There are things out there which I do not like - cannot stand - and yet, I can't help but to seek them out. One of these things is the comic strip "Mallard Fillmore." It's basically what would happen if you took Rush Limbaugh and turned his life into a newspaper comic strip. It's loud. It's obnoxious. And very frequently, it's stupidly wrong.
Case in point: The comic for Sunday, January 2, 2005, was about predictions for the new year. I think it said something about how the media will complain that the President continues to follow the agenda of only those who voted for him. Mallard Fillmore thinks it's stupid, suggesting that our representative government means that our representatives represent only those who voted for them.
I really don't get that reasoning, to be honest. We have a phrase for that. It's called "Pork Barrel Politics," and it isn't a good thing. No country - indeed, no society - could ever function under leadership which has the limited closed-minded views of a portion of the populace, even if it is the majority. There's a word for that, too. It's called "Fascism" - and guess what? America is fascist. Nobody wants one. It just sort of happens underneath everybody's radar.
Let's take a simple example. There is a group of four people and an elected representative. That representative's job is to be the voice of those four people - all four people. Three of them decide that the fourth guy needs to be shot. Does the representative agree with the majority, or does he stick to some ideological ground and stick up for the rights of all those he represents?
America was not founded on the majority. It was founded on an ideal - an ideal which should be ever-present whenever a decision is made. That ideal is that all men were created equal, and that each voice deserves to be heard. The majority, which is granted strength by solidarity and weakness by descent, is less important in a society driven by that ideal. If one voice is right, it doesn't matter if ten thousand of them are wrong - and it is certainly out of the question to stop that voice from being heard.
We have a government where we elect people to represent us, but that could not be further from the truth. The incumbent always wins because most people don't bother voting or learning about what they are voting for. With a two-party system, when you vote for anti-abortion laws, you are also voting for drilling in protected wild lands in Alaska, a war with Iraq, and tax cuts fr the top 1%. You also get homophobia, big business, and the freedom of any moron of any age to walk into a gun show and walk out of it with a semi-automatic rile. There are people who believe all those things, but chances are, if you're reading this, you don't.
You see, the way these representatives get elected - the way they take power - is by confusing you and tricking you. They say "Look over here!! Ooh! Abortion bad/good!" All the while, their real agenda is to give big oil contracts to companies they have intimate ties with, and seek benefit from. You think Obama gives a crap about homosexuals or abortion? He was the President of the United State! One of, if not the, most powerful men in the world. You think his meetings are about making more unborn fetuses get jiggy? Please. The dude's got more important things to scheme.
We, as a people, are being led around by our nose and we thank them for the opportunity. George W. Bush did not win that election. I don't care what the votes were, but without a paper trail for electronic voting, there is no way to say for certain (which probably benefited him more than he'd like to admit). We are no the ones in charge of electing our representatives any longer. They elect themselves, and the reason they can get away with pork barrel politics is because the system is so corrupt that they have no reason not to do those simple little things that will benefit them greatly.
Our government is corrupt. Worse yet, it's filled with stupid people. The people who aren't stupid (and there's plenty of them) aren't speaking up because it would ruin their career. They live in fear and subjugation - a trademark of fascism. You'll have to excuse me if I don't feel sorry for them, though. If enough of them spoke out, we could end this charade. This country is over 200 years old, now, and they are willing to throw away the next 200 over their job prospects for the next 10.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
'Tis The Season
I should probably save this for later, seeing as how it's not quite time for Christmas yet, but seeing as how every retailer in the country has begun to shove the holiday season down our throats, I, too, shall board this bandwagon. While I don't celebrate Christmas - it's a bogus and highly secular holiday at best - I hope that those of you that do have a very merry one, indeed.
First and foremost, we'll get this out of the way. 'Struth.
I've been avoiding this topic amongst my peers for some time, as I feel it is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as so many Conservative crusades turn out to be. Basically, it's someone shouting "I'm a victim! I'm a victim!" so loudly that they can't be ignored, and when you tell them to shut up, they go, "See!? I told you!" It seems that calling this crusade stupid would be playing right inot the trap, sell a few more books, and generally make me wish I had ignored them in the first place. Of course, this leads to the dilemma of eventually leading them to find some other victim crusade that I can't ignore.
I finally had a chance to go over the book, recently. In the past, I heard all sorts of silly things on FOX News (unsurprisingly, nowhere else), the most recent being some silly resolution protecting "symbols of Christmas," which FOX responded by putting on screen a full roll call of everyone who voted against said resolution... twice. So, I just so happened to find myself browsing the Internet for devious activities and, once again, my curiosity overthrew my better judgement. I checked the book out, and yup, it was every bit as stupid and victim-centric as I thought it would be. This particular entry is based on a brief examination of the book (especially the last chapter) and may not be completely accurate. But then, as the author said on FOX News, all forums and blogs are the litter on the side of the super information highway, so I guess I have absolutely no responsibility to him (or anybody else, for that matter) to be fair or accurate in my portrayal of his work. I'm going to try, anyway.
The book is basically a dozen or so chapters, each centering around a specific situation in which Christmas was somehow destroyed. I found it almost immediately intriguing that there are so few examples, played out in such detail. Are there more examples of these things, or perhaps the author is using a bit of selectivity to make his case for this "war?" The US is a huge country and we've been celebrating Christmas for quite some time. How many millions of Christmases weren't destroyed by this war? For every example he gives, are there ten thousand examples to counterpoint that? Are there any situations where Christmas was used to oppress the religiousness of others that somehow didn't make the cut? I'm willing to guess yeah. Lots. This is a one-sided argument that doesn't even - for a second - take for granted that what's not in the book matters in the least, and what's not in the book is far more representative of what's going on than the examples selected exclusively to build his point.
A war is something that's organized. There's no War on Christmas pamphlets going out. I know it seems so odd, but the fact is, these changes are a direct result of our nation becoming more comfortable with diversity. A store telling you "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is simply admitting that you are a stranger and they could not or should not presume your religious affiliation. Is telling a Jewish person "Merry Christmas" going to offend them? Only in that you are making assumptions about them that aren't true. Saying "Happy Holidays" isn't an affront to Christians; it's an acceptance of the fact that not all of us belong to the same faith or ideals.
In my eyes, Christmas is officially a secular holiday, and it is completely possible for a government building to display pictures of Santa Claus, candy canes, and snowflakes. What you can't do is display a baby Jesus, because even if Christmas is secular, there's no way the Son of God ever could be. I personally find manger scenes to be offensive, but not because they are stupid. It's because everybody in them are white. It shows a grotesque misunderstanding of the time period and geographical location of the scene it's portraying. But I'm not going to make anybody take it down unless it does something else even more offensive, such as suggest that the government prefers one religion or another, or that it is done with tax payer dollars and excludes the interests of some of the very people which helped pay for it.
The last chapter in the book is entitled "The War on Christmas." If there is a war against them, and I'm a little more willing to believe this, it is a result of their own actions. When they try to remove evolution from science classes and replace it with thinly veiled religious myths, they are going to make enemies. When they tell gay people that they aren't entitled to the same civil rights as everyone else, they're going to make enemies. If they picket Planned Parenthoods, they are going to make enemies. If there is indeed a war, it's their war, and we are only trying to defend ourselves from them.
but the thing that really pissed me off about this chapter is that he reproduces some letter sent in to some random newspaper. The letter is simply someone complaining about people putting "Jesus has risen" signs in their yards, and says that it seems combative, like posting a pro-life sign in their yard. He didn't think people needed to draw battle lines starting at their front door, and suggested that faith should be something that is personal. Gibson (the author of The War on Christmas) totally rips into him for this.
I re-read the letter, and it wasn't offensive. It was complaining, but not unfairly and it made a couple of good points. It did not insult anybody nor did it attack anybody, but simply engaged in a debate about this practice. As people whom I interact with regularly know, I believe that the debate is everything, and when you can't have a debate, that's when you need it all the more. I really couldn't figure out why he was ripped into.
Gibson goes into a little bit about free speech and how the letter writer needs to appreciate that people have the right to speak, even if he doesn't want to hear it. I re-read the letter again. the guy never said they couldn't put signs in their yard. He wasn't trying to limit their free speech. He was just pointing out that it was a confrontational practice that he didn't agree with. Gibson needs to learn that one of the consequences of free speech is that anything you say can be challenged by someone else. If someone says something that you disagree with, it is your duty to respond in debate.
The next thing Gibson says is that this country was founded by "religionists." I'm not sure if that's a real word or not, but I assume that he means Christians. Problem is, he's wrong. Many of the founding fathers of this great nation were not Christians, but were, in fact, deists. They believed in some sort of non-interactive deity and did not participate in worship at all. In fact, Thomas Jefferson released a version of the Bible without all the fancy miracles and stuff written about Jesus, leaving just a man and his moral teachings.
This country was not founded on Christian ideals, but rather against them. The government was created in such a way that no one religion could ever take control of it and dominate the populace. Whatever you believe, you can and the government will never think better or worse of you because of it. I don't know where these psychos get the impression that there's hidden code in the Constitution that gives Christians the run of the country, but the simple fact is this country was created to prevent them from taking over, not give them the keys. You'd think that an educated news anchor like himself would at least know this much.
Geez, we already have abortions, but we have to defend it against Christian morals. We already have evolution, but we have to defend it against Christian beliefs. We already have the freedom to engage in behavior of our choosing in the privacy of our own homes, and we have to defend that, as well. We don't have gay marriage, but we are increasingly being left behind in this regard. There's a war in this country, but it's not against Christmas. It is started and engaged in by people who are against diversity and equal rights.
It is, in no uncertain terms, a war for America and I, for one, won't let the ignorant win.
First and foremost, we'll get this out of the way. 'Struth.
I've been avoiding this topic amongst my peers for some time, as I feel it is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as so many Conservative crusades turn out to be. Basically, it's someone shouting "I'm a victim! I'm a victim!" so loudly that they can't be ignored, and when you tell them to shut up, they go, "See!? I told you!" It seems that calling this crusade stupid would be playing right inot the trap, sell a few more books, and generally make me wish I had ignored them in the first place. Of course, this leads to the dilemma of eventually leading them to find some other victim crusade that I can't ignore.
I finally had a chance to go over the book, recently. In the past, I heard all sorts of silly things on FOX News (unsurprisingly, nowhere else), the most recent being some silly resolution protecting "symbols of Christmas," which FOX responded by putting on screen a full roll call of everyone who voted against said resolution... twice. So, I just so happened to find myself browsing the Internet for devious activities and, once again, my curiosity overthrew my better judgement. I checked the book out, and yup, it was every bit as stupid and victim-centric as I thought it would be. This particular entry is based on a brief examination of the book (especially the last chapter) and may not be completely accurate. But then, as the author said on FOX News, all forums and blogs are the litter on the side of the super information highway, so I guess I have absolutely no responsibility to him (or anybody else, for that matter) to be fair or accurate in my portrayal of his work. I'm going to try, anyway.
The book is basically a dozen or so chapters, each centering around a specific situation in which Christmas was somehow destroyed. I found it almost immediately intriguing that there are so few examples, played out in such detail. Are there more examples of these things, or perhaps the author is using a bit of selectivity to make his case for this "war?" The US is a huge country and we've been celebrating Christmas for quite some time. How many millions of Christmases weren't destroyed by this war? For every example he gives, are there ten thousand examples to counterpoint that? Are there any situations where Christmas was used to oppress the religiousness of others that somehow didn't make the cut? I'm willing to guess yeah. Lots. This is a one-sided argument that doesn't even - for a second - take for granted that what's not in the book matters in the least, and what's not in the book is far more representative of what's going on than the examples selected exclusively to build his point.
A war is something that's organized. There's no War on Christmas pamphlets going out. I know it seems so odd, but the fact is, these changes are a direct result of our nation becoming more comfortable with diversity. A store telling you "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is simply admitting that you are a stranger and they could not or should not presume your religious affiliation. Is telling a Jewish person "Merry Christmas" going to offend them? Only in that you are making assumptions about them that aren't true. Saying "Happy Holidays" isn't an affront to Christians; it's an acceptance of the fact that not all of us belong to the same faith or ideals.
In my eyes, Christmas is officially a secular holiday, and it is completely possible for a government building to display pictures of Santa Claus, candy canes, and snowflakes. What you can't do is display a baby Jesus, because even if Christmas is secular, there's no way the Son of God ever could be. I personally find manger scenes to be offensive, but not because they are stupid. It's because everybody in them are white. It shows a grotesque misunderstanding of the time period and geographical location of the scene it's portraying. But I'm not going to make anybody take it down unless it does something else even more offensive, such as suggest that the government prefers one religion or another, or that it is done with tax payer dollars and excludes the interests of some of the very people which helped pay for it.
The last chapter in the book is entitled "The War on Christmas." If there is a war against them, and I'm a little more willing to believe this, it is a result of their own actions. When they try to remove evolution from science classes and replace it with thinly veiled religious myths, they are going to make enemies. When they tell gay people that they aren't entitled to the same civil rights as everyone else, they're going to make enemies. If they picket Planned Parenthoods, they are going to make enemies. If there is indeed a war, it's their war, and we are only trying to defend ourselves from them.
but the thing that really pissed me off about this chapter is that he reproduces some letter sent in to some random newspaper. The letter is simply someone complaining about people putting "Jesus has risen" signs in their yards, and says that it seems combative, like posting a pro-life sign in their yard. He didn't think people needed to draw battle lines starting at their front door, and suggested that faith should be something that is personal. Gibson (the author of The War on Christmas) totally rips into him for this.
I re-read the letter, and it wasn't offensive. It was complaining, but not unfairly and it made a couple of good points. It did not insult anybody nor did it attack anybody, but simply engaged in a debate about this practice. As people whom I interact with regularly know, I believe that the debate is everything, and when you can't have a debate, that's when you need it all the more. I really couldn't figure out why he was ripped into.
Gibson goes into a little bit about free speech and how the letter writer needs to appreciate that people have the right to speak, even if he doesn't want to hear it. I re-read the letter again. the guy never said they couldn't put signs in their yard. He wasn't trying to limit their free speech. He was just pointing out that it was a confrontational practice that he didn't agree with. Gibson needs to learn that one of the consequences of free speech is that anything you say can be challenged by someone else. If someone says something that you disagree with, it is your duty to respond in debate.
The next thing Gibson says is that this country was founded by "religionists." I'm not sure if that's a real word or not, but I assume that he means Christians. Problem is, he's wrong. Many of the founding fathers of this great nation were not Christians, but were, in fact, deists. They believed in some sort of non-interactive deity and did not participate in worship at all. In fact, Thomas Jefferson released a version of the Bible without all the fancy miracles and stuff written about Jesus, leaving just a man and his moral teachings.
This country was not founded on Christian ideals, but rather against them. The government was created in such a way that no one religion could ever take control of it and dominate the populace. Whatever you believe, you can and the government will never think better or worse of you because of it. I don't know where these psychos get the impression that there's hidden code in the Constitution that gives Christians the run of the country, but the simple fact is this country was created to prevent them from taking over, not give them the keys. You'd think that an educated news anchor like himself would at least know this much.
Geez, we already have abortions, but we have to defend it against Christian morals. We already have evolution, but we have to defend it against Christian beliefs. We already have the freedom to engage in behavior of our choosing in the privacy of our own homes, and we have to defend that, as well. We don't have gay marriage, but we are increasingly being left behind in this regard. There's a war in this country, but it's not against Christmas. It is started and engaged in by people who are against diversity and equal rights.
It is, in no uncertain terms, a war for America and I, for one, won't let the ignorant win.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The Game of Blame
Warning: Tonight's topic of discussion is what some would deem "controversial." Certain subjects touched upon tonight can easily be deemed offensive, crude, and downright disrespectful. If any of this bothers you, then do not read past the italicized text.
I've been doing a lot of thinking, lately. I've been ruminating on all sorts of subjects, from what I'm doing with my life to the meaning of existence as a whole. Most of all, though, I've been seeking answers.
I have so many questions, and so few answers to them, but that's alright. We're all in the same boat. We all have questions and inquiries that just can't be answered, for one reason or another. The one answer I have obtained, however, is an important one:
We have nobody to blame for the bad things that happen in our lives but ourselves.
Just about every single bad thing that happens in life is a result - either direct or indirect - of some bad decision or, worse yet, an indecision, that you've made. I know that probably makes a lot of you reading this feel very uncomfortable, as it well should. It's not an easy fact to face, and an even harder one to swallow.
Let's pretend for a moment that you are a parent. If you're already a parent, then this shouldn't be too hard. Anyway, your child has reached - or surpassed - the age where the decision-making process is left up to them. You no longer are in charge of what decisions are made for them, to a degree, and your job has now shifted to teaching that child about the cause and effect of their ability to choose a good decision over a bad one, while shying away from indecisions.
The child wants to go and play outside. Seeing as how the child is old enough to be outside without constant supervision, and you're preparing dinner, you let them outside on the premise that they have to keep their coat on. They agree, but no sooner are they out of your line of sight do they have their coat off and are running around in chilly weather without a care or worry in the world. The next day, however, they come down with a cold. Why? Because they didn't listen to you, the parent, about keeping their coat on.
This example is one that I had to use earlier to explain this particular viewpoint. While it serves its purpose in giving somebody a basic understanding about how I see the world at work, it really doesn't do the perspective a whole lot of justice.
I am a firm believer in Occam's razor, which basically states that the simplest explanation is more often than not the best one. With this particular idea in mind, I propose to you all that everything bad you are facing right now is your own fault, and nobody else's.
Consider the people who are constantly complaining about being broke and not having money to pay rent or bills, and yet they have a brand new sound system for their car, or expensive new shoes. If you are one of these people, tell me why you had the money for these frivolous items, and yet not enough to pay your rent/bills? What was the rationality followed for this decision? I really can't imagine needing these things more than, say, shelter or food.
A more extreme example of this can be found in the people who stay in abusive relationships. I really have no sympathy for people in this position, as it's one that is quite easily changed. While I know a lot of you are cringing right now, all I ask is that you hear me out.
Say you have a friend who entered a relationship, unaware that the person they started to date is an abusive jerk. As soon as this facet of personality is revealed, the logical thing to do is to get out of there. Instead, these people stay in this relationship. Why, I will never know.
I understand that there are some deeply rooted psychological issues that are involved with this situation, and that's well and good. However, there is such a thing as a point where one comes face to face with reason, and should just walk away forever. It's really not that hard to do, even if it seems like the odds against you are insurmountable. If you're a person stuck in an abusive relationship, and you're staying with the abuser due to some ill-conceived notion of love, then you are an idiot, and deserve what you are getting. As much of a jerk as that makes me sound, that's just how I feel about it. The same is said for those of you that are staying together "for the kids." You're doing more harm to those kids than you are good by staying with someone like that, and you need to wake up and realize it.
This brings me to the next point of the discussion. We've covered the cause, and now I feel it appropriate to talk about the effect.
There's a lot that goes through our heads in a short amount of time as we go about making decisions. However, there is one thing that I find most people these days are lacking, and that's an ability to see past the moment and come to the realization that there are consequences for every single action that you take. The problem is that these consequences don't always affect just you, even if it seems that way at the time.
You're a smoker. You've been smoking for years, and you have absolutely no intention of quitting any time soon. When you have a family, though, any sense of common decency says to change your ways. But if you continue to smoke, you're doing a lot of damage to your family, even if the affects aren't immediate. You are putting yourself at a high risk of contracting some form of cancer, and that is quite the devastating experience to all of your family, not to mention your friends. On top of that, you're setting the example for any child you may have that smoking is something that is okay to do. As a result of your decision, the people that you care about now have to sit back and watch you die slowly, and that is not a pleasant experience for anybody. In the end, though, you've got nobody to blame for it but yourself.
These ripples don't only exist in the extreme, though. They also exist in the mundane. In a past entry, I used an example of this kind of mentality by talking about a missed homework assignment. This is the same thing.
Say you decide to call out of work for a day, because you just didn't feel like going in. Because you called out of work, you miss a day of pay. This missed day of pay could have made the difference in being able to afford a new refrigerator when yours blows out, but since you made the choice to call out, you're now stuck for two weeks without a functioning food storage unit. The problem is, the malfunction didn't happen until about a week after you called out, and the reality of what you did doesn't hit you until your next paycheck, which is short on money because you missed a day. Sucks, doesn't it?
I'm not immune to all of this. I'm not known for making good decisions, myself. As a matter of fact, my track record when it comes to choices is pretty much as bad as the Spanish Inquisition.
As it currently stands, I work a job that I hate and pays me like a true wage slave. The sheer amount of absurdity that I have to deal with on a regular basis is enough to drive any man absolutely bonkers. This is, in all honesty, my own fault. I didn't finish school, and nobody else made that choice for me. If I really wanted to, I could have found a way to stay.
I have no car, because I didn't properly maintain the one I had. I also made a bad decision in purchasing a car that was manufactured by a people that can't even properly defend their own borders. Admittedly, I wasn't very responsible with the car, and if I would have made better choices, I wouldn't be in this situation now.
Keep in mind, folks, that I'm not exactly complaining about my station in life. I have come to accept the fact that I'm here for a reason, and that reason is a lack of good decision-making in my past. While I'm currently working towards a better tomorrow, I have to face the fact that my situation is what it is.
Ultimately, the choices that you make are your own. I can do nothing more to influence them than what I'm doing now, and I'm alright with that. You're going to do what you do, just as I'm going to do. The question, though, is do you have what it takes to accept responsibility for what you've done?
I've been doing a lot of thinking, lately. I've been ruminating on all sorts of subjects, from what I'm doing with my life to the meaning of existence as a whole. Most of all, though, I've been seeking answers.
I have so many questions, and so few answers to them, but that's alright. We're all in the same boat. We all have questions and inquiries that just can't be answered, for one reason or another. The one answer I have obtained, however, is an important one:
We have nobody to blame for the bad things that happen in our lives but ourselves.
Just about every single bad thing that happens in life is a result - either direct or indirect - of some bad decision or, worse yet, an indecision, that you've made. I know that probably makes a lot of you reading this feel very uncomfortable, as it well should. It's not an easy fact to face, and an even harder one to swallow.
Let's pretend for a moment that you are a parent. If you're already a parent, then this shouldn't be too hard. Anyway, your child has reached - or surpassed - the age where the decision-making process is left up to them. You no longer are in charge of what decisions are made for them, to a degree, and your job has now shifted to teaching that child about the cause and effect of their ability to choose a good decision over a bad one, while shying away from indecisions.
The child wants to go and play outside. Seeing as how the child is old enough to be outside without constant supervision, and you're preparing dinner, you let them outside on the premise that they have to keep their coat on. They agree, but no sooner are they out of your line of sight do they have their coat off and are running around in chilly weather without a care or worry in the world. The next day, however, they come down with a cold. Why? Because they didn't listen to you, the parent, about keeping their coat on.
This example is one that I had to use earlier to explain this particular viewpoint. While it serves its purpose in giving somebody a basic understanding about how I see the world at work, it really doesn't do the perspective a whole lot of justice.
I am a firm believer in Occam's razor, which basically states that the simplest explanation is more often than not the best one. With this particular idea in mind, I propose to you all that everything bad you are facing right now is your own fault, and nobody else's.
Consider the people who are constantly complaining about being broke and not having money to pay rent or bills, and yet they have a brand new sound system for their car, or expensive new shoes. If you are one of these people, tell me why you had the money for these frivolous items, and yet not enough to pay your rent/bills? What was the rationality followed for this decision? I really can't imagine needing these things more than, say, shelter or food.
A more extreme example of this can be found in the people who stay in abusive relationships. I really have no sympathy for people in this position, as it's one that is quite easily changed. While I know a lot of you are cringing right now, all I ask is that you hear me out.
Say you have a friend who entered a relationship, unaware that the person they started to date is an abusive jerk. As soon as this facet of personality is revealed, the logical thing to do is to get out of there. Instead, these people stay in this relationship. Why, I will never know.
I understand that there are some deeply rooted psychological issues that are involved with this situation, and that's well and good. However, there is such a thing as a point where one comes face to face with reason, and should just walk away forever. It's really not that hard to do, even if it seems like the odds against you are insurmountable. If you're a person stuck in an abusive relationship, and you're staying with the abuser due to some ill-conceived notion of love, then you are an idiot, and deserve what you are getting. As much of a jerk as that makes me sound, that's just how I feel about it. The same is said for those of you that are staying together "for the kids." You're doing more harm to those kids than you are good by staying with someone like that, and you need to wake up and realize it.
This brings me to the next point of the discussion. We've covered the cause, and now I feel it appropriate to talk about the effect.
There's a lot that goes through our heads in a short amount of time as we go about making decisions. However, there is one thing that I find most people these days are lacking, and that's an ability to see past the moment and come to the realization that there are consequences for every single action that you take. The problem is that these consequences don't always affect just you, even if it seems that way at the time.
You're a smoker. You've been smoking for years, and you have absolutely no intention of quitting any time soon. When you have a family, though, any sense of common decency says to change your ways. But if you continue to smoke, you're doing a lot of damage to your family, even if the affects aren't immediate. You are putting yourself at a high risk of contracting some form of cancer, and that is quite the devastating experience to all of your family, not to mention your friends. On top of that, you're setting the example for any child you may have that smoking is something that is okay to do. As a result of your decision, the people that you care about now have to sit back and watch you die slowly, and that is not a pleasant experience for anybody. In the end, though, you've got nobody to blame for it but yourself.
These ripples don't only exist in the extreme, though. They also exist in the mundane. In a past entry, I used an example of this kind of mentality by talking about a missed homework assignment. This is the same thing.
Say you decide to call out of work for a day, because you just didn't feel like going in. Because you called out of work, you miss a day of pay. This missed day of pay could have made the difference in being able to afford a new refrigerator when yours blows out, but since you made the choice to call out, you're now stuck for two weeks without a functioning food storage unit. The problem is, the malfunction didn't happen until about a week after you called out, and the reality of what you did doesn't hit you until your next paycheck, which is short on money because you missed a day. Sucks, doesn't it?
I'm not immune to all of this. I'm not known for making good decisions, myself. As a matter of fact, my track record when it comes to choices is pretty much as bad as the Spanish Inquisition.
As it currently stands, I work a job that I hate and pays me like a true wage slave. The sheer amount of absurdity that I have to deal with on a regular basis is enough to drive any man absolutely bonkers. This is, in all honesty, my own fault. I didn't finish school, and nobody else made that choice for me. If I really wanted to, I could have found a way to stay.
I have no car, because I didn't properly maintain the one I had. I also made a bad decision in purchasing a car that was manufactured by a people that can't even properly defend their own borders. Admittedly, I wasn't very responsible with the car, and if I would have made better choices, I wouldn't be in this situation now.
Keep in mind, folks, that I'm not exactly complaining about my station in life. I have come to accept the fact that I'm here for a reason, and that reason is a lack of good decision-making in my past. While I'm currently working towards a better tomorrow, I have to face the fact that my situation is what it is.
Ultimately, the choices that you make are your own. I can do nothing more to influence them than what I'm doing now, and I'm alright with that. You're going to do what you do, just as I'm going to do. The question, though, is do you have what it takes to accept responsibility for what you've done?
Monday, November 08, 2010
Beautiful Ugliness
There's an adage that states "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." In the world these days, I think that we often forget that.
I was messing around on Facebook yesterday, and this happened. For the rest of the night and pretty much all day today, I've been mulling over what the hell happened, there. Beyond the obvious breakdown in communication that using nothing but text causes more often than not, I mean.
A new friend happened to tell me that he agreed with what was really a joke on my part... I have no such extreme stance on makeovers, though I tend to disagree with people getting them. It's not so much the makeover itself that I have the problem with, though. It's the rationality that people use to make the decision to get one.
From a very early age, women are being told what is and isn't beautiful. From the way that they are being shown through their toys all the way to their adulthood, they are being blasted by what is, in all honesty, a rather impossible standard of beauty and how they should look to be considered beautiful.
This is not something that I'm alright with, truth be told. I'm not saying that there isn't such a thing as an ugly woman - far from it. However, it's as I said earlier... beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I personally find women who wear overly revealing clothing along with tons of makeup to be revolting. These are the ones who are caught up in the superficiality that has become the culture of the modern American woman. These are the ones that will keep up with the latest fashion trends in their social class, because that's all that they know how to do. I find it quite pathetic.
In my honest opinion, modesty honors beauty. There is no reason that a woman should be made to feel ugly because she doesn't look like a Barbie. There is no reason for a woman to feel fat because she can't fit into a size 0 or 2. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for her breasts to be hanging out of her shirt so much that there is no room for the imagination.
I'm not quite sure when things gravitated to this particular route, but it's causing more problems within our society than what it's worth. Women out there are depressed because they "aren't beautiful enough." They are feeling unnecessarily bad about themselves because they can't look like a hooker.
What's wrong with this picture?
I'm not saying that women shouldn't get makeovers. Far from it. If someone needs a boost to the almighty self-esteem, then they should get it. However, they need to get it for the right reasons. They shouldn't get it because they feel that's what is expected of them. They shouldn't get one if all they are trying to do is fit in with the norm. They damned sure shouldn't get it because they feel that having a makeover will change them as a person altogether. If you're feeling bad about the way you are, it's because of some other issue than your looks, and changing your appearance isn't going to help with that.
I could keep on going with a whole slew of reasons, but I really don't want this particular post to be an extensive one. There are plenty of salons out there, ladies, that will help you realize how beautiful you really are, and they won't fill your head with tons of false ideologies about why having the makeover to begin with is going to change you as a person and make your life so much better. That's false advertising, and you need to be wary of it.
After speaking with Mrs. Suders and her husband both, I am convinced that she is no charlatan, and does good work and provides what is, sadly, a much-needed service in this day and age. She helps women realize that they really are beautiful, and she doesn't need to use a ton of garbage to help her in bringing the lost souls to enlightenment.
That's all for now. I may end up following this up with something a little more well thought-out tomorrow, but more than likely not until Saturday. I promise that the next one will be a little bit more thought-provoking.
I was messing around on Facebook yesterday, and this happened. For the rest of the night and pretty much all day today, I've been mulling over what the hell happened, there. Beyond the obvious breakdown in communication that using nothing but text causes more often than not, I mean.
A new friend happened to tell me that he agreed with what was really a joke on my part... I have no such extreme stance on makeovers, though I tend to disagree with people getting them. It's not so much the makeover itself that I have the problem with, though. It's the rationality that people use to make the decision to get one.
From a very early age, women are being told what is and isn't beautiful. From the way that they are being shown through their toys all the way to their adulthood, they are being blasted by what is, in all honesty, a rather impossible standard of beauty and how they should look to be considered beautiful.
This is not something that I'm alright with, truth be told. I'm not saying that there isn't such a thing as an ugly woman - far from it. However, it's as I said earlier... beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I personally find women who wear overly revealing clothing along with tons of makeup to be revolting. These are the ones who are caught up in the superficiality that has become the culture of the modern American woman. These are the ones that will keep up with the latest fashion trends in their social class, because that's all that they know how to do. I find it quite pathetic.
In my honest opinion, modesty honors beauty. There is no reason that a woman should be made to feel ugly because she doesn't look like a Barbie. There is no reason for a woman to feel fat because she can't fit into a size 0 or 2. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for her breasts to be hanging out of her shirt so much that there is no room for the imagination.
I'm not quite sure when things gravitated to this particular route, but it's causing more problems within our society than what it's worth. Women out there are depressed because they "aren't beautiful enough." They are feeling unnecessarily bad about themselves because they can't look like a hooker.
What's wrong with this picture?
I'm not saying that women shouldn't get makeovers. Far from it. If someone needs a boost to the almighty self-esteem, then they should get it. However, they need to get it for the right reasons. They shouldn't get it because they feel that's what is expected of them. They shouldn't get one if all they are trying to do is fit in with the norm. They damned sure shouldn't get it because they feel that having a makeover will change them as a person altogether. If you're feeling bad about the way you are, it's because of some other issue than your looks, and changing your appearance isn't going to help with that.
I could keep on going with a whole slew of reasons, but I really don't want this particular post to be an extensive one. There are plenty of salons out there, ladies, that will help you realize how beautiful you really are, and they won't fill your head with tons of false ideologies about why having the makeover to begin with is going to change you as a person and make your life so much better. That's false advertising, and you need to be wary of it.
After speaking with Mrs. Suders and her husband both, I am convinced that she is no charlatan, and does good work and provides what is, sadly, a much-needed service in this day and age. She helps women realize that they really are beautiful, and she doesn't need to use a ton of garbage to help her in bringing the lost souls to enlightenment.
That's all for now. I may end up following this up with something a little more well thought-out tomorrow, but more than likely not until Saturday. I promise that the next one will be a little bit more thought-provoking.
Friday, November 05, 2010
Column A and Column B
There is a sad fact out there that we, as a people, argue about our differences. We argue about politics because we have different opinions of what we want from government. We argue about religion because we have different beliefs of what it means to be a good person and what happens when you die. We argue about whether World of Warcraft is better than Everquest 2 because we want different things from our gaming experiences. These arguments will never be won because these differences can never be changed. We are all different in every way, and we always will be. Never is this a bad thing, but sometimes, we forget that people aren't all the same.
Say we like to listen to jazz music, and we try to get others to listen to it. Partly, it's because we think we are nice people and want to share this great thing which has enriched our lives. Well, if that were only the case, why would there be arguments over whether classical is better than jazz, and heavy metal reigns supreme over rap? Because we don't just do it for the other person's benefit. We do it to justify our own position. If we can convince someone else to like what we like, then that makes the bond we have with them stronger, and makes that like more defensible.
Or does it?
When it comes right down to it, we put ourselves out there with what we like. It's too easy to say "Anybody who likes XXX is a moron" and hurt those peoples' feelings. Mocking anything will always be safer than admitting you enjoy it. That's why things like South Park and, sometimes, Penny Arcade seem cowardly to me, at times. When you refuse to take a stance, you are basically going on a tiny little superiority trip. You are better than everyone who likes XXX because they must be a moron to like something you see no value in.
I think that sometimes we forget that we don't have the same values. I may feel a little superior to people who think Jeff Foxworthy is funny, but then, I didn't grow up in the kind of households that can identify with his jokes. I laugh at jokes that take on a political, observant and even mathematical nature because I've studied enough of these subjects that I can get them. I don't think it's geeky to laugh at a math joke. It's geeky to know enough math to get the joke. If you don't get math jokes, you feel left out. To feel better, you attribute some sort of problem with liking math jokes.
Even beyond nurture, we've got nature to thank. We are not created equal, in a sense, because we each have very different things to bring to and take from the table of life. These things are not as simplistic as you may initially think, either. We have different things which we need in order to function, and as strange as it sounds, this need is not what we generally credit. We have this perception that we need basic things like food, shelter, exercise, clothes, and stuff like that. True as it may be that those basic needs are there to keep the body running, what about the mind? Or the spirit? What do those need?
This is different between people. In my case, I need to be creative, and will do anything to keep my creative juices flowing. I know that I'm a smart individual, and yet I dropped out of college. The reason is because I didn't have the room I needed to be creative. Well, that and other complications, but mostly the creative thing. I've quit more than a few jobs that I've had in the past in complete disgust because I was typically shoved into a retail environment or a cubicle of some sort and told to do work in a very specific, and typically non-agreeable way. I need to find my path between A and B. My path has to be none other than my own. It cannot be your path.
This need for creativity presses down on all aspects of my life. Tasks which require no creativity are essentially like pressing needles into my eyes. Yes, I am fully capable of doing these things. It's just that I never really think to do them. It's kind of like doing all your homework, only to find out the next day that you forgot to do an English paper that was due. It's like you meant to write it, but it slipped your mind because it wasn't important to you. You knew you'd get it done in no time, so you didn't worry about it. It was just such a non-event that it never even registered with you.
As such, I'm pretty much socially retarded. I can't do simple things like operate a washer, because the second I learn how to use it, that information is gone within ten minutes. In all honesty, I sometimes forget how to properly put on my socks. These are what I could consider flaws. They prevent me from ever functioning in the real world, but that doesn't mean that I can't contribute to it. I created this blog, as well as the short stories that I've been writing lately, because the only way I can contribute to the world is if I am my own worldly boss and have the freedom to explore my creativity in every way.
There are people in my life right now that are completely unlike me. They are responsible and dependable in every way that I am not. I will tell you right now that as much creativity as I have, you wouldn't be reading this right now were it not for one of those people.
There are other outside influences to consider, as well. The people who run this site, for example, are the ones who got the domain name, deal with the server stuff, etc.
All told, the only thing that I do with this blog is provide an opinion that a vast majority of people I show this to simply look over. I have every reason to believe that I can make a modest living off of my writing abilities, but that takes time which God provides me. It takes technical support which He delivers. And it takes patience, of which He has an infinite amount.
When it comes down to it, it's the talents of people who aren't me that make everything that I do possible. We do our parts to make sure that the things I write remain either funny, edifying, or, at the very least, not a total waste of time. Without God, there'd be no creativity n me. Without the people who run this site, there'd be no blog here for you to read. Without the support of my friends, I probably never would have gotten to the point where I started this thing up again.
I've started probably over a thousand different creative projects, and only finished maybe two or three of them. Why? Because I went at them alone. That mistake caused each project to be abandoned after only a few days. Weeks, at most.
My friend and I are in the process of creating a comic in the hopes of putting here on the Interwebz for the enjoyment of all who happen to stumble upon it. Being an artist is something he knows about and is good at, which means that he can support this project well past where I would've gotten frustrated and quit. This comic exists because he helps it to do so. That, and he's willing to pick me up and slap me silly until I have the drive to get things done.
It's not that I'm incapable of doing these things. It is within my ability to learn how to do things like that, I'm sure, just like it's completely in Jon's ability to write out a lot of the script and storyline. I think the reason we are good at the things we do is because we have no uncertainty when it comes to working towards our strengths. When I write anything, it is completely within my creative power. I'm in control. When Jon does something as simple as change a few minor details in one of the panels, he's in control. Or at least controlling his involvement with it. But when the roles are switched, there is a certain amount of uncertainty that we both would face. I am not naturally dependable, and being so is quite draining for me. I expect that he isn't quite as good at writing things as I am (not sure, because the subject hasn't really ever come up), and being so is probably quite draining for him, as well.
It's easy to see how this blog wouldn't exist without me to paint pictures with my words. That's almost too obvious. What isn't, though, is that creativity is too crafty to exist in a vacuum. If you can create an entry that was actually awesome to read, then you can write pretty much anything else out there. Everything will fail at the slightest weakness, though, but there's always a new creative project ready to take its place. Every project that I've ever tried to do has failed except the comic that I'm working on now with Jon - and that's because this isn't just my project. It's our project; it belongs to Jon, myself, and everybody that's been giving us feedback since its inception.
So maybe being different isn't so bad. When you are flawed, perhaps there is someone else out there equally flawed, but in different ways. Maybe the fact that we disagree in politics is what keeps us honest. Maybe the Conservatives complete the Liberals, and vice versa. They are weak individually, but together are capable of making a tiny group of thirteen colonies and eventually becoming one of the most powerful nations in the world. With just one viewpoint, this country would've crumbled under its own weight centuries ago.
If we all belonged to one religion, we'd all be extremists. We wouldn't have conflicting points of view to keep us honest. We'd ignore science, and pretend that dinosaurs didn't exist. We'd truly be in a third-world dark age. But science alone is amoral. Religion keeps science sane; keeps it from going too far. There are a million questions out there that science can answer that perhaps we shouldn't be in such a hurry to discover just yet. WE can move slowly because society can't handle the kind of all-encompassing changes that science can go through on a regular basis. They are at odds with each other, but in a strange way, they support each other through their differences.
I present to you that it is our differences which make us stronger. I don't think I've ever really appreciated that, before. I've paid lip service to the idea, surely, but it never really hit home until just recently. We are different. We should be different. And no matter how much it angers us that someone else isn't like us, the solution isn't to despise one another. By all means, stay mad - so long as it keeps you honest. But understand that it would really suck if we were all the same.
Say we like to listen to jazz music, and we try to get others to listen to it. Partly, it's because we think we are nice people and want to share this great thing which has enriched our lives. Well, if that were only the case, why would there be arguments over whether classical is better than jazz, and heavy metal reigns supreme over rap? Because we don't just do it for the other person's benefit. We do it to justify our own position. If we can convince someone else to like what we like, then that makes the bond we have with them stronger, and makes that like more defensible.
Or does it?
When it comes right down to it, we put ourselves out there with what we like. It's too easy to say "Anybody who likes XXX is a moron" and hurt those peoples' feelings. Mocking anything will always be safer than admitting you enjoy it. That's why things like South Park and, sometimes, Penny Arcade seem cowardly to me, at times. When you refuse to take a stance, you are basically going on a tiny little superiority trip. You are better than everyone who likes XXX because they must be a moron to like something you see no value in.
I think that sometimes we forget that we don't have the same values. I may feel a little superior to people who think Jeff Foxworthy is funny, but then, I didn't grow up in the kind of households that can identify with his jokes. I laugh at jokes that take on a political, observant and even mathematical nature because I've studied enough of these subjects that I can get them. I don't think it's geeky to laugh at a math joke. It's geeky to know enough math to get the joke. If you don't get math jokes, you feel left out. To feel better, you attribute some sort of problem with liking math jokes.
Even beyond nurture, we've got nature to thank. We are not created equal, in a sense, because we each have very different things to bring to and take from the table of life. These things are not as simplistic as you may initially think, either. We have different things which we need in order to function, and as strange as it sounds, this need is not what we generally credit. We have this perception that we need basic things like food, shelter, exercise, clothes, and stuff like that. True as it may be that those basic needs are there to keep the body running, what about the mind? Or the spirit? What do those need?
This is different between people. In my case, I need to be creative, and will do anything to keep my creative juices flowing. I know that I'm a smart individual, and yet I dropped out of college. The reason is because I didn't have the room I needed to be creative. Well, that and other complications, but mostly the creative thing. I've quit more than a few jobs that I've had in the past in complete disgust because I was typically shoved into a retail environment or a cubicle of some sort and told to do work in a very specific, and typically non-agreeable way. I need to find my path between A and B. My path has to be none other than my own. It cannot be your path.
This need for creativity presses down on all aspects of my life. Tasks which require no creativity are essentially like pressing needles into my eyes. Yes, I am fully capable of doing these things. It's just that I never really think to do them. It's kind of like doing all your homework, only to find out the next day that you forgot to do an English paper that was due. It's like you meant to write it, but it slipped your mind because it wasn't important to you. You knew you'd get it done in no time, so you didn't worry about it. It was just such a non-event that it never even registered with you.
As such, I'm pretty much socially retarded. I can't do simple things like operate a washer, because the second I learn how to use it, that information is gone within ten minutes. In all honesty, I sometimes forget how to properly put on my socks. These are what I could consider flaws. They prevent me from ever functioning in the real world, but that doesn't mean that I can't contribute to it. I created this blog, as well as the short stories that I've been writing lately, because the only way I can contribute to the world is if I am my own worldly boss and have the freedom to explore my creativity in every way.
There are people in my life right now that are completely unlike me. They are responsible and dependable in every way that I am not. I will tell you right now that as much creativity as I have, you wouldn't be reading this right now were it not for one of those people.
There are other outside influences to consider, as well. The people who run this site, for example, are the ones who got the domain name, deal with the server stuff, etc.
All told, the only thing that I do with this blog is provide an opinion that a vast majority of people I show this to simply look over. I have every reason to believe that I can make a modest living off of my writing abilities, but that takes time which God provides me. It takes technical support which He delivers. And it takes patience, of which He has an infinite amount.
When it comes down to it, it's the talents of people who aren't me that make everything that I do possible. We do our parts to make sure that the things I write remain either funny, edifying, or, at the very least, not a total waste of time. Without God, there'd be no creativity n me. Without the people who run this site, there'd be no blog here for you to read. Without the support of my friends, I probably never would have gotten to the point where I started this thing up again.
I've started probably over a thousand different creative projects, and only finished maybe two or three of them. Why? Because I went at them alone. That mistake caused each project to be abandoned after only a few days. Weeks, at most.
My friend and I are in the process of creating a comic in the hopes of putting here on the Interwebz for the enjoyment of all who happen to stumble upon it. Being an artist is something he knows about and is good at, which means that he can support this project well past where I would've gotten frustrated and quit. This comic exists because he helps it to do so. That, and he's willing to pick me up and slap me silly until I have the drive to get things done.
It's not that I'm incapable of doing these things. It is within my ability to learn how to do things like that, I'm sure, just like it's completely in Jon's ability to write out a lot of the script and storyline. I think the reason we are good at the things we do is because we have no uncertainty when it comes to working towards our strengths. When I write anything, it is completely within my creative power. I'm in control. When Jon does something as simple as change a few minor details in one of the panels, he's in control. Or at least controlling his involvement with it. But when the roles are switched, there is a certain amount of uncertainty that we both would face. I am not naturally dependable, and being so is quite draining for me. I expect that he isn't quite as good at writing things as I am (not sure, because the subject hasn't really ever come up), and being so is probably quite draining for him, as well.
It's easy to see how this blog wouldn't exist without me to paint pictures with my words. That's almost too obvious. What isn't, though, is that creativity is too crafty to exist in a vacuum. If you can create an entry that was actually awesome to read, then you can write pretty much anything else out there. Everything will fail at the slightest weakness, though, but there's always a new creative project ready to take its place. Every project that I've ever tried to do has failed except the comic that I'm working on now with Jon - and that's because this isn't just my project. It's our project; it belongs to Jon, myself, and everybody that's been giving us feedback since its inception.
So maybe being different isn't so bad. When you are flawed, perhaps there is someone else out there equally flawed, but in different ways. Maybe the fact that we disagree in politics is what keeps us honest. Maybe the Conservatives complete the Liberals, and vice versa. They are weak individually, but together are capable of making a tiny group of thirteen colonies and eventually becoming one of the most powerful nations in the world. With just one viewpoint, this country would've crumbled under its own weight centuries ago.
If we all belonged to one religion, we'd all be extremists. We wouldn't have conflicting points of view to keep us honest. We'd ignore science, and pretend that dinosaurs didn't exist. We'd truly be in a third-world dark age. But science alone is amoral. Religion keeps science sane; keeps it from going too far. There are a million questions out there that science can answer that perhaps we shouldn't be in such a hurry to discover just yet. WE can move slowly because society can't handle the kind of all-encompassing changes that science can go through on a regular basis. They are at odds with each other, but in a strange way, they support each other through their differences.
I present to you that it is our differences which make us stronger. I don't think I've ever really appreciated that, before. I've paid lip service to the idea, surely, but it never really hit home until just recently. We are different. We should be different. And no matter how much it angers us that someone else isn't like us, the solution isn't to despise one another. By all means, stay mad - so long as it keeps you honest. But understand that it would really suck if we were all the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)