http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-set-to-become-law-the-terror-is-nearer-than-ever-2011-12
Read this. Fucking read this, and now. If you don't then start saying goodbye to the America you claim to know and fucking love.
To think our government has the balls, THE FUCKING BALLS, to go through with this bullshit. So much for our Constitution. Better pack your bags and move to Canada while we're ahead of the curve.
Did you hear about this on the news? On any website that's been affiliated with major news networks? No? OF COURSE NOT!
While NDAA and SOPA are being silently passed through Congress, we're still getting the latest gossip on the Kardashians and the newest tech-toys for the season. Our own news networks have been payed off to keep us all ignorant about these laws.
Not to mention these laws would be in the favor of people like Scott Walker (Current Governor of Wisconsin, and Republican) and the new ludicrous Republican Presidential candidates should they be elected.
What does NDAA and SOPA do? Here's a brief glimpse:
SOPA: Any parody you make online, anything that could potentially help someone using copyrighted material. Gone. It never happened. You can't even make parodies of movies (ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, for example, would be out of a job) or even television shows (any fandom of any show can't even write fan-fiction using ANYTHING, even the slightest hint, from their favorite show).
NDAA: Do you love your 1st Amendment liberties of free speech and free assembly and protest? Say goodbye to that, as well: Any protests, anything badmouthing the government (regardless of being Democrat or Republican) will be punishable by the law. You could even have the military show up at your front door, all because some politician gets fucking butthurt that you said something bad about them and expose their bullshit.
NDAA: (Continued) The keyword here is 'belligerent acts'. Read above for 'belligerent acts' that could get you permanently imprisoned without trial or lawyer help.
And you know what the worst part about all this is?
WE, the PEOPLE of the US, allowed this to happen. WE elected these fuckers. WE didn't do our research and try to stop it (there were online petitions, but all the good THAT did to get Congress to listen to the people IT SERVES). WE sat on our asses, consuming what mainstream media fed us. Not even talk-shows brought the issue up on these things
You know the title of this blog? America: Land of the What?
Yeah, at this point, we aren't even free anymore. We lost that 40+ years ago, and this news knocks the last nail into the coffin of our freedom.
If you're reading this from Canada or Europe, expect HUGE immigration numbers coming your way.
Given the kind of person I am, I'll probably be arrested at some point after this bill passes. I badmouth the government at any turn I get. And with this bill about to be passed, I'm sure that I'll be seeing a prison cell sometime.
This is how corrupt our 'democracy' has become: When we elect people we want to help us, yet instead help themselves and their corporate buddies at the expense of our liberties and rights. We were never free, folks, and with this, we never will be.
I have to wonder how our Congresspeople can sleep at night, knowing the bullshit their pulling is an affront and abomination in the name of the Constitution of our nation. I just have to know.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
In the name of research!
I'm doing a small project, and I would like help from whoever passes by. It most likely will be an ongoing project, one that I'm planning on making for YouTube to share the results with the world...ish.
If any of you could answer these questions, I would be most grateful. I'm also going to print these same questions out and spread them around my hometown, to get a demographic here, but the more answers the better, right?
Here they are:
1. Is innocence a childhood-exclusive thing? Please explain your answer.
2. Is innocence lost in acts such as sex? Please explain your answer.
3. Is it a possibility that innocence can last throughout our lives? Please explain your answer.
4. Is innocence as an aspect of the human condition necessary or unwarranted? Please explain your answer.
Yes, I'm talking about 'Innocence'. It's something I think should be in any moral and ethical debate or at least on the thought processes of theorists in these fields.
And by 'Innocence', I don't mean 'legal innocence': I'm talking about the innocence aspect we feel we have lost from childhood and/or our losing our sexual virginity. That kind of innocence.
I thank you for your help in this project, and thank you again for taking the time to read this.
If any of you could answer these questions, I would be most grateful. I'm also going to print these same questions out and spread them around my hometown, to get a demographic here, but the more answers the better, right?
Here they are:
1. Is innocence a childhood-exclusive thing? Please explain your answer.
2. Is innocence lost in acts such as sex? Please explain your answer.
3. Is it a possibility that innocence can last throughout our lives? Please explain your answer.
4. Is innocence as an aspect of the human condition necessary or unwarranted? Please explain your answer.
Yes, I'm talking about 'Innocence'. It's something I think should be in any moral and ethical debate or at least on the thought processes of theorists in these fields.
And by 'Innocence', I don't mean 'legal innocence': I'm talking about the innocence aspect we feel we have lost from childhood and/or our losing our sexual virginity. That kind of innocence.
I thank you for your help in this project, and thank you again for taking the time to read this.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Occupy Wall Street
I'm actually doing it. I'm actually writing something on the OWS craze going on. Won't this be exciting?
Some time ago, a few people decided that they were going to protest the corporate greed politico-economic corruption associated with the wealthiest 2% (1% being actual millionaires/billionaires who buy politicians and judges, the other 1% being corporate interests that buy loopholes in laws to abuse). The movement went from some hundred in NYC to over thousands nationwide. The idea of the 98/99% v. the 1/2% has grown exponentially, as well over the last few months.
However, when handfuls of people (mostly young people between the ages of 20-30) what the movement is about, they have no idea. A majority of the people have some form of idea of what the protest is about, but it's this minority that's chosen to 'represent' the movement in mainstream media.
Let me give a clue as to what the general consensus of the movement is about.
People are getting tired of big corporations exploiting tax loopholes that have existed for 30+years now because of 'trickle-down' economics. While the idea of the wealthy passing money down to help those below them is a wonderful idea, it's only a short-term answer to a long-term problem. Unfortunately, the corporations have figured that one out in the last decade or so.
People are also sick of corporations being treated as 'people'. When was the last time you saw "Mr. Walmart" driving by in his shiny new Ferrari? Corporations are only 'people' as far as their Board of Directors and CEOs go. Those are the actual people that make up the corporation. These are the people who actually get the benefits, not the people below them (unless, of course, we're saying that the CEOs and Board members are all men, and any 'hot' female 'associate' gives them a quickie every now and then will get benefits, too).
Then we have people on the other side of the aisle saying that those protesting are 'lazy nothing-doers' than whine about not having handouts. We're all just sitting on our asses, not working hard to earn our pay, much less to try and get a job. And for some people, they're right. But let's look at these two examples:
John Doe is a 21-year old ARMY Reserve private. He goes to his training and such every month, and works very hard. He's paid, however, very little for this. Sure, the military is paying for his schooling, but his paycheck comes and barely has enough to give him a living after taxes, essentials (insurance, gas, room and board, etc.) are applied. He also has a job as a line worker at a fast food restaurant close by. It's literally just down the road, within walking distance. He's worked there for over a year now, giving blood, sweat, and tears to keep his position, even though the store itself is going bankrupt (something he and his fellow employees found out from a leak at the last employee meeting).
Before that meeting, too, a new employee was hired. Within two weeks, he was given the position of Shift Manager...all because he was the store owner's friend. This person's work ethic is atrocious and is a surprise that he hasn't been fired: Talking on the phone with his girlfriend every hour, making excuses as to why he can't come in on his shift (managers have to contact other managers before doing such a move) and even having been arrested for disorderly conduct outside of work. Where John works hard, Bob sits around and practically does nothing, even when everyone else is busy and there are things to be done.
And in all this, it is Bob that gets a pay raise, not John. John works minimum wage, even today. While the combined profit from the Army and this job are pleasant to see, he has to save for college and the prospect of moving out of home.
Here's the other: Jane is a now single mother of two toddlers. Her husband passed away due to complications with his heart. They were able to pay the hospital bills, but that was when they were both in work. Jane and Alan were both employed, with most of the income coming from Alan's position as electrician and technician at the local paper mill. When the mill had to close, the majority of the household income was diminished, and the insurance that made it possible to afford the hospital bills was gone, they were met with difficult choices: Do they continue to pay for treatment for Alan's heart, or do they pay the mortgage and other living needs to help keep them and their children afloat?
Jane still works her full-time position at a Fortune 500 company as a Customer Service Representative. She's making just enough, but taxes are hitting her hard, not to mention she's getting calls from debt collectors on her school loans. She looks for a second job, which will take up most of her time if hired, and she wouldn't be able to help take care of her children if that happens. Day care does only so much. Then, one day, she is told she is also being let go along with 30 others in her department alone. She is devastated: She has nothing to fall back on, especially since she and her husband never signed for life insurance (It seemed irrelevant and expensive at the time).
That was a little over a year ago. Jane had to sell her house, a place she had hoped to raise her two daughters in, to move into an apartment complex. Her fellow neighbors here are in the same hole as she is: Unemployed and living off of unemployment checks, some on welfare, even. The requirement is that she needs to be sending in applications and resumes on a daily basis to continue receiving these checks. She does so, sending in over hundreds of copies of her resume to businesses close and far from home. She hears, one day, that her bosses were barely at work, off having lavish lunches with 'colleagues' and playing golf on days that they needed to be in. With the lay-offs, the business pulled in more money, but only to end up lining the CEOs pockets. Her job was given to someone in Indonesia, for less pay, to do the same thing she did.
And here she is; desperate for work, living off of little over $330 a week to support her household. So much for helping pay her children's way for college. Jane has contemplated working the streets for extra money since all her efforts have been for naught lately. She even thought of going back to school, but financial aid still wouldn't be enough to help cover the costs of living, much less than to buy books once those needs are met.
--
Let's look at the average earnings of those receiving unemployment checks: According to MSNs Money Central, the average unemployment check is around $270/week after taxes. That's $1080/month, and around $14,000 a year. This is the average nationwide here in America: Just enough to scrape by until you find a job, but with the threat of unemployment being let go for people it puts them in an even more desperate zone.
And now, the average working class/middle class paycheck: While the debate on this is high, the numbers I've come across range between $20,000-$150,000. I did a little more research, and I found a spreadsheet from the US Census Bureau from 2006 that gave a look at the 'median' income. Assuming most Americans 25+ have a Bachelor's Degree, the 'median' income is about $56,000/year. That's about $1077/month and $296/week.
Let's now look at the wealthiest 1%s income: We already know these people make millions, but what is the average paycheck for someone, say, like your average Ivy-League student's parent? I found two numbers in my research that averaged out to be $425,000/year that is earned by those in the lowest bracket of the wealthy class. Now, here's where things get complicated (And I'll use Steve Jobs as an example here). Most of the wealthy have their money in high-end stocks, stuff that does well and has done well for years. Steve Jobs had stock in his own company, which is how he made his millions.
While income itself can differ, most dollars earned by the 1-2% are made using stocks: Selling, keeping, and sometimes buying. That's how they truly make their money. It's difficult to find any median or average for this because stocks always fluctuate, day in and day out.
As far as taxes go, a majority of corporations and the 1-2% barely, if at all, paid taxes last year. Again, this comes from loopholes that their lawyers have found, mostly write-offs, to abuse. And while the tax laws from 30+ years ago are still legal, they'll continue to use these loopholes until the cows come home...or until they run this nation into the ground with their greed. Either way, it's a lose-lose situation.
Back to the anti-OWS people: They say that we all can be like this, earning millions every day/week/year if only we worked harder. Tell that to John Doe and Jane, who work their asses off for mere scraps off the money table, and yet can't sustain a life comfortable enough for them to enjoy. I also want to say that the people I made examples of are real people that I know. 'John' is a friend of mine who lives at home, who desperately wants to move from home and live on his own, but because there's nothing for him on our town, he can only work minimum wage.
Jane is actually a cross between a friend of mine who lost her husband two years ago and my own mother. Both were laid off and forced to go over a year without finding work, and always worried about when, not if, their unemployment checks would stop.
If there's anything OWS is truly about, it is this:
To try and get legislators to pass laws that work to the advantage of the 98-99%, to end the loopholes created years ago and by the Bush Jr. regime, to end jobs being shipped overseas so that there can be jobs here for everyone, and to end the god-awful tax breaks and tax cuts that the wealthiest 1-2% abuse and enjoy.
THAT is the purpose of the movement. THAT is what people are truly protesting for.
Some time ago, a few people decided that they were going to protest the corporate greed politico-economic corruption associated with the wealthiest 2% (1% being actual millionaires/billionaires who buy politicians and judges, the other 1% being corporate interests that buy loopholes in laws to abuse). The movement went from some hundred in NYC to over thousands nationwide. The idea of the 98/99% v. the 1/2% has grown exponentially, as well over the last few months.
However, when handfuls of people (mostly young people between the ages of 20-30) what the movement is about, they have no idea. A majority of the people have some form of idea of what the protest is about, but it's this minority that's chosen to 'represent' the movement in mainstream media.
Let me give a clue as to what the general consensus of the movement is about.
People are getting tired of big corporations exploiting tax loopholes that have existed for 30+years now because of 'trickle-down' economics. While the idea of the wealthy passing money down to help those below them is a wonderful idea, it's only a short-term answer to a long-term problem. Unfortunately, the corporations have figured that one out in the last decade or so.
People are also sick of corporations being treated as 'people'. When was the last time you saw "Mr. Walmart" driving by in his shiny new Ferrari? Corporations are only 'people' as far as their Board of Directors and CEOs go. Those are the actual people that make up the corporation. These are the people who actually get the benefits, not the people below them (unless, of course, we're saying that the CEOs and Board members are all men, and any 'hot' female 'associate' gives them a quickie every now and then will get benefits, too).
Then we have people on the other side of the aisle saying that those protesting are 'lazy nothing-doers' than whine about not having handouts. We're all just sitting on our asses, not working hard to earn our pay, much less to try and get a job. And for some people, they're right. But let's look at these two examples:
John Doe is a 21-year old ARMY Reserve private. He goes to his training and such every month, and works very hard. He's paid, however, very little for this. Sure, the military is paying for his schooling, but his paycheck comes and barely has enough to give him a living after taxes, essentials (insurance, gas, room and board, etc.) are applied. He also has a job as a line worker at a fast food restaurant close by. It's literally just down the road, within walking distance. He's worked there for over a year now, giving blood, sweat, and tears to keep his position, even though the store itself is going bankrupt (something he and his fellow employees found out from a leak at the last employee meeting).
Before that meeting, too, a new employee was hired. Within two weeks, he was given the position of Shift Manager...all because he was the store owner's friend. This person's work ethic is atrocious and is a surprise that he hasn't been fired: Talking on the phone with his girlfriend every hour, making excuses as to why he can't come in on his shift (managers have to contact other managers before doing such a move) and even having been arrested for disorderly conduct outside of work. Where John works hard, Bob sits around and practically does nothing, even when everyone else is busy and there are things to be done.
And in all this, it is Bob that gets a pay raise, not John. John works minimum wage, even today. While the combined profit from the Army and this job are pleasant to see, he has to save for college and the prospect of moving out of home.
Here's the other: Jane is a now single mother of two toddlers. Her husband passed away due to complications with his heart. They were able to pay the hospital bills, but that was when they were both in work. Jane and Alan were both employed, with most of the income coming from Alan's position as electrician and technician at the local paper mill. When the mill had to close, the majority of the household income was diminished, and the insurance that made it possible to afford the hospital bills was gone, they were met with difficult choices: Do they continue to pay for treatment for Alan's heart, or do they pay the mortgage and other living needs to help keep them and their children afloat?
Jane still works her full-time position at a Fortune 500 company as a Customer Service Representative. She's making just enough, but taxes are hitting her hard, not to mention she's getting calls from debt collectors on her school loans. She looks for a second job, which will take up most of her time if hired, and she wouldn't be able to help take care of her children if that happens. Day care does only so much. Then, one day, she is told she is also being let go along with 30 others in her department alone. She is devastated: She has nothing to fall back on, especially since she and her husband never signed for life insurance (It seemed irrelevant and expensive at the time).
That was a little over a year ago. Jane had to sell her house, a place she had hoped to raise her two daughters in, to move into an apartment complex. Her fellow neighbors here are in the same hole as she is: Unemployed and living off of unemployment checks, some on welfare, even. The requirement is that she needs to be sending in applications and resumes on a daily basis to continue receiving these checks. She does so, sending in over hundreds of copies of her resume to businesses close and far from home. She hears, one day, that her bosses were barely at work, off having lavish lunches with 'colleagues' and playing golf on days that they needed to be in. With the lay-offs, the business pulled in more money, but only to end up lining the CEOs pockets. Her job was given to someone in Indonesia, for less pay, to do the same thing she did.
And here she is; desperate for work, living off of little over $330 a week to support her household. So much for helping pay her children's way for college. Jane has contemplated working the streets for extra money since all her efforts have been for naught lately. She even thought of going back to school, but financial aid still wouldn't be enough to help cover the costs of living, much less than to buy books once those needs are met.
--
Let's look at the average earnings of those receiving unemployment checks: According to MSNs Money Central, the average unemployment check is around $270/week after taxes. That's $1080/month, and around $14,000 a year. This is the average nationwide here in America: Just enough to scrape by until you find a job, but with the threat of unemployment being let go for people it puts them in an even more desperate zone.
And now, the average working class/middle class paycheck: While the debate on this is high, the numbers I've come across range between $20,000-$150,000. I did a little more research, and I found a spreadsheet from the US Census Bureau from 2006 that gave a look at the 'median' income. Assuming most Americans 25+ have a Bachelor's Degree, the 'median' income is about $56,000/year. That's about $1077/month and $296/week.
Let's now look at the wealthiest 1%s income: We already know these people make millions, but what is the average paycheck for someone, say, like your average Ivy-League student's parent? I found two numbers in my research that averaged out to be $425,000/year that is earned by those in the lowest bracket of the wealthy class. Now, here's where things get complicated (And I'll use Steve Jobs as an example here). Most of the wealthy have their money in high-end stocks, stuff that does well and has done well for years. Steve Jobs had stock in his own company, which is how he made his millions.
While income itself can differ, most dollars earned by the 1-2% are made using stocks: Selling, keeping, and sometimes buying. That's how they truly make their money. It's difficult to find any median or average for this because stocks always fluctuate, day in and day out.
As far as taxes go, a majority of corporations and the 1-2% barely, if at all, paid taxes last year. Again, this comes from loopholes that their lawyers have found, mostly write-offs, to abuse. And while the tax laws from 30+ years ago are still legal, they'll continue to use these loopholes until the cows come home...or until they run this nation into the ground with their greed. Either way, it's a lose-lose situation.
Back to the anti-OWS people: They say that we all can be like this, earning millions every day/week/year if only we worked harder. Tell that to John Doe and Jane, who work their asses off for mere scraps off the money table, and yet can't sustain a life comfortable enough for them to enjoy. I also want to say that the people I made examples of are real people that I know. 'John' is a friend of mine who lives at home, who desperately wants to move from home and live on his own, but because there's nothing for him on our town, he can only work minimum wage.
Jane is actually a cross between a friend of mine who lost her husband two years ago and my own mother. Both were laid off and forced to go over a year without finding work, and always worried about when, not if, their unemployment checks would stop.
If there's anything OWS is truly about, it is this:
To try and get legislators to pass laws that work to the advantage of the 98-99%, to end the loopholes created years ago and by the Bush Jr. regime, to end jobs being shipped overseas so that there can be jobs here for everyone, and to end the god-awful tax breaks and tax cuts that the wealthiest 1-2% abuse and enjoy.
THAT is the purpose of the movement. THAT is what people are truly protesting for.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Humanity as the Divine?
The debate on religion here in America has led me to wonder what the subject of 'God' is, and to question what the idea of deity truly is and means.
Before I get in depth on this subject, let me say two things. One: I won't be using the names of specific gods or goddesses. Instead, I will use the words 'deity' and 'god', to incorporate any and all forms of the god-aspect that people worship. Two: This is based more on observation and personal research from the past seven years of questioning what religion teaches on god and the origins therein of both.
'In the Beginning', as most religious texts and creation stories begin, humanity arose from deity, in their image. However, what if it was the other way around? What if humans created god in their 'perfect' image. It makes sense: We need something to look up to, to see as the set form of perfection, and to attempt to reach before our lives are done.
If deity is of our own creation, it explains the many different faiths we see worldwide. It also explains our pursuit to reach such perfection, if such a thing exists. Let's also not forget the more positive roles this abstract idea of god has on the populace: It unifies us, helps us better understand our own insignificance in this universe, and by having a creator, we can justify our lives as meaningful, if not worthwhile.
We are egotistical creatures, afterall: Our search for 'perfection' personified and idolized. We worship our own being.
But then, there's the negative associated with this being called 'god'. As much as it may be perfect, it is something that differs between people. What happens when someone worships a deity, a symbol of 'perfection', different from our own? Our ego takes over, making us think that these people are 'less than perfect', thus our drive for perfection in our own condition pushes us to 'help' these people, to convert them to a better way of thinking.
Again, our human condition kicks in, making us think that those who wish to convert us, no matter how well-intentioned they may be, are a threat. Not to mention that anything different is always a threat. The unknown is something we fear: Always has been, always will be.
Then when the conflicts of our egos clash to a level beyond returning from, we call on holy wars. We must defend the honor of our perfection, otherwise we could become imperfect under another group's ideas and desires, despite how similar they may be to our own. Just the thought of having something different from our vision of 'perfection' is brutally disturbing for us.
And the best thing about this? We fight others under the banners and 'guidance' of these deities. They command that we exterminate the opposing idea of what humanity should be and where we should head.
Let's return to ourselves, we mere mortal humans. We've answered the question why we created god. How about we look at what we ourselves have created that we can see.
We've been able to combat diseases using herbs and such for centuries, millennia even. At first, we believed this to be magic. Then it became a practice and science, mixing various chemicals to form better forms of these new found drugs to help make us feel better.
In recent years, say from the 1950s onward, we've advanced in not only our understanding of the universe, but continue to do so. We've created things that give us looks, mere glimpses into the heart of the abyss of space. We've bettered our technologies, enough so that we can even change the operations of life at the cellular level to either help or destroy other cells, for better or worse.
We create life in labs: Cloning and 'test-tube' babies. How can we not call ourselves gods? We are reaching the point of becoming immortal, whether by natural or artificial means, that would make any science-fiction writer and fan scream with delight. Again, how are we not seeing ourselves as the Divine?
Because we still hold the idea that, no matter our successes, we are always imperfect, and absolutely must reach our conceived notions of perfection.
Religion offers an idea of what perfection is. What we do is perfect. If we created such a being of perfection, then how are we not gods ourselves?
Before I get in depth on this subject, let me say two things. One: I won't be using the names of specific gods or goddesses. Instead, I will use the words 'deity' and 'god', to incorporate any and all forms of the god-aspect that people worship. Two: This is based more on observation and personal research from the past seven years of questioning what religion teaches on god and the origins therein of both.
'In the Beginning', as most religious texts and creation stories begin, humanity arose from deity, in their image. However, what if it was the other way around? What if humans created god in their 'perfect' image. It makes sense: We need something to look up to, to see as the set form of perfection, and to attempt to reach before our lives are done.
If deity is of our own creation, it explains the many different faiths we see worldwide. It also explains our pursuit to reach such perfection, if such a thing exists. Let's also not forget the more positive roles this abstract idea of god has on the populace: It unifies us, helps us better understand our own insignificance in this universe, and by having a creator, we can justify our lives as meaningful, if not worthwhile.
We are egotistical creatures, afterall: Our search for 'perfection' personified and idolized. We worship our own being.
But then, there's the negative associated with this being called 'god'. As much as it may be perfect, it is something that differs between people. What happens when someone worships a deity, a symbol of 'perfection', different from our own? Our ego takes over, making us think that these people are 'less than perfect', thus our drive for perfection in our own condition pushes us to 'help' these people, to convert them to a better way of thinking.
Again, our human condition kicks in, making us think that those who wish to convert us, no matter how well-intentioned they may be, are a threat. Not to mention that anything different is always a threat. The unknown is something we fear: Always has been, always will be.
Then when the conflicts of our egos clash to a level beyond returning from, we call on holy wars. We must defend the honor of our perfection, otherwise we could become imperfect under another group's ideas and desires, despite how similar they may be to our own. Just the thought of having something different from our vision of 'perfection' is brutally disturbing for us.
And the best thing about this? We fight others under the banners and 'guidance' of these deities. They command that we exterminate the opposing idea of what humanity should be and where we should head.
Let's return to ourselves, we mere mortal humans. We've answered the question why we created god. How about we look at what we ourselves have created that we can see.
We've been able to combat diseases using herbs and such for centuries, millennia even. At first, we believed this to be magic. Then it became a practice and science, mixing various chemicals to form better forms of these new found drugs to help make us feel better.
In recent years, say from the 1950s onward, we've advanced in not only our understanding of the universe, but continue to do so. We've created things that give us looks, mere glimpses into the heart of the abyss of space. We've bettered our technologies, enough so that we can even change the operations of life at the cellular level to either help or destroy other cells, for better or worse.
We create life in labs: Cloning and 'test-tube' babies. How can we not call ourselves gods? We are reaching the point of becoming immortal, whether by natural or artificial means, that would make any science-fiction writer and fan scream with delight. Again, how are we not seeing ourselves as the Divine?
Because we still hold the idea that, no matter our successes, we are always imperfect, and absolutely must reach our conceived notions of perfection.
Religion offers an idea of what perfection is. What we do is perfect. If we created such a being of perfection, then how are we not gods ourselves?
Friday, October 21, 2011
Pride Week Wrap-Up
This week is/was Pride week for the LGBTQ community, yesterday being National Coming Out Day. Today was Spirit Day, and tomorrow is...whatever. I can't remember the names of the days during Pride Week anymore (damn you, college!). Anyway, this is an important week for LGBTQ people not only nation-wide, but world-wide. It's important because it reminds us of how far we've come. October and June, depending, are usually LGBT History months. Kind of like we have Black History Month, LGBT History Month (dependent on whether June or October, remember) recounts the strides of the Gay Equal Rights movements and the achievements of LGBT people worldwide. The Englishman that deciphered the Enigma Code during WWII? Gay man. Oliver Wilde, the author? Queer. Leonardo daVinci? Most bad-ass fairy you'll ever find.
And these are just men. Gertrude Stein, a bisexual author who, while American, spent most of her days in France. 1974 elected Massachusetts Representative Elaine Noble: First open lesbian to be elected to a higher government office.
There are many more people that can be listed, but the number one person in LGBT history, who helped shape National Coming Out Day, was Harvey Milk. If you haven't watched the movie 'Milk', then you're missing out on a LOT of history and the insight of his life.
Pride Week is also about where we are heading, and to remind us that, despite the injustice and discrimination we face everyday and at almost every turn, we are still here, and we aren't going away.
In short, just as African-Americans have their pride, so do we gays and lesbians. We are a minority, singled out because of something that isn't like the majority (hello, circa 1950s-1960s...you know, with whites being the majority?).
We're here, we're queer. Get. Used. To it.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Utilitarianism: good or bad?
Is the ethical theory of Utilitarianism a useful theory, or does it defeat itself according to modern-day standards?
According to Utilitarianism theory, although everyone's happiness is on the same plateau, whatever makes the most people happy is a good thing. Let's face it: Almost everyone likes the feeling of happiness. If you don't then you're lying, because if not feeling happy is something that makes you content, where content is a synonym of happiness, you're still feeling happy.
There are two views on Utilitarianism: Act and Rule. Act view is the original theory, that every action must be judged by its consequences. Rule view, however, has the idea that you can't judge every action, that there should be exceptions for this 'greater happiness'. Therefore, we make rules to help regulate how we create said happiness.
However, to me, both sub-theories defeat each other. Act Utilitarianism not only defeats itself in the aspect that you truly can't judge every action by its consequences (of which there are several thousand at the least for anything you do), but if anything that provides you happiness and denies another theirs is wrong, again, if we go with the original theory.
Rule Utilitarianism defeats itself with the idea that, if we make rules of engagement for people to follow, yet we give people exceptions, then what was the point of making said rules to begin with? There is no way to keep order if certain people can have exemption from the rules laid down. It goes against utilitarianism entirely to do so.
Here's an example of Utilitarianism at work. Back in the 40s through the 60s and early 70s here in America, the idea of segregation, separating schools and other public venues into white and black only areas, was a good idea for the majority in the southern states (the majority being white people at the time) Black people had to sit in the back of the bus, or give up their seat to a white person, and all that nonsense. This was all to help make the white supremacists happy (because members of the old KKK, at least some of them, held government office, therefore would write bills and pass laws to further their goals). Another view was to also help African-Americans have communities of their own, to be safe from said supremacists.
However, this didn't set well, since the conditions of the black communities were, on average, lacking and poor, unlike the lavish buildings white people were able to go to and live in. Not to mention the treatment that black people received when they entered white 'territory'.
The suffering of the minority is alright as long as the majority have their happiness, is what Utilitarianism pretty much is, even if it allows for everyone's happiness to be equal.
So let's have you, dear readers, decide: Is Utilitarianism a good ethical theory to practice, since everyone's happiness is on an equal footing, or is it self-defeating when we apply that there needs to be a majority rule on 'happiness'?
According to Utilitarianism theory, although everyone's happiness is on the same plateau, whatever makes the most people happy is a good thing. Let's face it: Almost everyone likes the feeling of happiness. If you don't then you're lying, because if not feeling happy is something that makes you content, where content is a synonym of happiness, you're still feeling happy.
There are two views on Utilitarianism: Act and Rule. Act view is the original theory, that every action must be judged by its consequences. Rule view, however, has the idea that you can't judge every action, that there should be exceptions for this 'greater happiness'. Therefore, we make rules to help regulate how we create said happiness.
However, to me, both sub-theories defeat each other. Act Utilitarianism not only defeats itself in the aspect that you truly can't judge every action by its consequences (of which there are several thousand at the least for anything you do), but if anything that provides you happiness and denies another theirs is wrong, again, if we go with the original theory.
Rule Utilitarianism defeats itself with the idea that, if we make rules of engagement for people to follow, yet we give people exceptions, then what was the point of making said rules to begin with? There is no way to keep order if certain people can have exemption from the rules laid down. It goes against utilitarianism entirely to do so.
Here's an example of Utilitarianism at work. Back in the 40s through the 60s and early 70s here in America, the idea of segregation, separating schools and other public venues into white and black only areas, was a good idea for the majority in the southern states (the majority being white people at the time) Black people had to sit in the back of the bus, or give up their seat to a white person, and all that nonsense. This was all to help make the white supremacists happy (because members of the old KKK, at least some of them, held government office, therefore would write bills and pass laws to further their goals). Another view was to also help African-Americans have communities of their own, to be safe from said supremacists.
However, this didn't set well, since the conditions of the black communities were, on average, lacking and poor, unlike the lavish buildings white people were able to go to and live in. Not to mention the treatment that black people received when they entered white 'territory'.
The suffering of the minority is alright as long as the majority have their happiness, is what Utilitarianism pretty much is, even if it allows for everyone's happiness to be equal.
So let's have you, dear readers, decide: Is Utilitarianism a good ethical theory to practice, since everyone's happiness is on an equal footing, or is it self-defeating when we apply that there needs to be a majority rule on 'happiness'?
Monday, September 26, 2011
Stupidity at it's finest.
Rick Santorum: "Re-instate DADT"
During the latest GOP debate, sponsored by Google, Rick Santorum said that, even though "Sex isn't the issue", we need to "protect our men and women in uniform" and put DADT back into effect, and he would do such a thing if he became President of the US.
This isn't just problematic, but hypocritical.
One: If 'sex' isn't the issue, then LGBT soldiers should be encouraged to be out. You can't say one thing and mean another. It doesn't work that way.
Two: Even when DADT was law, it was a very, very rare thing for a soldier, male or female, to be discharged from the military strictly for being exposed as heterosexual. DADT was, in the beginning, meant to HELP homosexuals stay in the military, yet by the law's own definition, straight soldiers broke it and stayed in service while their fellow brothers/sisters-in-arms were dishonorably discharged for being gay.
Not to mention the law has been abused in the past, as well. While a majority eventually were found out or came out on their own, a good number of people were let go simply because of rumors. Rick Santorum: You're in favor of a movement that, if someone pissed you off enough, you could get them discharged for a rumor? That is not the mentality a Commander-in-Chief should have.
Three: If you re-instate DADT, then you must force the military to discharge 90-99% of its members, gay and straight, for breaking the original version of the measure. DADT has now gone from a bill that was meant to protect gays and lesbians in the military to something that can be used to discriminate a group of people legally. I, for one, don't see myself in the military, but I support those that chose to serve our country. I really do, whether they're gay or straight. However, if ANY of the heterosexual soldiers talk about their straight relationships, you are REQUIRED, BY LAW, to discharge them. But they won't be, because it's the 'norm'.
Four: It seems more that the issue is someone feeling uncomfortable with a man or woman looking at another of the same sex in the shower and getting 'frisky' ideas about them. Oh wow, big fucking deal. It's not like straight soldiers don't do the same thing when they're all fully clothed. This is just bullshit, pure and simple. For one, soldiers are in the middle of a war zone. I've never been in actual battle, but from the events going on, I'm pretty sure it's hard to keep a boner (ha ha ha) or be thinking of sex at all when you have the world around you going to shit. Believe me: Sex would be the very last thing on my mind if I had to do a raid on a building to eliminate enemy targets.
So here's the deal, Santorum (and this can go for the rest of the GOP, as well): You can bullshit all you want, and say everything you want and 'need' to say on the subject. But at the end of the day, you're still against a group of people that have no control over who they are. They're willing to lay down their lives for your sorry asses, yet you continue to deny them fundamental rights that are afforded to their fellow citizens, thus making them less than, making them Second-Class.
Admit it already: You just hate LGBT people, and you'll do anything to stop us from having rights already afforded us under the Constitution you are trying to swear you uphold...all because you either fell uncomfortable with or even fear (god forbid...end sarcasm) something that isn't the norm, or because your PERSONAL faith is making you decide this...then again, your religion has had more controversial events in history than this, hasn't it?
And to everyone else reading this, I leave you with a question:
Given that DADT is written so that anyone who came out with their sexuality, in any way or form, is to be discharged for doing so, is it right to discharge straight soldiers for talking about their relationships, or should the law only cover homosexuals from doing the same? Explain why or why not.
During the latest GOP debate, sponsored by Google, Rick Santorum said that, even though "Sex isn't the issue", we need to "protect our men and women in uniform" and put DADT back into effect, and he would do such a thing if he became President of the US.
This isn't just problematic, but hypocritical.
One: If 'sex' isn't the issue, then LGBT soldiers should be encouraged to be out. You can't say one thing and mean another. It doesn't work that way.
Two: Even when DADT was law, it was a very, very rare thing for a soldier, male or female, to be discharged from the military strictly for being exposed as heterosexual. DADT was, in the beginning, meant to HELP homosexuals stay in the military, yet by the law's own definition, straight soldiers broke it and stayed in service while their fellow brothers/sisters-in-arms were dishonorably discharged for being gay.
Not to mention the law has been abused in the past, as well. While a majority eventually were found out or came out on their own, a good number of people were let go simply because of rumors. Rick Santorum: You're in favor of a movement that, if someone pissed you off enough, you could get them discharged for a rumor? That is not the mentality a Commander-in-Chief should have.
Three: If you re-instate DADT, then you must force the military to discharge 90-99% of its members, gay and straight, for breaking the original version of the measure. DADT has now gone from a bill that was meant to protect gays and lesbians in the military to something that can be used to discriminate a group of people legally. I, for one, don't see myself in the military, but I support those that chose to serve our country. I really do, whether they're gay or straight. However, if ANY of the heterosexual soldiers talk about their straight relationships, you are REQUIRED, BY LAW, to discharge them. But they won't be, because it's the 'norm'.
Four: It seems more that the issue is someone feeling uncomfortable with a man or woman looking at another of the same sex in the shower and getting 'frisky' ideas about them. Oh wow, big fucking deal. It's not like straight soldiers don't do the same thing when they're all fully clothed. This is just bullshit, pure and simple. For one, soldiers are in the middle of a war zone. I've never been in actual battle, but from the events going on, I'm pretty sure it's hard to keep a boner (ha ha ha) or be thinking of sex at all when you have the world around you going to shit. Believe me: Sex would be the very last thing on my mind if I had to do a raid on a building to eliminate enemy targets.
So here's the deal, Santorum (and this can go for the rest of the GOP, as well): You can bullshit all you want, and say everything you want and 'need' to say on the subject. But at the end of the day, you're still against a group of people that have no control over who they are. They're willing to lay down their lives for your sorry asses, yet you continue to deny them fundamental rights that are afforded to their fellow citizens, thus making them less than, making them Second-Class.
Admit it already: You just hate LGBT people, and you'll do anything to stop us from having rights already afforded us under the Constitution you are trying to swear you uphold...all because you either fell uncomfortable with or even fear (god forbid...end sarcasm) something that isn't the norm, or because your PERSONAL faith is making you decide this...then again, your religion has had more controversial events in history than this, hasn't it?
And to everyone else reading this, I leave you with a question:
Given that DADT is written so that anyone who came out with their sexuality, in any way or form, is to be discharged for doing so, is it right to discharge straight soldiers for talking about their relationships, or should the law only cover homosexuals from doing the same? Explain why or why not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)