiny step. The end product of this ratcheting process is an eye, or a heart, or a brain--a device whose improbable complexity is utterly baffling until you spot the gentle ramp that leads up to it....

“Contrary to what is sometimes alleged, evolution is a predictive science. If you pick any hitherto unstudied species and subject it to minute scrutiny, any evolutionist will confidently predict that each individual will be observed to do everything in its power, in the particular way of the species--plant, herbivore, carnivore, nectivore or whatever it is--to survive and propagate the DNA that rides inside it. We won't be around long enough to test the prediction but we can say, with great confidence, that if a comet strikes Earth and wipes out the mammals, a new fauna will rise to fill their shoes, just as the mammals filled those of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. And the range of parts played by the new cast of life's drama will be similar in broad outline, though not in detail, to the roles played by the mammals, and the dinosaurs before them, and the mammal-like reptiles before the dinosaurs. The same rules are predictably being followed, in millions of species all over the globe, and for hundreds of millions of years. Such a general observation requires an entirely different explanatory principle from the anthropic principle that explains one-off events like the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, by luck. That entirely different principle is natural selection.

“We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin's principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very, very improbable.”

4a: “It is not not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

4b: “He... neither intends to promoting it... he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote and which was no part of his intention.”

5a: “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”

5b: “In the long run, we are all dead.”

I understand that some of the quotations might not have aligned themselves strictly with the paragraph in my reply, yet I find the essences there, nonetheless. The only fitting way to draw this lengthy post to a close to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, journalist and author: what in any holy scripture could not have been written that by man at the period in history in which it was penned?

No "Amazing New Way" to Cure Higher Gas Prices

2008-03-24T15:25:00.016-05:00

A Facebook group, “Amazing new way to lower gas prices”, came to my attention last week, when a hometown friend invited me to join. After viewing this group, I found that it has been a source of false and misleading information for more than 458,000 Facebook users. What follows is the exchange of wall posts between my friend and I:

Parsons: Thanks for the invite to "Amazing new way to lower gas prices", yet economically speaking, it will not change prices, only cause higher unemployment, as ExxonMobil lays-off hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals from its 84,000-plus workforce.

Also, less than 1% of ExxonMobil is owned by Executives, 49% is owned through the stock market by the average person making money for buying food, clothes, home repairs, etc.; the other 50% is owned by pension funds and mutual funds, things that take care of our grandparents and help us through college. One more thing, trying to hurt ExxonMobil is trying to hurt ourselves;--ExxonMobil is an American company. Why on earth would we, as Americans, be against an American company making money, which turns around and provides for us, in ways I pointed out above?

Friend: So, what do you propose we do?

Parsons: Most will not like this, but let the markets work it out. Mother Earth loves every dime the price of oil or gas rises. The incentive to move into cleaner fuels never appeared so strong.

America

needs to take the reins in this case and show the world that we are the Captain of the Global movement towards of a better tomorrow. Change is the American way. We must display our compassion for all of our biological cousins, i.e. birds, fish, reptiles, mammals, trees, plants, etc. The high prices make us rethink transportation and the resources we use to fuel it.

Supply and demand factors need to be recognized, as India and China develop, as well as other countries and economies. More demand with the same supply output shifts the demand curve to the right and thus the equilibrium finds itself at a new higher price.

Many environmentalists and economists still see the price at the pump too low. According to some oil experts, the global oil supply will peak in 2010. This is not saying drilling in Alaska and/or off the coast and/or any other place and we can delay the peak in this natural resource market. This 2010 peak takes into account all the crude the planet has to offer. Yet, we have heard these estimates and forecasts afore; however, to what degree can we count on the trajectory of technology to keep pace with demand? So, then, we must draw into this equation all information, and this is a piece.

Also, here is why journalists need to register for a few basic economic courses before spouting out asinine and misleading statements. Before adventuring forward, it needs to be stated that it is not incorrect to call the record energy prices inflation. However, I find a misconception in the word usage which many people may mentally embrace. The prices, presently, are not what is known as core inflation--that is, the general idea of inflation as it relates to other commodities, such as guitars, comic books, and knives. They are the examples of a very elastic market. This is, also, why food, not only energy, is not calculated into the core inflation rate. These markets’ volatility exhibits poorly the inflation rate according to real income over a great time period. After the last oil crisis, prices drop to $11 or so a barrel;--that is textbook deflation. Though conversely,

America

has not experienced deflation in the core inflation rate--on the macro-scale--since the Great Depression. If deflation had occurred, the economy would have reacted like a combustion engine without motor oil.

Another thing that makes the price at the pump appear so high compared to the late 90’s and early 2000’s is that today's weak dollar buys less globally. This weak dollar occurs from the FED trying to lessen the severity of the Recession (pending or real;--more so real). To lower interest rates, the FED prints more money; thusly, to raise interest rates the FED prints less.

Also, another factor in the weak dollar is the current account deficit. We need to balance the budget for a few years (at the bare least) along with an economic boom, which will allow the FED to raise the interest rates. So, the weak dollar is cured for that times’ being. The ecological nature of the economy presents our system (still the most efficient, there is) with a thing called the “Business Cycle”;--that is, the ups and downs, less downs than ups, of course.

Friend: So, basically, we, as consumers, can only limit the amount we buy and show interest in alternative fuels and the rest is up to the government and the economy, as it ebbs and flows?

Parsons: Firstly, the manner in which you phrased your question leads me to gather you view us as somewhat victims or at least as a less powerful entity than the government or the economy. All I can reply with is that we are the government and we are the economy. We cast ballets for our representatives and we do the same each time we purchase a commodity or service. This is a similarity that cannot be overlooked in the intentions of our Founding Fathers;--a Republic through Democratic Representation and a Free Market Economic Enterprise. Each of these complements the other in such a Classical Liberal modus operandi.

Secondly, we can demand of our representatives to subsidize alternative fuel sources, yet this will limit government spending on some programs, raise taxes, or restrict tax cuts. Some Democrats proffer an idea of windfall profit taxes and/or cutting tax breaks to oil companies, like ExxonMobil; however, it is not mentioned by the advocates of such plans that they will raise oil prices in the short run and promise such perpetuation into the long run. Think of it in this light: if a company does not need to pay its light bill, then it will use that money in Research and Development, as well as being able to thusly expand, creating jobs and higher wages for its employees.

If we can recall, or if not, then research the last energy crisis of this sort, we implemented windfall profit taxes, had rationing and price controls, and it is viewed by many economists in retrospect that these steps only disrupted the markets and prolonged the crisis. This is the reactionary mentality that leads to the same asinine measures we find before us this day.

Yet, for the cut in spending, I would rather eliminate some out-of-date programs. Like last year, we, as taxpayers, funded a dozen programs that no longer existed. The large scale of our present day government, due to its bureaucratic fashion, runs behind an even faster moving world and economy.

However, I will not be a one-armed economist--that is, subsidizing one type or a group of energy alternatives will simultaneous sanction the others not subsidized and out of which may be the fuel we run on tomorrow. Furthermore, when could people predict the future of their own lives, let alone the market, in such a manner?

Thirdly, if we, as citizens, desire a balanced budget, we have to accept that we must choose whether certain projects and programs remain more vital than a squared budget. Possessing a large Balance of International Indebtedness compares with a wrong turn on the highway; whereas the Current Account Deficit represents the miles per hours on the automobile, as we head in that not-so-fortunate direction. Wherein we slow the MPH’s or even reverse the direction, we find our global friends more trusting of our driving and decision capabilities and, ergo, more willing to ride shotgun.

Additionally, when America comprises only 4% of the global population and possesses 29% of the world’s wealth, it stands only to reason that America will be the world’s largest debtor. Yet, a good rule of thumb endures: debt for investment is fine and will pay itself back in time, yet debt accumulated for consumption leaves one no payoff. Think of college: going into debt to attend classes and purchase books can only add to one’s future earnings; taking on debt to get plastered or stoned each weekend leaves one with only a hangover or morning buzz and no method unto which to amortize the said debt easily. Thusly, from the hard won earnings, it must be reimbursed.

Fourthly, within our economic system, we can embolden our goals and visions for a particular market or cause by becoming an entrepreneur and entering the system as a leader for the change for which we pine, ergo, finding our niche market and maximizing benefits, along with minimizing costs. If we find it too risky or untimely, we can then invest in someone else’s entrepreneurial spirit.

Fifthly, an individual on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange stated that he believed oil prices may lower to the $80 range within the next three months. Oil prices--that is, coupled with all the other reasons I stated so far within our discourse--also rose to unprecedented heights, due to a slowing economy, where individuals found it safer to invest in the energy markets (and in some cases, actually buying oil and storing it, as one would precious commodities, such as gold and sliver) and in return oil gained in price, which made other markets slow, ergo, more individuals ran to the safe bet, Energy Stocks, because they remained rising.

So, besides the few individuals hoarding barrels of oil, oil skyrocketed by a somewhat false demand. A group of traders--not in an arrange manner, of course--moved the value of the stocks upwards, by believing that the stocks were going in that direction and so invested. This happens, for example, in the currency exchange markets as well;--the overvaluing or undervaluing of a specified currency. One could argue that our dollar has been treated in that way, of late.

It needs noting that the threefold increase in trading on the future markets, as most of the trades are, have little to do with the price in the present. The metal, nickel, for the same period of time as the rise in oil, has been traded on the future markets just about as much; however, the price of the nickel lowered in said time.

Finally, the reason for the price of oil, in addition with other goods, is one comprised of a myriad of factors. No one action will change the pain at the pumps, or in words, the salvation of the planet, herself. It will take several such key actions in a very sensitive equation of variables to redirect the prices downwards. However, if many experts are correct when oil prices do lower, we will no longer be craving the resource (simple supply and demand), as we are presently; we will have moved beyond such a high quantity demanded.

The “Amazing new way to lower gas prices” has nothing new or amazing about it; it belies a simplistic step to solve numerous factors with detailed complexities. I will add, that these complexities of factors safeguard us from one individual or a small group of individuals controlling our lives, as a possible puppetry.

Finding the Economic I.Q. of the average American to be abysmal, I outline several pressing factors to demonstrate that the proposal set out by this group remains strongly misunderstood, as well as highly damaging to the state of our current affairs. I left another dozen or so factors off the list, due to the reader's time and more importantly to my time in breaking down the complexities of this situation into layman's terms.

A Decry for the Rational World

2007-09-24T00:04:00.000-05:00

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

2007-09-17T03:16:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-03T00:36:00.001-05:00

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

2007-03-12T23:14:00.001-05:00

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

2007-03-06T19:40:00.001-05:00

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

2007-02-27T01:11:00.000-05:00

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

2007-02-20T00:23:00.001-05:00

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”

2007-02-13T02:59:00.001-05:00

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?

2007-02-06T00:38:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-01-30T01:52:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-16T09:06:00.000-05:00

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.

All the Same

2006-09-29T13:11:00.000-05:00

Lying in our bed last night, I thought through my day with and without you.

Was it that the excise tax moves left up the demand curve or was it down to the right? Or was it to the left down the supply? The graphs, the charts, the fucking exhibits 4 point so and so: the blue line, the demand, and the red, the supply. Or was it the red: demand? Blue: supply?

I lay there cloaked in our blue paisley comforter as a priest during a requiem mass. Staring into the lightless space above my small face, my big, round eyes—the eggshell appeared to commence my baptism, yet the paint froze to the ceiling, only millimeters for its origin.

I turned to face my sleeping love. His sandy, blonde hair hid his unopened eyes; his freckles sheltered the fair skin of his shoulders. Not long after I lay with my eyes toward him had I become warm, so I removed the comforter.

I lay there in the dark bedroom with my body, or as he would say, my "humble breasts" and "womanly thighs," exposed to the room as the room laid exposed to us upon our first night in this apartment: the walls adorned with nothing, the photos of the family still in suitcases and boxes and not on the bedside stands, and the bed itself was only the mattress on the tan carpet.

I was not tired, yet I longed to be with him in our marital bed. His heartbeat and the vibration of him breathing gave to me more comfort than the air conditioning; the mattress and the pillow from my mother’s; the metal-blue, cotton sheets; the answers to tomorrow’s assignment; and the moon that laid a golden tint to the eggshell-cold walls.

Was it that? Yes, to the right. To the right with the demand curve. Yet the excise tax is a producer’s tax, so than it would be left with the demand. Or would it?

I felt his beating heart, all the same.

I had an hour to write a description of something (it did not matter to my professor), yet it had to be from a woman's point of view. I think of this as prose-poem; however, I going to post it on this blog.

Regulated Economy Equals Regulated Liberties

2006-04-21T13:49:00.001-05:00

Thomas Anger, a retired Washington economist, posed this question, “Why, despite sound arguments and concrete evidence, do most Americans tend to resist denationalization and deregulation?” That is a question we, as citizens, all should want answered.

And Anger does just that: “Their resistance arises from two things: risk aversion (both personal and paternalistic) and economic illiteracy.”

To clarify what Anger calls, “risk aversion,” it is when people are afraid of taking a chance. And they start asking questions to justify their terror, yet no movement towards answers, which would, after comprehension, alleviate their said terror.

Anger’s second claim “economic illiteracy” plagues people, how could one dispute this? The average person does not grasp economic theory, and he or she only views financial and economic situations (as well as governmental issues due to the interdependence of our government and economy) through his or her myopic glass bubble. That is, thinking solely on the present money in hand, not the money in bank in the next 30 years.

This idea that a government’s job is to rescue its citizens from poor personal budgeting and the ignorant understanding of finances is a falsehood. That leads--in our case, as Americans--to the Socialistic War, which I have spoken on previously.

In doing so, we allow, as economist Bruce Yandle, Ph.D., calls “Bootleggers and Baptists” to occur. Dr. Yandle explains, “Bootleggers, you will remember, support Sunday closing laws that shut down all local bars and liquor stores. Baptists support the same laws… Both parties gain, while the regulators are content because the law is easy to administer.”

The “Bootleggers” are those in the business world who use regulation to oppress competition in the marketplace, so to profit while at the expense of the consumer. Need I remind one who the consumer is in this equation?

The “Baptists” are, as Anger states, the “self-appointed guardians of our health and well-being (the sum of all our risk-averse fears, you might say).”

Nationalization and regulation hinder the economy and thus the people’s pocketbooks, not only at present but into the future. Anger adds, “The benefits of nationalization and regulation come at a high cost, but we tend to focus on our own benefits… and forget the cost (the taxes we pay for benefits that go to others).”

Denationalization and deregulation promote free market and a strong economy, which means the consumer will be granted the liberties he or she foolishly pissed away out of asinine behavior.

The liberties I speak of are the ones that allow you, the citizen, to choose your own box of cereal, your own showerhead, your own doctor, and your own insurance company (which is an issue in Massachusetts at the moment) and, basically, spend your money the way you see best fit.

Of course, if this would occur, we all would need to start signing up for budgeting classes, which I would rather have than someone else’s “regulated” liberties thrust upon me. How about you, the American citizen?

Here is my last column for this term. It is sad; I know the problems I (and the Parthenon) had working together, but I believe those problems are behind us. Most of the columnists were writing “Goodbye” columns. I thought about that, yet I opt to write mine with no reference to ending of the term. I hope this post is one you will like.

No Baby an Angel

2006-04-20T01:11:00.001-05:00

Why do we, as a society, even attempt to protect children? Is protection really what children or is it society that needs protection?

Children, overlooking their guileless exterior, are not innocent creatures with pure intensions; their actions show the fundamental animalistic nature within each living being. Every individual born into this world initially cares about one individual and that individual is oneself.

It is plainly society that is afraid of children (with good reason).

Society’s defensive stance against children is the particular result of its own fears. Society teaches ethics, morals, rules, and laws, and the punishment, if any of these are broken.

Consider this: when an adult does or says something that pushes society’s limits of tolerance, what do we voice back to that person? We say, “Quit being childish,” which means more explicitly, “Quit acting like a child because the social circumstances we are in do not approve.”

We, as a compassionate group of men and women, believe we have an obligation to shelter children due to their so-called naivety, yet after pondering, if we will, the thought process of a child, we will disclose that assumption itself is naïve.

Being realistic, children are irrationally selfish, demanding, hateful, violent, loud, crude, and revengeful. Children are blatant lairs and they have no comprehension of respect for another individual’s emotions.

Every child--realizing that the word “love” is a powerful term to adults, maybe because of the sincerity in our voices--screams out to any given parental figure that “I don’t love you anymore” or “I hate you” or “You are a bad parent; you don’t love me.” That is an example of the pain they intensely inflict.

Some adults praise children for their frank honesty, yet many more are embarrassed. Furthermore, I believe rightly so, and out of that embarrassment society protects itself against the multitude of these miniature combatants.

These pint size individuals might be held as a so-called fresh air in a stale world, yet the actions of our little off-springs are deemed unacceptable in the adult reality due to the push for harmony--that is, for a society to function there has to be guidelines or rules.

Now, people can understand my disliking of children. That is not true. I love kids, yet I am worried about the idea of becoming a parent one day. Children are not angels and I hope my girlfriend better comprehends my disdain for parenthood.

Hey, Try Cooperating for a Change

2006-04-07T16:44:00.000-05:00

I have wanted to speak out on this topic for a very long time, now. In fact, it goes back to last term, when students accused police officers of taking aggressive actions at an unapproved (I will refrain from the adjective, illegal) block party.

First off, I am excited that the Georgian Congresswoman apologized, even if it was only halfheartedly, Thursday afternoon. What an end to a week of shameful, name-labeling lunacy!

For those who do not yet know, Rep. McKinney D-GA was stopped as she was entering the Capital in D.C. She apparently had a makeover--that is, a newer, sexier, and fresher hairdo. She did not have her congressional ID pin out in easy sight and the officer did not recognize her.

When the officer asked her to stop, she did not do so willingly. When he asked her some questions, she did not cooperate. Finally, she struck the officer.

McKinney tried to play the race card as for the reason the officer stopped her and never once did I hear or read of her discussing her motive for striking the officer for doing his duty.

Do not get me wrong, if race was the underlying purpose then I would be arguing that; however, McKinney forgets that real racism occurs and her incident was not one of those sad displays of intolerance and lack of education. There are good, hard-working people in this country being denied career opportunities, cast aside in social settings, and harassed by mere words or by physical means.

However, back to my topic: the treatment of the police officers. My grandfather, a retired officer after 35 years of service, raised me, since I was four. Furthermore, having that perspective showed me a side that most people do not get to see. I learned of the motives for a police officer’s actions, which the layman might not understand at first glance at the situation or incident.

Richard Keplinger, another retired officer from my hometown, stated once to me that “an officer has a few moments to make a decision that might take a court and/or the public months, if not years, to tear apart and say if you [the officer] were wrong or right in the action you took.”

I have to agree with him. Police officers protect me, the writer of this column, and you, the reader of this column, and everyone else. Then why do we, as citizens, seem to like to bad mouth their behaviors or degrade their actions or piss on their characters?

Maybe the reason lies with the way we see our influential citizens. Maybe when the rapper or singer curses the officer or when the actor plays the part of the “bad cop” or when the congressman or congresswoman, in this case, assaults the officer for servicing and protecting.

There are officers in this country who do not fulfill their duties and are these “bad cops”; however, those are the few and the far between. Whatever the reason may be, though, I believe a thank you is in store for the men and women wearing the uniform and carrying the badge.

This was a last minute column. I am not happy with it, but it is okay. I hate when I procrastinate. I am planning on starting earlier this week and write a great column.

Religion [and Politics] Should Be Separate

2006-04-02T13:47:00.005-05:00

Some have the idea that America was a Christian nation; that is a false assumption. America was the dumping pot of Europe--they sent their criminals and impoverished lowbrows to this new world just to cleanse their lands of the so-called unsophisticated populous.

Somehow the insane took over the asylum. We became the land and the “government of the people, by the people, for the people”--the safe haven for the world’s lost and beleaguered.

We have been force-fed half-truths and idealistic notions about the faith of our United States. We heard from the classroom to the pulpit to the home that our nation was a Christian nation, and that itself was spread to us by people whom themselves had never read the complete U.S. Constitution, if at all.

Joseph Ellis, historian and author, answered a question about the intended faith of our nation, “Jefferson, along with Madison, is the author of the famous separation of church and state principle, which essentially insists that there be no government enforcement of any particular religious denominational preference.”

The Framers of Constitution would be undoubtedly appalled by their fellow countrymen of today. The Framers stood up against the world’s most commanding nation to gain the freedom to establish a nation that viewed liberty as the core of its existence, not an overbearing Theocracy.

In a letter to Samuel Kercheval in 1810, Jefferson said, "But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State."

Robert Carver, historian, wrote, “At the Constitutional Convention, the Framers looked to the examples of antiquity, the Greeks and the Romans and not to the Ten Commandments. They were a pragmatic lot, and they were not interested in being bound by their religious heritage, despite today's claims to the contrary.

“Rather, they were searching for virtually any idea, from virtually any source, that would work to create a better government than the failure produced by the Articles of Confederation.”

John Leland, a Baptist preacher, wrote to the Framer as they were drafting the Constitution, “The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks [Muslims], Pagans and Christians. Test oaths and established creeds should be avoided as the worst of evils.”

The Baptists, under a state united with a church, suffered extremely. Baptist preachers were fined, imprisoned, and tortured for advising their congregations to read the Bible for themselves--something of which the state church disapproved.

Also, citizens had to pay tithes to the state church, even if they did not attend said church. This still occurs in many of the world’s nation, such as many European nations.

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution seeing this noticed the uncanny similarities between these treatments of citizens in the newly established United States and the old tyranny of England.

The Framers made a conscious decision to deflate these motives of cruel treatments and inhumane practices before they would be exacerbated any longer and eventually tearing their fragile nation apart at the seams--destined to be another failed, degrading, self-righteous Theocracy.

I have been very ill; I have missed a week and half worth of classes. I wrote a six page paper awhile back on this topic. So I just cut it down that 3000 word argument to 540 word column. However, for the newspaper it was too long and they cut it even more--that is, to 390 words. I am posting my draft here because I feel that the three paragraphs that were cut were the most important.

Four Elements of Success

2006-03-17T01:21:00.000-05:00

Over the past several weeks, I have written on an array of topics: the Theocratic and Socialistic Wars, U.S. trade deficit, Danish/Muslim cartoon conflict, freedom of speech, port security, and the oppression of the minorities by the moral majority as well as the angelic librarians guarding and protecting our way of life within the confines on their shelves.

This week I want to discuss the ever eluding mysteries of how to be successful. There are four elements, which I find, in every successful individual. And those are as followed: passion, labor, faith, and love.

Firstly, Passion: It is what gives one the strength to make the first firm step in the direction of his or her goal, prize, and/or future. Passion lights the fire as well as maintains it.

Some may question, "Why is not a dream the root of that which is successful?" And I will answer, "I have dreamt, since I was knee-high to a midget grasshopper, to be an astronaut, but I lack the passion to invest my life into that endeavor. So, will I be the first man to walk on Mars—highly, doubtful."

Secondly, Labor: One will have work—many kinds and many styles. Physical labor is the first form that comes to mind, but mental labor is equally important, if not more so.

Scott Crawford, former store manager of my hometown Wal-Mart, told me, when I worked there during the summer of 2001, that "you get paid according to what you know." So, he encouraged all the young, high school employees to find something that they could dig into and in his words, "get an education, for one can only reap from his labors and his alone."

Thirdly, Faith: Each morning one arises to greet the newfound day, one must have the faith to say in a strong and confident tone, "Today is going to be better than the last."

Faith could be in a higher entity or not; that is a personal decision, which will be made on one’s own. The faith I speak of, however, is the faith in one's abilities and that is what keeps one coming back for more.

Finally, Love: That is love of the road one walks, the people one walks it with, and the ones one has at home waiting upon his or her return. The love of the ones who kindle the flames in one's absence is the evening star that shines so bright that it lights the footpaths one chases at the day's end.

I had many issues I wanted to talk about, but I did not see a reason to waste a good, long researched column right before spring break. I hope it is nice short, up-lifting column.

Can I Ask a Question?

2006-03-10T14:46:00.001-05:00

Is it just feasible that a substantial portion of white Americans and/or moral majority view the minorities in this country as somewhat of inferior, lowbrow indentured servants waiting upon approval of civil liberties--which are due, but are reneged on--after years of asinine oppression?

I understand that is a mouthful of a question as well as quite a loaded one to boot. However, I cannot help but to look around and see pompous bigots swearing by their own dull-minded morality.

Firstly, there has, since the origins of human societies, been something, be it skin color, religious beliefs, national origins, and/or financial statuses, to divide the masses.

Sadly, racism was and is a dividing line in America. It is apart of American history and continues, with no signs of ceasing, to affect American current events. Furthermore, it is something that stands flatfooted on our shores, laying a damp overcast on the welcoming smile of our own Lady Liberty, and yet even sadder, laying a still harsher wake-up call to the dreams of the minorities in this county.

Nonetheless, within the last hundred years,

America

has progressed in the areas of racism and other discriminations; however, there are battles that are still raging.

Secondly, and crazy enough, religious morality harbours many, if not all, of these discriminations, basically, the “Us” and “Them” factor. That is, the whole mentality that “We’re better than you. We know something you don’t.”

From religious scriptures came the justification for the ideology of slaves, the owning of one individual as one might own a dog. Do not get me wrong, mankind has always brutality treated his fellow man. This goes back before articles of faith were even copied down in any form of a written language.

What I mean though is that religious scriptures justify the practice of slavery and the disdain against anyone that disagrees with the text. America’s history, moreover, shows the battle that modern civilizations have had to wage to cleanse itself of an obtuse, written-in-God’s-own-hand, moral bigotry.

Thirdly, once again, the war flags wave high: the moral majority using their religious scriptures to justify their discrimination of another minority, homosexuals. Of course, this is a battle that has been fought against this group in the past, but now the religious majority, feeling these people pose more of a threat than previously, are unleashing there influences into politics.

If these people (homosexuals) do not wish or ask to be a practitioner of a faith, whereby, their so-called “sexual deviance” would be an abomination to some higher deity, then the morally self-righteous should quit thrusting their own holier-than-thou beliefs on these people’s backs. Due to the same freedoms that give to you, the religious majority, the right to be the way you are and the way you choose, so the freedoms belong to the minorities as well.

Finally, the majority blindly forgets sometimes--that is, actually, a substantial part of the time--to act as if they were the minority; that is, to consider themselves outnumbered and still wake each day to face the onslaught of fear, misunderstanding, and persecution.

This week's column was spurred by two elements: the reading of another Parthenon columnist's comments about Brokeback Mountain and the reading of Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story, Young Goodman Brown. It is one thing to realize our differences and embrace as well as poke fun at them, but the blindsided disdain of another because of a difference that they, themselves, cannot control is beyond stupidity. In my humble opinion, it is the shittiest display of a fuck worthy education.

Economy Needs Foreign Investments

2006-03-03T07:53:00.002-05:00

Democrats decry whatever the Bush Administration does and once again are pretending to be something they are not--sincere and wise. Of course, several strong issues exist that Americans should rightfully question the president on and demand change for, but this Port Security issue is not one.

For those who do not yet know, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) received approval of a transaction by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a multi-agency body that was established in 1975 to evaluate the national security implications of foreign acquisitions.

The transaction encompasses the purchase of six U.S. seaports for $6.8 billion by the UAE-based Dubai Ports World from another foreign company, the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

Irwin M. Stelzer, director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute, paraphrased the president by saying the UAE “has arrested several key al Qaeda operatives, welcomed visits by American naval vessels, provided landing rights for

U.S.

aircraft at its strategically located airport, and cooperated in the inspection of cargoes headed for American ports.”

Furthermore, Thomas L. Friedman, columnist of the New York Times, wrote, “Many U.S. ports are run today by foreign companies, but the U.S. Coast Guard still controls all aspects of port security, entry and exits; the U.S. Customs Service is still in charge of inspecting the containers; and

U.S.

longshoremen still handle the cargos.”

He added, “The port operator simply oversees the coming and going of ships, making sure they are properly loaded and offloaded in the most cost-effective manner.”

America

has a long history of welcoming foreign investment and ownership to her shores. So why is this an issue?

The Associate Press stated, only 25 such investigations have been conducted “among 1,600 business transactions reviewed by the [CFIUS] since 1988.” What makes this issue this time different than the overwhelming majority of these transactions?

With literally no security risk, the answers to these questions are very simple and unbelievably sad: race and nationality as well as Democrats (and some Republicans) needing to appear tough in an election year. The opposition to this port transaction only cares about its own well-being, not America’s

As I remember Democrats are against racial profiling--criticizing the President when someone of Arab background or appearance is stopped and questioned, even if his or her coat is extraordinarily heavy.

Friedman stated, “If there were a real security issue here, I'd join the critics. But the security argument is bogus and, I would add, borderline racist.” So, I am not the only person that sees the race connection.

Friedman wrote, “As a country, we must not go down this road of global ethnic profiling--looking for Arabs under our beds the way we once looked for commies. If we do--if America, the world's beacon of pluralism and tolerance, goes down that road--we will take the rest of the world with us.”

In conclusion, just because a business is located in an Arab country or any other country should not hinder that company from investing in America. America’s economy thrives because of foreign investments and at the same time the American economy drives the Global economy. Therefore, if we stop supporting foreign investments, we hurt the world at large as well as ourselves.

Here is week Six. I liked it, but I feel I used Thomas L. Friedman a little too much. So far I find it scary if the American people follow the Democrats on this political war against the President: where he says something and they have to say the opposite. To stop investments based solely on race and nationality is asinine.

Librarians on the Front Lines

2006-02-24T03:23:00.001-05:00

Librarians are on the Front Lines of an educational downfall. They stand on centuries of tradition, while holding the reins to tomorrow.

Before I continue, let us start with the history of the written word. A&E, the Art of Entrainment channel, did a poll several years back of the most influential people of all times, and who was number one? Johann Gutenberg, the man who invented the printing press.

In 1452 Gutenberg conceives the very idea that will transform the world by the fabrication of movable type. In his workshop he combines the technologies of the day: paper (which came Italy from China in the 12th Century), oil-based ink (which came into existences during the 10th Century), and the wine-press (which, in one form or another, has been around before Christ).

With these three invention commonly used in the 1400’s, the printing press was born. No more did men copy word after word on to a scroll, then knowing that that scroll would be obsolete and in need of recopying within just a score of years. Man knew even at that time the word was everything, for without it communication would cease and without communication man would never survive.

Returning to my original statement, now.

Neil Gaiman, the author of American Gods and Neverwhere and the DC comic series The Sandman writes, “I love librarians… I love librarians when they crusade not to be stereotyped as librarians. I love librarians when they're just doing those magic things that librarians do. I love librarians when they're the only person in a ghost town looking after thousands of books.”

Librarians guard the words of those who came before, those who are present, and those who are soon to arrive. If librarians lose the lust for their obligations and lay down their defenses, we have lost our history, our art, our knowledge, our edge, and, quintessentially, our communication.

Somewhere along the way getting this point in our nation’s history, we forgot the importance of respect for those who hold, essentially, our society within the confines of their shelves. Books birth dreams and kindle passions and push imaginations to a realm of absolute possibilities, and we, as Americans, cannot allow for this process to stall, if so, thus, stalling the pace of human development.

Throughout history countless writers have told countless stories upon countless pages weaving countless words bounded within countless books to be read by countless readers for countless hours. The pleasures, the pains, the joys, the sorrows, the intrigues, the disappointments, the loves, the losses, the facts, the lies, and the truths captivate people, for people wrote these tales for a reason and that reason is to be, at the day’s close, human—to feel, to grow.

While books are the beacon to which ambition is drawn unto, librarians lay out the course of its navigation. No matter how much and how often ignorance grapples with our way of life, librarians just knuckle down and stands their ground. Librarians are on the Front Lines of an educational downfall.

I delivered a speech on this topic before (go through the Archives to find it). I wanted to write on Globalization this week in response to a “letter to the editor” and my last column (read below), yet I have had so much work and so little sleep this week, so I just turned this one in to fill my weekly commitment.

U.S. Trade Deficit Soars to Horrifying Heights

2006-02-17T13:12:00.000-05:00

The U.S. trade deficit peaked at $725.8 billion, an all-time high, in 2005, and it was propelled skyward due to record imports of oil, food, cars and other consumer goods.

On February 10th Martin Crutsinger of the Associated Press reported, for the "fourth consecutive year… America's trade deficit has set a record as American consumers continued their seemingly insatiable demand for all things foreign from new cars to televisions and electronic goods."

Crutsinger stated that imports rose "12.9 percent to an all-time high of $2 trillion, swamping a 10.4 percent increase in exports, which reached a record high of $1.27 trillion."

Reading this, I wondered if the American people even care about their nation, their homeland. Yes, we are exporting more than ever before; however, our percentage of increase is not as accelerated as our imports.

I hear, it must be all the time, that outsourcing, off-shoring, and globalization eliminates American jobs, leaving millions unemployed for the gain of a few. I would argue the 4.7 unemployed rate (7.2 million individuals) is the lowest for a number of years.

Furthermore, Thomas L. Friedman, New Times columnist and author of "The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century," talked about China's embracement of free market trade, thus globalization, and "how [they have] managed to pull more people out of poverty faster and in larger numbers than any country in the world by adopting a pro-globalization/trade strategy."

I am an avid free trade supporter; ergo, I support the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). "Why?" you might ask. Besides the results Friedman spoke about with China's impoverished citizens, the NAFTA and CAFTA are the only way for America as well as the Americas to compete with countries, such as China and India. At the same time, it helps the development of all involved nations--that is, economic-wise.

Check this out. If one buys a textile product made in China, 100 percent is made in China. Yet, if one buys that product made in El Salvador (one of the six nations in the CAFTA), 60 percent is produced in the U.S., while 40 percent is constructed in El Salvador. So, in return we, by buying textiles from the nations in the CAFTA, help to keep more American jobs in the States than if we purchase ones made in China or elsewhere.

The trade deficit, being so high, horrifies many and with good reason. It is especially horrifying, when $201.6 billion of the deficit is due to imports from China--still being a police state socially.

Crutsinger added, "The rising trade deficits must be financed by increased borrowing from foreigners, who so far have been happy to sell us their products and hold U.S. dollars in payment which they invest in U.S. stock, bonds and other assets."

He concluded, "The concern is that at some point foreigners will want to reduce their dollar holdings. If the change occurs at a rapid pace it could send the value of the dollar, U.S. stocks and bond prices all plunging."

The person editing page four in the Parthenon this week took some liberties, which I disagreed with and thus changing the meaning of a sentence or two. So, I am posting my draft. Next, I wonder if the person who titled this column, “U.S. Trade Deficit Misleading,” actually read it, and because of that I am not posting that title as the title of this ed-op piece.

Freedom for All or for None

2006-02-10T11:27:00.001-05:00

Explain to me, if one will or possibly can, why? Why did the Danish not think before publication, knowing fully the passion of the Muslim world? Why does the Muslim world have to be so blind to the reaction of their own actions? Why should the Free world care?

The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten was undisputedly wrong in the publications of twelve cartoons that depicted the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, especially, one which showed the Prophet with a bomb for a turban; that is, if we live in a tolerant world--a world of political and religious correctness.

Obviously, any practitioner of Islam should, based on his or her books of faith, be outraged. Furthermore, living in this world of tolerance we must give every religion (tested creeds and unestablished oaths) the courtesy and respect we ask for our own, whatever it may be.

Let us flip the tolerance perceptive. Should the Muslin world be tolerant of another individual who, apparently, does not believe in the Islamic faith and sees it quite fitting to make a joke or draw a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad or Allah, in that case?

Back in the 90’s a so-called artist placed a crucifix in a jar of urine, capped it off with a lid, and proclaimed it art. Did the Christian world rise up and riot, destroying buildings and causing deaths? No, they did not. The other month when the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the Holocaust was a “myth.” Did the world watch in horror as the Jews burned embassies? No, we did not.

Yes, there was a cry, however, in both cases from these two different faiths, but violence was not their answer. Here in the West, we acknowledge now, thanks to Gandhi, that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

The Muslims world--in this event--has shifted the attention from the ignorant display of Jyllands-Posten’s religious intolerance to themselves. They moved the focus of the initial victim (the Muslin community) to the Danish newspaper and the Danish people as well as neighboring countries. Did they not think about the repercussions to their actions, just as they asked of the Danish?

“One assumption behind some of the debate,” states Andrew Sullivan, a journalist and blogger, “over the Danish cartoons is that blasphemy is always antithetical to religion. But, of course, many great religions began in what was then deemed blasphemy. Jesus was a blasphemer, and he died in part because of his blasphemy. Religions that enforce rules against blasphemy are defensive, cramped faiths, closed to the possibility of error, which is to say, closed to the possibility of a greater truth.

We live in the West, Sullivan adds, we can depict anybody without people rioting. This is about the freedom of speech.

Is it a freedom to blasphemy, even if it is not one’s own faith? Is it a freedom to decry someone for blaspheming against one’s personal faith? We cannot live by double standards; either freedom for all or freedom for none.

The only time I did not have a title is when I get ask for one. I told Rasmi she could look at the last sentence and she worked with it. When I called to tell her I found a couple errors, she asked if she could remove a paragraph (second to last) for length’s sake. It was hard to go with but I did. I added it here.

The Socialistic War

2006-02-03T08:57:00.001-05:00

Last week I spoke on the Theocratic War America faces within her own borders and how it is unconstitutional to deny one individual his or her natural rights as a citizen of a Republic, not a Democracy. According to Thomas Jefferson, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”

This past Tuesday’s edition of the Parthenon ran the article “Defining Marriage”: a great example of the majority attempting to abolish the natural rights of a minority and giving them civil rights--nothing more than approved privileges.

However, this week the Socialistic War is my topic.

This Socialistic War chastises the rights of private property owners and private businesses alike. The government has been pushing for more regulations--the Democrat’s way.

Firstly, eminent domain has been understood, since the mid-19^th century, as the government seizing privately owned property, especially land, for the “Public Good.” Yet, that is no longer.

As reported by Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff Writer, “The Supreme Court ruled yesterday [Thursday, June 23, 2005] that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed."

The government is stepping beyond the parameters of their legal jurisdiction. Privately owned property is just that, privately owned. We should side with the construction of a school, hospital, highway, and/or government building, yet not on the side of taking privately owned land and turning it over to another private party.

Additionally, the Wal*Mart Bill, like the one currently proposed in the West Vriginia Legislature, would grant state governments the power to tell privately owned businesses of 10,000 employees or more to spend 8 percent of its earnings on employee healthcare. There are 31 states with some form of the Wal*Mart Bill in their state legislature. Wal*Mart is the only business that has 10,000 employees or more and does not provide that level of healthcare.

We all should disagree with Wal*Mart, or any corporation, which only provides 40 percent of its employees with company healthcare; nonetheless, that is an issue the employees have to take up themselves, not the state government.

Business Insurance, a weekly newsmagazine, reported January 23, 2006, “[B]usiness groups and employers are attacking the measures [of the Wal*Mart Bill] as anti-business, asserting that such mandates not only will hurt the economy but ultimately could exacerbate the nation's uninsured problem.”

The economy always hurts when the federal or state government decides to get involved. This country succeeds only when privately own businesses are allowed to play freely within the free market arena.

As for the Theocratic and Socialistic Wars, which our nation battles, we have to keep in mind there are two particular issues that cannot be legislated: morality and free market.

This is the final installment of the Theocratic and Socialistic Wars; however, I am not too pleased with this one: it seems more like facts than opinion. It is fine. I doubt anyone will remember it. Again, I did not title this one.

The Theocratic War

2006-01-27T03:45:00.002-05:00

America has two wars pending. Both are attacking the very foundation of our governmental system. One is pushing toward a theocracy, while the other is beginning its fight for socialism. This week I will speak on the topic of this Theocratic War.

This nation within the last decades has been in the middle of a faith revival, particularly, Christian, which is absolutely fine. However, our Senators deem it now of national importance to know the faith of a Supreme Court nominee and that is simply unconstitutional. Moreover, we, as citizens, vote for government officials based on their religious/spiritual beliefs or either the absence of those beliefs, and again, it is simply unconstitutional.

If one disagrees with me, just research and read the last paragraph of Article Six of the U.S. Constitution. Yet, let me save one the energy of seeking out the old dusty text, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Many look around and wonder how we have gotten ourselves to this polarized governmental situation: Democrats (Left), Republicans (Right).

I disagree with many Democrats (mostly the extreme liberals, as I do with the radically conservative Republicans), yet it is not based on the same grounds that most Americans do. According to former U.S. Senator Gray Hart (D-Colo.), many Americans view the Democrats as immoral human beings.

With that particular stereotype pushed on our minds daily, we then begin to believe Left equals Evil, so then Right equals Right; there enter the Republicans.

Many vote Republican for their personally religious beliefs (specifically, Protestant Christian beliefs), instead of voting for the best candidate for the task. That goes for the followers of the Democrats as well. That is the root, now, of the polarization problem our nation faces, religion dictates our politics. Yet again, that is simply unconstitutional; furthermore, within the next decade or two, it will play out before our very eyes.

Because we live in, as the CIA Factbook states, a “Constitution-based federal republic [with] strong democratic tradition,” we live in a stark contradiction.

In a republic citizens’ possess natural rights, which are protected (in our case) by the Bill of Rights, and the minority’s rights are the priority--hence, the filibuster.

In a democracy the majority rules; 51 percent is all that is needed. Additionally, any rights for the minority are civil rights--more or less, just privileges--granted by a condescending majority. The reality of a democracy is it is a dictatorship of the majority.

The majority of the group voting republican for religious reasoning actually push for a majority-rules democracy, while the ones voting democrat want a minority prioritized republic. I find that ironic.

Here is my weekly column for The Parthenon. Firstly, I did not title this column. The Parthenon is not the New York Times--where the columnists have the privilege to write their only titles. However, it is fine; I cannot wait to see next week's follow-up title. Secondly, I want people to praise or condemn my thoughts and words. At least, those people will read and ruminate and digest (to some degree or another). Lastly, if the Managing Editor of The Parthenon, Rasmi, ever reads this blog, I want her to know I hold nothing against her; it is the newspaper process, which I have a problem with, and maybe in a future column, I will write on the commercialism of that process.

A Truth about The Truth

2006-01-20T04:53:00.000-05:00

If one believes his or her truth is The Truth it is he or she who judges The Truth of another individual by the sole comprehension of his or her own truth; ergo, another’s truth is The Truth to him or her, yet not to the one’s truth, so is there then an actual The Truth?

That means: if one believes his or her truth is The Truth he or she then holds others to his or her personal standard of his or her truth. Furthermore, one will or can easily forget or just plainly dismiss that his or her truth is not a universal truth but a single belief held solely by that individual and nought more.

One cannot pretend to know the full complexities of The Ultimate Truth because The Truth is not objective nor a particular thing, which one can reach out with his or her ardent or meager hand and touch it by physical fingers and/or understand it by mental capabilities; it is purely relative to one’s own path of life‘s experiences.

When one condemns another for his or her actions (mind they stay within the boundaries of the societal and governmental laws, if deemed justice or equal to the minority as well as the majority) or personal convictions based on his or her interpretation of The Truth and still holds him or her up against one’s personal truth without concerning that individual’s own belief in his or her truth, where then is The Truth?

Try wrapping your mind around this: ruminate how something can never go wrong, never break, never malfunction. The answer would be the most deplorable of answers, if one valued his or her humanity. The only way for everything to go right is for nothing to exist in the first place. For another example, what is veritable love? One would first have to acknowledge that love has a myriad of different forms, intensities, and expressions, so thence veritable love would be the sum of all of the forms, intensities, expressions.

So now, by the acceptance of The Almighty, Enlightening Truth, consequently, one would have to encompass all truths (not only his or hers); hence, the acceptance of all truths would thus prove that there is no The Truth.

To conclude: no one individual and/or group’s truth is beyond another, if there is even a truth, for The Truth exists only when there would be no truth. To be The Truth, one most be all, whereby the embracing of all would no longer be one, so that ascertains there is no one truth, if The Truth exists.

I wrote this to be my first column for this spring term for the Parthenon (campus newspaper); however, it was "too advanced," at least that is what the editor said. I have mixed feelings on the issue of ed-op piece in a newspaper. It is enough to make one question his career plans.

Coexistence—Odds Appear to be Slim

2005-12-03T03:26:00.000-05:00

Media consolidation has its ups and downs; big businesses purchase and sell small companies easily, so economically it allows for savings, which benefits the consumer and investor in us all. Nonetheless, media consolidation in television limit’s the diversity of programs, so what we consume through television channels (broadcast and cable) are controlled and selected by fewer and fewer people, which we know fewer and fewer about. Apparently, then we are in the midst of losing localism thus losing the promotion of diversity to the masses, at large.

Moreover, according to an article titled “Consolidation, Budget Cuts Mean Party Must Learn How to Play by New Rules” by Flavia Colgan, a MSNBC-TV Contributor, published November 18, 2005, “Investigative reporting is expensive, but talk is cheap. Very little investigative journalism is done by television news anymore. When is the last time you heard of Fox News Channel breaking a story, for example?” Colgan added, this problem is not isolated to television news; “competition [overall] in the news business has increased dramatically and this has led to a decrease in the ability of news organizations to take risks.” This competition is fueled by appearing the most appealing.

Ted Turner, CNN founder and Turner Enterprises chairman, stated in article, “My Beef with Big Media,” that “the media giants now own not only broadcast networks and local stations; they also own the cable companies that pipe in the signals of their competitors and the studios that produce most of the programming.” Turner shows how consolidated the television industry has become throughout the past fifteen years by mentioning, “In 1990, the major broadcast networks—ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox—fully or partially owned just 12.5 percent of the new series they aired. By 2000, it was 56.3 percent. Just two years later, it had surged to 77.5 percent.”

So one can grasp consolidating the television industry, the most consumed media in the United States, is restricting the variety of programs. A poll conducted by Project for Excellence in Journalism found through surveying journalists, editors, and news executives that editors say their staff size has declined over the last three years by forty-three percent. Of national journalists forty-four percent write or produce four stories a week, if not more; only thirty-five percent say they compose three or less. Colgan also states, “When asked if the ‘bottom line’ was hurting news coverage or just changing the way organizations do things, 74 percent of journalists said it was hurting coverage, as did 69 percent of editors.”

Furthermore, in an interview with Newspaper & Technology in June of 2001, Joseph Basara, chief executive officer of WRH (Walter Reist Holding) marketing, discussed the company’s U.S. plans for Ferag. Basara replied to the question about the effects of newspaper consolidation on the manner he carries out business by saying, “Yes, there is some consolidation and fewer individual ownership entities that are in the market.… What we also need to acknowledge is that while newspaper consolidation has occurred in terms of ownership, this has not necessarily translated to operations. While it has some national components to it, the newspaper is still a local product.”

Andrew Carnegie, 19th Century steel industrial giant, believed the reason for a single company to own the whole production process of a particular commodity or product was to protect the customer--from start to finish the sole company has control over the item in return regulating the quality of the product firsthand. So, with Carnegie’s concept of consolidation, it is a good idea, yet we, as consumers, cannot rely fully on a single enterprise to care about our billfolds more than their bottom-line, e.g Enron. However, media consolidation has its ups and downs; nevertheless, I full hearty support diversity (the ability to have a variety of minds and beliefs represented and distributed to the masses) in a single market.

Concluding, consolidation is good, when it does not interfere with the quality and diversity of a particular media outlet, yet the odds appear to be slim that both can successfully coexist.

Media consolidation raises the fear of the Orwell's 1984 Big Brother society, which could be across the horizon--if we, as members of a free society, unlearn the precious able to question, even our authorities. That is, we leave ourselves open for a Jerry Cantrell-like "Degradation Trip."

Balancing the Public Airways

2005-11-20T22:01:00.000-05:00

Why allow the public airways to promote filthy, immoral, and perverted versions of the one person’s warped, twisted world? Following the thinking of no-holds-bar public radio is quite absurd. Yes, one can consciously change the channel; however, if one is not of a particular mental state, can one true gauge the artist value? According to Dan Hollis, a Journalism professor at Marshall University, our nation is concerned about protecting children; furthermore, who is going to argue not to protect them? Children, as we elders view them, really are not the rational creatures that it takes to decide the political, artistic, literary, and scientific worth of information and entertainment.

Of course, who is to say what is degrading, impure, and harmful material? I, being twenty-one-years-old, might enjoy and appreciate several things, which I would not want my little three-year-old sister or five-year-old nephew to see or hear because of the content of the material. Specially, due to the fact, I do not believe he or she processes the abilities to wager the circumstances surrounding situation or situations and the motives of the individual or individuals promoting these words or images.

My father, once when I was younger, told my grandfather in a conversation, which I--looking up at both of them--recall vividly, said, “The way I view it I shouldn’t be anywhere I can’t take my kids.” Somewhat, I agree. However, there are times children may not view the material in the satirical way it was intended.

As of now our nation is a free country--meaning an adult can view any thing they might desire: hard-core or soft-core pornography and graphic violence or listen to offensive lyrics and crude humor, if one chooses to do so. We, as a nation, believe the older one is the more conscious one is. That is debatable. However, in the name of child protection anything accessible via the public airways should be, in my opinion, regulated (watered-down, if one will).

Here is an assignment my Journalism professor posed the class: "Should there be regulations on public airways--broadcast television, radio." I hope this drives your thoughts on the touchy balance between protection of children and free practices of consenting adults.

The Awakening of a Still Dream

2005-11-03T12:26:00.001-05:00

A young man from Greece--working his way across the Atlantic, as a ship-hand in the early decades of last century--was given a dime to purchase a nickel cola by one of the passengers, as the vessel coasted into the New England harbour. The young man ran down the painted wooden plank, peeling from the saltwater air, to the nearest diner. Once there, he asked for two colas and paid with the dime. Back aboard the ship, he sold the second cola, first, to another passenger for a dime itself. Then, he gave the first cola to the original passenger who sent him for it, and the passenger said, “Keep the change for yourself, sonny.”

The young man stood on the dock, after the crowd dispersed, looking toward the city with dime in hand and said to himself, “That’s the American Dream.”

Would you say this story is true?

Would you say you believe in the American Dream?

First, what is the American Dream? Let us make this clear. Coming from a meager existence to soar up the ladder of success that may take others a lifetime climb. Maybe. Or bettering oneself passed that of one’s parents’ success. Possibly, maybe not really. The American Dream is simply in one word: opportunity--given, taken, or made.

Everywhere in our society--either through a rock or pop song on the radio or an actor on the big screen or the small, or even in a C.E.O. meeting on the 19th story of a New York office building or a heartfelt speech delivered on the Senate floor--we are surrounded by the American Dream.

Everyday when we step out of our houses or dorm rooms, we are in the presence of Americans and non-Americans alike striving for their own level of satisfaction (wherever or whatever that may be), and that itself is witness to the American Dream. We, as members of the human species, are a myriad of backgrounds, races, creeds, languages, ideologies, and financial statuses, and we coexist in time and space.

The soul of America is opportunity--the ability to move through the social and economic platforms to settle where one chooses. This opportunity is sometimes given (by someone’s largesse or reluctance) or taken (by someone’s emotional blindness or mental ignorance); however, it is predominately made (by one’s ever-longing personality and never-dying fortitude).

Of course, opportunity in our nation is not as equal as it would be in the Utopian fantasy; nonetheless, the American reality is as close as any other society thus far.

I used to believe that we were running out of American heroes—the American Dream awoke to a reality of nightmares. But I was sadly mistaken. Last year a random thought sparked hours of conversions between myself and my family and friends.

Nevertheless, my grandfather, 72, shared a tale about a man he knew, while working as a state trooper in Hardy County, W.Va., called Nick “the Greek.” The tale he told was the opening story of this article; so yes, that story was true. Mr. Nick went from entering this country with a few dollars to becoming a rather wealthy individual before his passing.

Finally, I conclude: we are America--dreams do not die here, they are realized here. We are not running out of heroes, super or mild-mannered. We are trapped in the incalculable glory of a multitude of heroes. The American Dream is opportunity and the American Dream is still here today.

Yep, this is the second column for the campus paper, The Parthenon. I like it (not the paper, particularly, but the connection); I like feeling in touch with other students (and people in general). Coming out of class last Friday two girl stopped me and asked me if I was “that guy.” One of the girls was so generous with her compliments, and she was so sincere in her emotions. I felt like I touched someone and that is one of the greatest feelings in the world.

It Makes Her Feel Sexy

2005-10-21T02:24:00.000-05:00

I have had the unbelievable chance of giving my hopelessly pathetic heart—meaning I truly gave all of myself by baring even my minutest weakness—to two amazingly incredible women. I remember once asking one of them, “What is your favorite part of being a woman?” Taking a few innocent moments to phrase her words carefully, she said, “Being able to feel sexy; knowing every guy in the room is looking at just me.” Then, like she always did, she posed the same question back, “What is your favorite part of being a man?” Taking no time to formulate my reply, I said, “Being able to make you feel sexy; knowing that you know that my blue eyes are on you and you alone.”

That said: men are swine. We, as men, cause useless, immature, and intolerable degrees of pain for our partners. We, being somewhat blind to the mental attraction and emotional understanding of women, cause this pain, based in selfish endeavors, to a level, which is unneeded, unwanted, and majority of the time unjust. Why do we do this?

Of course, women are not the frail angelic creatures conjured up in the mind of an overly romanticized society. However, women do not need to be heartbroken and ill-treated because of our primal need to protect face, when felt threaten. Most men in our culture are told to be confident but are taught only how to be cocky. Why do we do this?

Walking with your chin up, with your back straight, with knowledge in your speech, and with strength in your eyes; that is confidence, not yelling out adolescent lines, which you got from some teen movie that borders on sexual harassment in the real world, from a campus bench with your buddies cheering you on and laughing, when the girl passes by without paying attention. Remember, most women need someone to tell them that they have worth, and those cheesy middle school phrases hold no ground and substance, when the door closes at night and all that both of you have is each other.

From my experiences women possess a deep longing for a gentle touch and a soft whisper, more times than not; it shows that we, as men, consider their bodies and minds as a cherished temple at which we offer up our egos, sacrifice our social stereotypes, shed our so-called rough manly exteriors. These moments of baring it all occur from time to time and they are gone like the sun that fades behind a cloud and that cloud seems to stretch forth out of sight of thy naked eye, yet you yearn for more and more seems to never arrive, but you yearn still.

Each man should let the woman that he holds know of her individual worth and also that he yearns for her more. That should be our primary duty as men at the beginning of everyday.

Do not be a cocky fool with a juvenile mentality; that is, be a confident man with steadfast integrity. Be respectful, honest, and communicative—treat a woman right. Moreover, keep your eyes only on your girl; it makes her feel sexy.

This is my first column for the campus paper (The Parthenon). I’m sitting here looking over it and thinking I could clean it up a little more, but the paper has this copy, so this is the copy being published. My journalism professor has been after me to get one submitted. So here it is. I hope to be allowed to do more in the future.

Ode to ?

2005-10-09T00:37:00.000-05:00

Where can I begin in my description of the fresh, heavenly creature that accompanied me to the cinema the other night? I have met a young girl, whose angelic face has phantasmagorically been at the forefront of my thoughts, and that girl has left me verbally speechless and emotionally vulnerable. I find myself in fear of coming off as a cocky fool or a shy coward, which neither I am. Furthermore, I am petrified that she will see through the manly exterior, which I try relentlessly to uphold, into the actual, non-socially accepted me--the one that is not funny nor cool nor hip nor any of those other happening terms of our present day youth culture. She is a West Virginia girl of strong character and immaculate beauty one that I am doubtful of impressing, even to the slightest of degrees. There is a sense about her that radiates elation and compassion, honesty and integrity to all whom crosses her delighted path. I have never been so concerned about how one individual may view my random, unexplanatory actions or my off-the-wall, confusing tangencies, until I encounter this humanly perfection. Since I was raised in the understanding that strength comes after the baring of one’s weaknesses, I am torn beneath my fearfulness and my hopefulness.

If you read the above piece, it is, then, obvious that I met a girl. Well, “met” is the right word in this case, since it is past tense. This girl, here on the Marshall campus, is extremely friendly, tremendously hysterical, and civilly spoken, but nothing transpired between her heart and mine. Do not get me wrong: we talk--when we randomly cross paths; we wave--when we spot the other person in the distance; we eat together--when we are both alone in the cafeteria. However, nothing has happened and I am okay with it: she is happy and I as well.

Social Learning Theory: In an Nutshell

2005-09-28T01:15:00.000-05:00

The explanation of the social learning theory is divided into three sub-theories itself. The main theory and backbone that runs through the social learning theory is, according to the text, “the brainchild of Edwin Sutherland (1939), deviant behavior is learned through one’s interaction with others.” In 1939 Sutherland laid the foundation for the social learning theory by introducing his theory of differential association. Almost twenty years later, in 1956 Daniel Glaser brought to the table his theory of differential identification, which was to amend the problem--“mechanistic image”--he felt Sutherland overlooked. In 1966 Robert Burgess and Ronald Akers added their own take to the ever evolving and expanding social learning theory with the theory of differential reinforcement.

Sutherland presented his theory of differential association in 1939, and the text explains the heart of his theory, “If an individual associates with people who hold deviant (or criminal) ideas more than people who embrace conventional ideas, the individual is likely to become deviant.” This theory has two aspects to it: first, the individual with the deviant ideas does not necessarily have to be deviant themselves. Just allowing a loophole for justification of a deviant behavior, an individual can affect another impressionable individual. “Therefore, if people are given more ideas of committing deviant acts than ideas of performing conventional acts, they are likely to engage in deviance.” Second, this theory does not specify “only one type of association, that is, deviant association or exposure to deviant ideas.” Hence, this theory refrains from the idea--if an individual has numerous interactions with deviant ideas or actions, that individual will become deviant themselves. The text uses the example of lawyers pointing out that lawyers are in the company of deviant clients daily, but nothing proves that they (lawyers) will commit deviant behavior. Summary of this theory: Differential association equals deviant behavior.

Glaser built off Sutherland’s theory with his introduction of differential identification, which sought to correct the plot holes that Sutherland left open. Glaser believed that the differential association suggested a “mechanistic image” of deviance. He believed associations with deviants were “harmless” unless the individual could identify with those actions and behaviors. The text states that “Glaser’s theory may be taken to suggest that it is all right for us to associate with deviants in real life or in books and movies, as long as we do not take them so seriously that we identify with them, treating them as our heroes. If we do identify with them, we are likely to become deviants ourselves.” Summary of this theory: Differential association plus differential identification equals deviant behavior.

Burgess and Akers also asserted that “Sutherland failed… to specify what that learning process entails.” Burgess and Akers look to psychology for alternates to improve and revise Sutherland’s theory--they arrived at their own theory: differential reinforcement. The theory conveys that an individual behaves conventionally if rewarded (positive reinforcement) for his or her actions, whereas an individual behaves deviant if punishment is not reinforced. “Reinforcement theory says,” according to the text, “that people will continue to engage in deviant activities if they have been rewarded for doing so.” The Law of Differential Reinforcement states that “given a number of available operant, all of which produce the same reinforcer, that operant which produces the reinforcer in the greatest amount, frequency and probability will have the higher probability of occurrence.” Akers (1998, 1985) described deviant behavior under the Law of Differential Reinforcement by stating, “Deviant behavior can be expected to the extent that [1] it has been differentially reinforced over alternative behavior and [2] is defined as desirable or justified when the individual is in a situation discriminative for the behavior.” Summary of this theory: Differential association plus differential reinforcement equals deviant behavior.

Sutherland’s theory of differential association has some faults, or at least difficulty, in a real-world scenario to be defined accurately enough. The text explains, “As Sutherland and Cressey (1979) admit, people often cannot identify the persons from whom they have learned deviant and antideviant ideas.” Several sociologists have claimed that they have research to back up Sutherland, but their research has no empirical ground upon which to stand; these sociologists have only their interpretation of the meaning of Sutherland’s theory.

Glaser’s theory differing from Sutherland’s is that there is “some support from empirical data.” For instance, Victor Matthews (1968) observed “that high school boys who identified with delinquent friends were likely to become delinquent themselves.” The problems at arise are that there is no conclusive evidence that backs this theory and it is feasible that an individual may only identify with a deviant after, instead of before, they commit deviance for themselves.

Burgess-Akers’s theory can only explain why an individual continues to be deviant, not what initially drove him or her to commit the first deviant behavior. “The reason, according to differential reinforcement theory, is that they have in the past been rewarded more than punished for their deviance, whereas others do not repeat a deviant act because they been punished more than rewarded for the act .”

The one thing that is constantly strung throughout these three sub-theories is the theory of differential association. So, it is assumed that before one crosses the line between deviance and conventionality one must first become associated with deviance either by the influence of another’s actions and/or ideas or by an innocent mistake. After the line separating deviances and conventionalities has been breached the punishment has to be greater than the sensation or reward that one receive from the deviant act, but if too extreme it only leads to rebellion--despise of the conventional and the “I’m-goin’-show-you” ideology. Lastly, the more one identifies with deviance the more it is the norm, not the violation; one can only identify if one has been associated with the deviant behavior.

This is my first Sociology 311 (Deviance and Social Control) essay. It is pretty self-explanatory. The only reason for it being posted is because it is the only thing I have somewhat ready. If it is too long for one sitting, I suggest breaking it up into smaller readings.

I Love You

2005-09-03T19:04:00.000-05:00

Today, I stood in my grandmother’s kitchen and I--with closed eyes--said aloud, “I love you.” I was shocked by the very words I whispered. I heard myself say that tried old phase without even being conscious of the thought of those words. Yet, saying these words to an empty room in the midst of late night hours, I still knew deep inside of my being she heard it as well as I, if not more fully. Miles between and years after--distance and time never truly weakens a connection of the souls, which process love; it only prolongs the anticipation of those two souls, for strengthening their resolve to reunify.

I stood there for a while longer (bewildered by the inter-workings of my subconscious). I questioned what I said and why I would feel an overwhelming and spontaneous urge to say what I said. The answer is not transparent, but at the same time, very apparent to itself. She and I were once lovers--lovers of life, lovers of each other, and lovers of love. Time stood still because our love demanded it. Time stood still because the only thing that mattered was not something based in and of this world or explained in and of logical reasoning, yet it was something deeply rooted in predestined, primal mysticism.

Some writings take time before they grow on you, and this is one of those writings. It has been laying around for two or three months, and today I stumbled across it, read over it, and liked it enough to post it. I was needing something for a post anyway, so it worked out. In the quiet hours of the night, we find ourselves often alone with our deepest feelings; this is a experience that most hide from whilst a few long for those quiet hours.

Intro of Self

2005-08-26T21:55:00.000-05:00

I come closer and closer each day to being the spitting image of my grandfather (I was raised by my grandparents after my parents divorced when I was four.) He is a natural storyteller, and he can find in his assortment of homespun tales and common sense parables the one that suits any situation imaginable. “There is something to learn with each challenge,” he would say to me when I felt that the pressure was too much and I could not withstand the strain. Alongside advice of this nature, he would and still does state that “A wise man learns not only from his own mistakes but from the mistakes of others.” He uses long pauses to build the dramatics and the solemnity, while adding side notes (tiny stories within the main story) to assist in the complete understanding of the idea that he is conveying through the tale. As a kid I hated his long, arid stories and his twisted, confusing parables; I--for most of the time--could not find the correlation between the present issue at hand and the wordy parable that he would choose to explain and express his view of it. However, age and responsibility have brought with them the full circle of understanding to my inferior, adolescent thoughts of the world at large.

His wisdom, which he tried relentlessly to instill in me, is coming to the surface little by little with the passing of each hazy day that flies on past me. I, being raised to revaluate the things I readily believed and being confident in myself to ask if I did not fully grasp the content presented to me, find the search for knowledge to be a rewarding quest. Richard P. Feynman, a mathematician and physicist, said that people are entertained when they learn even the smallest amount of information about something they did not know previously.

In my high school years in the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia, I first began my love for the English language. Coach Bill Arnold, my 9th grade English teacher, was the first teacher to push me and open me up to the world of literature. He taught me how to diagram sentences, and thanks to him, I had a prom date that very year. Joe Vincell, my 12th grade Literature teacher, moved me from the timeless classics of the common man like Jack London and Ernest Hemingway to the true mastery of craftsmen like John Milton and William Shakespeare. He supported my writings and was willing assist me by sitting down with me to discuss any grammatical or stylistic problems that would arise. Mrs. Taylor, my English 101 teacher, was a pain. I do not mean she did not know the rules of the English language or was not friendly, but she knew exactly what students commonly missed on her first of four four page essays; however, she would not let the class know until she handed the essay back--all but two of the students failed it. The idea of setting up one’s students for absolute failure is repugnant in my view.

Blogging is something I just got into about six months ago, and I would use my site as a site to post my essays on any topic that my little heart dared. Within the several months that I have been blogging, I have researched any papers ranging from religion and the Constitution to racism and the Rebel flag to Jazz great Thelonious Monk and inventor Johann Gutenberg. I love reading; it can be tiresome but always enjoyable. I read two books at a time--one fiction, one non-fiction. Breaking them up gives me a weekly variety.

I am an English major with emphasis on writing; my aspirations are to fully round my grammatical and mechanical skills and improve my literary abilities. I am also double minoring in sociology and journalism; I have plans to go into print journalism for my master’s.

This is the first essay I had to turn in here at Marshall. I got it back today, and I got a 100% on it. It is a nice way to kick off my Marshall career. I think I should thank Mr. Joe Vincell and Coach Bill Arnold for their largesse--that is, for honoring me by sharing their time, patience, and knowledge--of the English language--to a young dull-witted student; however, my disapproval of Mrs. Taylor’s plebeian teaching methods still need some due gratitude. Knowing this is just my first Marshall grade, it may seem that I am overly excited, but I assure you I am not, it is only that I am pleased with the grade--I do not feel this is my best writing, but that is how life is.

All That Jazz

2005-08-25T18:53:00.000-05:00

Jazz musicians hear harmonies and rhythms differently than the average commonplace man. They mentality can hear the complexities and locate the strange usage of pitches or the rhythmical entanglements of each inter-beat. It is like the beauty of an amber field in the early morning hours of late summer or the deepest blue sky after the first fallen snow on the Appalachian mountains near our West Virginia childhood homes. Jazz--with all its ins and outs and little minutiae coloristic detail--paints a world of beauty, that is a world unfamiliar to those who are not likeminded as those who never experienced an Appalachian snow or the sight a flowing field of amber wheat for themsleves. Jazz is an art for the artist. Jazz is the poem for the poet. Jazz is the complexity for the complex. Jazz is the spirit for the spiritual. Jazz is the love for the lovers. Jazz is the lonely for the lonesome. Jazz is the life for the living.

A friend posted on his blog his distaste for Thelonious Monk, a Jazz Musician (read previous post.) I am not after him for this blemish, which now I associated with his character. (That was a joke.) So, I left a comment on that post and here is what I left. I hope my point is understandable, if not I will explain it with this: Jazz can only be appreciated like the snow on the West Virginia mountains or the wheat field that the wind surfs out on the western prairies, and that appreciation can only be because of self witnessing.

“Before one can love or hate, one must first understand.” -- Leonardo da Vinci, if my memory serves me right.

Thelonious

2005-08-08T13:06:00.001-05:00

A young boy, sitting at a piano placed to the side of a stage in some smoke-filled barroom, was thought a beginner as he commenced to playing. He was criticized for his use of harmonic dissonance, sloppy rhythms, and the open embracement of silence. Thelonious Monk, now hailed as one the architects of Bebop, was the kid at the piano in that New York bar in the late 1930’s. It is, now, almost incomprehensible to have ever considered Monk to be a beginner. His creativeness is now understood as genius, yet still not understood in its entire.

Thelonious Monk was born October 17, 1917, in North Carolina’s Rocky Mount to Barbara Batts and Thelonious Monk, Sr. He only spent four years of his life in Rocky Mount until his mother and two siblings, Marion and Thomas, relocated to New York City; however, unlike the rest of the southern black migrants, who were heading straight to Harlem, Barbara and her children settled in Manhattan on West 63rd Street (near the Hudson River). Monk’s father arrived in Manhattan sometime around Monk’s third year there. Monk’s father played harmonica (“mouth” harp) and piano constantly; nevertheless, his father’s consistent health problems finally forced his father to return to his native South.

Monk had a brief stint on the trumpet before settling squarely on the piano as his musical voice and intellectual outlet. The piano allowed for tonal extensions thus lush chords and experimental harmonies. At the time his sister, Marion, was already enrolled in piano lessons, and her instructor agreed to take on another pupil--the nine-year-old Monk began his piano exploration and musical endeavors. Somewhere in his early teens, according to Robin D. G. Kelley Ph.D., a Professor of Anthropology, African American Studies, and Jazz Studies at Columbia University, Monk commenced to “playing rent parties, sitting in on organ and piano at a local Baptist church, and was reputed to have won several ‘amateur hour’ competitions at the Apollo Theater.”

Monk, being a very able student, was admitted to Peter Stuyvesant--one of New York City’s best high schools--but drop out to chase his musical aspirations by the end of his sophomore year. He joined a band that backed an evangelist and faith healer; they journeyed around from town to town spreading “the Word” and joyous tunes to many. After two years of relentless traveling, monk returned to New York City and founded a quartet. They played local blues bars and jazz halls up to the spring of 1941, when Monk became the pianist for the house band at Minton’s Playhouse in Harlem.

Kelley describes the setting, “Minton’s, legend has it, was where the ‘bebop revolution’ began. The after-hours jam sessions at Minton’s, along with similar musical gatherings at Monroe’s Uptown House, Dan Wall’s Chili Shack, among others, attracted a new generation of musicians brimming with fresh ideas about harmony and rhythm--notably Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Mary Lou Williams, Kenny Clarke, Oscar Pettiford, Max Roach, Tadd Dameron, and Monk’s close friend and fellow pianist, Bud Powell. Monk’s harmonic innovations proved fundamental to the development of modern jazz in this period.” Kelley also adds that Monk was “[a]nointed by some critics as the ‘High Priest of Bebop,’” for “several of his compositions (‘52nd Street Theme,’ ‘Round Midnight,’ ‘Epistrophy’ [co-written with Kenny Clarke and originally titled ‘Fly Right’ and then ‘Iambic Pentameter’], ‘I Mean You’) were favorites among his contemporaries.”

Monk’s playing style was one that differentiated him from his contemporaries--in the sense that he viewed music through not only the eyes of a player but the eyes of a composer. Yet, his perpetual and bewildering complexities never were enough to hold him back from the rawness of a lyrical blues line; he believed taste was more valuable in a piece than virtuosity. “In 1947 Monk made his first recordings as a leader for Blue Note. These albums are some of the earliest documents of his unique compositional and improvisational style, both of which employed unusual repetition of phrases, an offbeat use of space, and joyfully dissonant sounds,” excerpt from Monk’s biography on Monk Institute. Kelley continues with Monk "combined an active right hand with an equally active left hand, fusing stride and angular rhythms that utilized the entire keyboard. And in an era when fast, dense, virtuosic solos were the order of the day, Monk was famous for his use of space and silence.”

Monk remained moderately marginal throughout the 1940’s and the early 1950’s in comparison to his fellow jazz musicians. Although he played with some of the biggest names of the time like well-known drummer Art Blakey, legendary trumpeter and bandleader Miles Davis, and star saxophonists like Charlie Parker and Sonny Rollins, and he also headed a record of all-stars (trumpeter Kenny Dorham, alto saxophonist Lou Donaldson, tenor saxophonist “Lucky” Thompson, bassist Nelson Boyd, and drummer Max Roach) for his 1952 album, which was moreover his last for Blue Note, he just could not rise above. “In the end although all of Monk’s Blue Note sides are hailed today as some of his greatest recordings, at the time of their release in the late 1940s and early 1950s, they proved to be a commercial failure,” according to Kelley.

Working where he could after marrying his long-time love, Nellie Smith, in 1947 and having their first child, Thelonious, Jr., in 1949, the pressure mounted and thanks to many brutal, insensitive, and ill-informed critics it did not lessen. Monk found work--as scarce as it was--at local bars as much as possible. To make things worse, he took responsibility for narcotics possession intended to protect his fellow musician and friend, Bud Powell. By doing that though he lost his cabaret card--a license for musicians issued by the police department, for without it jazz musicians were prohibited from performing within New York clubs.

When 1955 rolled around, Monk began recording numerous albums with his new label, Riverside. These albums include Thelonious Monk Plays Duke Ellington, The Unique Thelonious Monk, Brilliant Corners, Monk’s Music, and Thelonious Monk Alone (second completely solo record). This time around the critics praised him and the public was now on the verge of understanding and appreciation.

“In 1957 with the help of his friend and sometime patron, the Baroness Pannonica de Koenigswarter, he had finally gotten his cabaret card restored and enjoyed a very long and successful engagement at the Five Spot Café with John Coltrane on tenor saxophone, Wilbur Ware and then Ahmed Abdul-Malik on bass, and Shadow Wilson on drums. From that point on, his career began to soar; his collaborations with Johnny Griffin, Sonny Rollins, Art Blakey, Clark Terry, Gerry Mulligan, and arranger Hall Overton, among others, were lauded by critics and studied by conservatory students. Monk even led a successful big band at Town Hall in 1959. It was as if jazz audiences had finally caught up to Monk’s music,” Kelley wrote in a biographical essay.

By 1961 Monk had the core of his quartet tenor saxophonist Charlie Rouse, bassist John Ore, and drummer Frankie Dunlop (later Ore was replaced by Butch Warren and then Larry Gales and Dunlop was replaced by Ben Riley). In 1964 Monk’s face graced the cover of the Time Magazine--only the third jazz musician in history to do so. From 1971 through 1972, Monk traveled with the “Giants of Jazz,” which had greats like Dizzy Gillespie, Kai Winding, Sonny Stitt, Al McKibbon, and Art Blakey.

Due to physical illness Monk “discontinued touring and recording and appeared only on rare occasions at Lincoln Center, Carnegie Hall, and the Newport Jazz Festival,” stated on the Monk Institute's page.

Monk’s final public performance was in July of 1976. In his last days, he just gave up on writing music and playing the piano. On February 5, 1982, Monk suffered a stroke. He never fully regained cognitive thought; he hung on for another twelve days before passing away on February 17th.

Monk grained a great deal of respect by the time of his death, but posthumously he is now one of the most honored musicians in all forms of music. Monk was quoted saying, “I don’t consider myself a musician who has achieved perfection and can’t develop any further. But I compose my pieces with a formula that I created myself. Take a musician like John Coltrane. He is a perfect musician, who can give expression to all the possibilities of his instrument. But he seems to have difficulty expressing original ideas on it. That is why he keeps looking for ideas in exotic places. At least I don’t have that problem, because, like I say, I find my inspiration in myself.”

Here is my term paper for Music 142 (that I just finished). I contemplated several topics for this assignment. After thinking about doing a paper on Eric Clapton (a person whom I know about very much), I decided that he would not be acquit enough to be compared to Mozart or Copland; however, I felt that Mozart and Copland would have been to commonplace. I chose Thelonious Monk, the first jazz artist into which I really got, because he in my opinion is highly over shadowed by far less creative players. If anyone wants to check him out, but cannot find an album, I will be glad to loan one of my numerous records of him just to spread the word of his musical importance.

Day of Judgment

2005-07-22T16:32:00.000-05:00

The railways of our country pushed the infant boundaries back past the known frontier to the terrain beyond the wildest imagined. The American Joe Miller’s Jest Book sums the States up finely, “The boundaries of our country, sir? Why sir, on the north we are bounded by the Aurora Borealis, on the east we are bounded by rising sun, on the south we are bounded by the procession of the Equinoxes, and on the west by the Day of Judgment.” The “Day of Judgment” laid west with dreams of a unified nation from the last, early morning star over the Chesapeake Bay to quiet setting of the yellowish-roseate sun off the California coastline. America became a quilt of lives and cultures of the old world stitched together by rivets of iron and steel to forge the soon-to-be new world.

The Internet was the fitting end to the most productive century in record history. It capped off a century of flight, space exploration, and millions of other inventions that somehow worked its way into the American society and the world’s as well. With the assistance of the World Wide Web, billions of people communicate, study, research, buy or sell, and just surf the digital waves of information with freedom. In 1991 no one knew of the internet accept a few dozen scientist placed sparsely throughout the global, but by the century close billions were committed to the internet for the long haul.

Railroads open the tallgrass prairies and mountainous regions of the West to the cityward movement of the remaining decades of the 19th Century. The iron horses, which the Native Americans named the trains, thundered across the continent delivering food to the newly established Mid-Western and Western townies, along with raw materials and markets to sell to and trade with. In the textbook, The American Pageant, Volume 2: 1965 to Present, it mentions that “Time, itself, was bent to the railroads.” Time zones were based solely on the railways to bring order to the train schedules as well as to eliminate, if not only reproduced, the number collisions.

Alan Kay, Vice President of Research & Development and Disney Fellow Walt Disney Imagineering, said, “The commercial computer is now about 50 years old and is still imitating the paper culture that came before it, just as the printing press did with the manuscript culture it gradually replaced. No media revolution can say to have happened without a general establishment of ‘literacy:’ fluent ‘reading’ and ‘writing’ at the highest level of ideas that the medium can represent.”

The Internet, and even the computer, is still in its infancy as was the railroads in the 1800’s. It took time for the railways to efficiently adapt to its new undertaking of a new nation. The Internet has been adapting to the changes before it as well; some may say we have been adapting to it, but it was the same for the railroad. Any new invention or concept takes time for humans to become accustom to.

I apologize for getting behind on my posts, but I have been busy in the last several weeks. Here is paper I wrote for a history class. I hope you enjoy.

Innocence Again Today was Lost

2005-07-07T18:55:00.000-05:00

I awoke to the news this morning--hearing of tragic attacks in London. Again, these terrorists struck precisely at another vein in our beloved Western Civilization. It is not only England that faces these violent actions organized to stall the economy and paralyze the spirit but the rest of the world as well. They stood beside us on the 11th of September four years ago, and so now it is our turn to affirm our stance with our ally. Yes, we have differed in our beliefs and personal doctrines, but what friends do not? These despicable and appalling displays of cultural genocide fail in comparison to the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, yet lives were lost all the same to this religious fundamentalism, which is spreading throughout the globe.

A man on the news today asked, “How should the U.S. respond to the London attacks?” I feel it is simple just the same as they did for us--with open arms. And together we will declare in one loud voice, as Prime Minster Tony Blair stated, “We are united in our resolve to confront and defeat this terrorism. We will not allow violence to change our societies or our values.” And as President George W. Bush added, “We will not yield to terrorists. We will find them and bring them to justice.”

I know I am running behind. I was planning on posting a piece on my 4th of July; however, the situation that occurred in London today made it seem improper. I might post it later, but this time I send my love and whatever else I can give to the families of the victims.

The Weakness in Me

2005-06-29T05:04:00.000-05:00

For the mainstream public, racism is an ideology of their grandparents’ time and something that was buried with them years and years ago. Yet the truth is furthermost from that train of thought, which millions of Americans calmly go to bed with each night before the sweet, tender slumber sets in.

Due to the attack on America at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, an injustice was looming on the horizon. The United States in fear of cohesion shuttled some 110,000 Japanese-Americans into internment camps, mainly isolated to the Pacific Coast. Mostly, two-thirds of the Japanese-Americans were actually U.S. citizens by birth, and the majority of the Japanese-American detainees were to be left there under constant surveillance through the duration of the war. Many of the Japanese-Americans, who were forced from their homes into these internment camps, lost personal property ranging in the hundreds of millions—collectively.

Keeping in mind this is the same Supreme Court that found segregation of blacks and others races prior to this time constitutional, upheld its belief that this support of inequality and degradation of civil liberties were constitutional. And it was not until 1988 that the United States government officially apologized to the Japanese-Americans that were held on grounds of ignorance and speculation. The remaining survivors of these actions—that is, these actions which still haunt the American subconscious—were given $20,000 for cooperation of this tragic failure in American history.

September 11, 2001 scattered any and all beliefs of personal safety, national security, as well as national innocence from shoreline to shoreline. In the name of Allah, many died, without reason and/or understanding, in a matter of hours, if not minutes. The hijackers (using the faith of Islam and text of the Qur’an and the words of the Prophet, Muhammad) attempted to justify acts of nothing more than terroristic against un-expecting by-standers.

Joseph P. Gudel wrote in his article, “A Post 9/11 Look at Islam,” that “within a few days after the terrorist attacks, President Bush went to the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., and strongly affirmed America’s support for American Muslims, as well as for Muslims worldwide.” The President and many other politicians made it clear—in the days after the attacks through and beyond the declared war against terrorism—that the “War on Terror” was not a war on Islam, because as the President stated about the pugnacious assaults of 9/11, “These acts of violence violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith… The face of terror is not the true face of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.”

Some might argue that Islam is not all peace. For example, Kenneth Woodward in a cover article for Newsweek titled “The Bible and the Qur’an” wrote on one apparent difference between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity: “Israeli commandos do not cite the Hebrew prophet Joshua as they go into battle, but Muslim insurgents can readily invoke the example of their Prophet, Muhammad, who was a military commander himself. And while the Crusaders may have fought with the cross on their shields, they did not—could not—cite words from Jesus to justify their slaughters.”

Following days after the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) had received claims of personal attacks against Arab-American nationwide numbering somewhere slightly above the 350 mark. These attacks arranged from verbal to physical. But by the end of the month, the reports escalated to some 785 attacks. Many other Muslims found safety and compassion in the arms of their family, friends, and colleagues.

Although these up-surd actions of personal attacks have taken place, the U.S. government has not place Muslims into internment camps throughout the countryside; the President has denounced these attacks of ignorance and hatred. The U.S. government—having learnt from their mistakes throughout history—has not taken people by the masses from their homes placing them in detention camps for the duration of this “War on Terror,” which the President has said would last awhile. Thank God, or Allah (if you will), that we stand strong against these irrational contrivances, which tore our nation in two only half-of-a-century ago. America is still young and hardheaded, but we have proven that we can still learn.

What happened to the Japanese-Americans saddens me deeply—to believe my nation that I love so much would with nothing than speculations forsake the liberties of its citizens. However, it delights me to see that we can learn from our past mistakes, made out of fear, to move beyond ourselves and deal with our fears. I only hope we continue to learn, instead of becoming lackluster. We must improve our economical situation, our educational system, our healthcare administration, our racial inequality, our energy crisis, and mostly our understanding of the world of interdependence and how we are to maintain the edge, which other countries are rapidly moving towards.

Thin Dream

2005-06-26T05:51:00.000-05:00

I read once a quote by William James, a 19th Century psychologist and philosopher, that went “when you have a choice and don’t make it, that in itself is a choice.” Some choices in our day-to-day lives are not truly important, such as McDonalds or Taco Bell for lunch or what movie to watch this weekend—if many. Other choices bear more gravity like financial stability, moral integrity, and sound judgment. One of the most significant and debate choices a citizen of a free democracy has is the privilege to decide the leaders and protectors of his or her life and his or her family’s lives.

We, as Americans, have come to believe the things given to us and the things we are accustom to expecting are rights, while privileges are things we only take from those who commit crimes. On the contrary for us to be able to give and receive is a privilege most do not have around the globe. In reality everything can be taken within an instant, except hope, faith, love, and truth. Many will forfeit all hope and any faith and harden themselves to love, no matter the truth.

A classmate last semester told me, “We’re not free.” The only thought I could think was how could she truly believe this with all that Americans have? I wrote in the assignment prior this one, “The appreciation of the little things in life is true freedom.” So, after pondering what she had said, about not being free, it hit me she really is not free—by being in that mindset.

Freedom is a dream. It is a dream of men who have been in bondage, who have been beaten and chained down their whole lives for just being born. It is a dream of people persecuted for their beliefs and a dream of others who are oppressed by tyranny and fear of repercussions for standing-up. Freedom does not mean you receive things for free; it is the possibility of being able to receive. Freedom’s cost is the highest price one can pay, and the ones who pay for it with their lives are the ones who gave it honestly and freely. Freedom is a dream that beats inside every last one of us, yet some need the trepidation of it being taken before they can feel it pounding in their chest.

In book 1 of Plato’s masterpiece, Republic, Socrates says, “Now, the greatest punishment, if one isn’t willing to rule, is to be ruled by someone worse than oneself. And I think that it’s fear of this that makes decent people rule when they do. They approach ruling not as something good or something to be enjoyed, but as something necessary, since it can’t be entrusted to anyone better than—or even as good as—themselves.”

Voting is a privilege. It is a freedom, like others, that many brave men and women gave by bloodshed and many just want to abolish. The men and women we vote for to lead and govern our nation are the men and women who decide the cost of the little things we appreciate.

I felt it was time to add another post. I know that there is no big election soon or anything. But voting is very important to me, because it is the root of our political process—my way of changing the world. Garth Brooks had a song in the mid 90’s on his Fresh Horses album, The Change. In the song there are a few lines that I hold onto, as my driving compass. “It’s not the world that I am changing. I do this so this world will know that it will not change me.”

On the Front Lines: Librarians

2005-06-23T23:10:00.001-05:00

Some of you will find what I am about to say either quite thought-provoking or somewhat dull, yet I assure you everyone will agree and, undoubtedly, believe that it is plain old sucking-up.

Librarians are “On the Front Lines” of an educational downfall. They stand on centuries of tradition, while holding the reins to tomorrow. The greatest achievement mankind has ever accomplished is that of the written word.

But before I continue on, let us start with the history of the written word. A&E, the Art of Entrainment channel, did a poll several years back of the most influential people of all times, and can anyone tell me who was number one?

Gutenberg. Johann Gutenberg: The man who invented the printing press.

In 1452 Gutenberg conceives the very idea that will transform the world, as man once knew it to what we now know by the fabrication of movable type. In his workshop he combines the technologies of the day: paper (which came to Italy from China in the 12th Century), oil-based ink (which came into existences during the 10th Century), and the wine-press (which, in one form or another, has been around before Christ). With these three invention commonly used in the 1400’s, the printing press was born.

No more did men copy word after word on to a scroll, then knowing that that scroll would be obsolete and in need of recopying within just a score of years. Man knew even at that time the word was everything, for without it communication would cease and without communication man would never survive. Tom Brown, a tracker who was taught by Native Americans the ways of the old during his childhood went on to train the Delta Forces and other military branches in his twenties’ and thirties’, said once in an interview that “you hear the old saying, ‘survival of the fittest.’ That’s very true, except when it comes to humans. For humans fittest also means knowledge.”

Knowledge is passed through language. From my mouth into your ears you learn what I know, as I will when you speak. From my pen in through your eyes you learn what I know, as I will when you write.

Throughout record history countless writers have told countless stories upon countless pages weaving countless words bounded within countless books to be read by countless readers for countless hours. The pleasures, the pains, the joys, the sorrows, the intrigues, the disappointments, the challenges, the withdrawals, the loves, the losses, the facts, the lies, and the truths captivate people, for people have written these tales for a reason and that reason is to be, at the day’s close, people themselves.

Going back to my original thesis: Librarians are “On the Front Lines” of an educational downfall.

Neil Gaiman, the novelist of the bestsellers American Gods and Neverwhere and the comic book writer of DC comic series, The Sandman, writes, “You know, I love librarians. I really love librarians. I love librarians when they crusade not to be stereotyped as librarians. I love librarians when they're just doing those magic things that librarians do. I love librarians when they're the only person in a ghost town looking after thousands of books.”

Librarians guard the words of those who came before, those who are present, and those who are soon to arrive. A librarian’s post is one worse than that of the Russian Front (World War II, for those who do not remember) and in some ways more important. If librarians lose the lust for their obligations and lay down their defenses, we have lost our history, our art, our knowledge, quintessentially, our edge, and, mostly, our communication.

Columnist for the New York Times--Wednesday and Friday editions--and author of the bestselling nonfiction books, The Lexus and the Olive Tree and The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century, Thomas L. Friedman, wrote for his Wednesday, May the 6th column, “C.E.O.’s M.I.A.,” that “America faces a huge set of challenges if it is going to retain its competitive edge. As a nation we have a mounting education deficit, energy deficit, budget deficit, health care deficit, and ambition deficit.”

You say with puzzled look creeping across your face and a question in your voice, “Ambition deficit?” And I will say to you, “Damn right! And rightly so!” People speak of ambition, but ambition caught a breeze like an autumn leaf that never yet touched the ground.

Somewhere along the way getting this point in our nation’s history, we forgot the importance of respect for those who hold, essentially, our society within the confines of their shelves. Books birth dreams and kindle passions and push imaginations to a realm of absolute possibilities, and we, as Americans, cannot allow for this process of birthing, kindling, and pushing to lessen the pace, as an anchor would a ship coasting aimlessly within the narrow borders of a fjord.

Education is fueled by ambition and ambition by the birthing of dreams and kindling of passions and the pushing of the imagination. While books are the beacon to which ambition is drawn unto, librarians lay out the course of its navigation. No matter how much and often ignorance grapples with our way of life librarians just knuckle down and stands their ground. Librarians are “On the Front Lines” of an educational downfall.

This is a speech I wrote about two weeks ago, because I had to give one for my Fundamental of Speech course. For years now I have believed that librarians have been mistreated--stereotyped in a light unfavorable to their true cause. All I hope for is that you can obtain a newfound respect for librarians. They are the gatekeepers of our reads and, more importantly, our culture.

A MESSAGE TO THE CITIZENS OF MOOREFIELD

2005-06-22T18:04:00.000-05:00

As your mayor I would strive to represent the town as a whole and to forge working relationships with developers, industries, businesses, and other government agencies. Growth is inevitable and all parties participating should understand, accept, and move to make it a manageable growth, instead of ill-planned and irrational growth. Any one party, be it local businesses, national industries, and/or town government, working independently could only lead to the degeneration and degradation of the town’s—in some ways still infant—infrastructure. There will be differences (some obvious and some not so), but these differences must be openly discussed and overcome before workable solutions can be reached. Due to the large number of persons employed within the town and the immediate areas, what occurs here affects this county as well as surrounding counties, municipalities, and lives of their citizens.

As mayor I would work with your elected council for the benefit of everyone involved. Your support and your vote will be appreciated.

Gary Stalnaker
Candidate for Mayor

My grandfather, 72, ran for mayor of our little Appalachian town about mid of last month. He came to me and asked if I would write up an address to be published in the local newspaper, so the citizens would be informed on his stance of businesses and industries. My grandfather won 195 to 40.