5/25/2011- Osama,Osama
I know I'm a few weeks late, but I just had the urge to say a piece about Osama bin Laden's death.
I'm still find it very unsettling that some people threw after parties to celebrate his death. Documentary director Michael Moore put it perfectly when he brought up WWJD, What would Jesus do? Moore said that he doesn't believe Christ would celebrate someone's death. If he is so loving and came to offer salvation to all, then why would he two-step at a persons demise. Christ hates evil, but he doesn't hate people.
This also got me to thinking about what is the country's next move politically. With the crumbling governments of Tunisia, Egypt and some other places (mainly in the Muslim World), I wonder what is our government's standing with the these countries and the Muslim community considering that apparently the government hasn't stepped up to the plate so to speak. I'm also wondering if it is the U.S.s plate to stepped to and take a bite. It seems almost like the one time we do need to speak up, we don't. Our government has other people buying into our brand of democracy, but now can't deliver it. We still have issues here at home. If we can't clean the kitchen here, then why are we sweeping away crumbs on somebody else's porch?
3/9/2011- WTH: What the Huckabee
About a week ago Republican Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee made some skewed comments about Natalie Portman's pregancy before marriage. He stated that she was glorifying illegitimate pregancy and the best gift her fiance could give her was a ring( I thought he did; it's called an engagement ring), but apparently the fiance liked it so much he put a ring on it. Then he went on with this diatribe about the state of unwed young mothers.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not jumping for joy over the state of single parenthood, but I'm wondering where the right is going with all this. First it was Bill O'Reilly ranting about Jennifer Aniston's discussion of being an adult who wants to have a baby, but doesn't have a man around to make one. She said she considered being a single parenthood. O'Reilly caught wind of this and blew her comments out of proportion and questioned what kind of message she was sending to young girls. Problem A with the statement is, Ms. Aniston is an adult and has the right to choose how she will conceive a child. Problem B with his comment is young girls aren't even Aniston's demographic group of fans. Why would they be listening to her anyway? What he needs to be concerned with is Miley Cyrus and Bristol Palin.
Now don't get me wrong, I agree that single parenthood is hard thing. This is coming from someone who grew up in a single parent household. But it appears that these guys seem to like to stir up trouble just for the sake of remaining culturally and socially relevant. Sometimes it's not always about the politics. They certainly have the right to voice their opinions and I'm glad they shared them. So I take it that this is the politics of remaining relevant or just wanting to hear yourself talk. Huckabee eventually denied his comments and said what he meant was that our society is glamourizing single parenthood. I don't necessarily get that impression, but he can at least argue that our society is glamourizing sexual behavior with pornography and shows like Jersey Shore. If anything they seem to promote unattainable sexual pleasure and behavior that lead people to feeling inadequate. So if you're gonna make an argument, make a good one and please have some evidence to back it up. I just my actually think about agreeing with you. Also, and what's with these men trying to dictate what these women should be doing? Also, for Huckabee, trying talking about the men who aren't being dead beat dads.
But didn't O'Reilly get sued for sexual harrassment some years ago? Oh and isn't Mike Huckabee pro-life so even in his distaste for unwed mothers, he probably wouldn't tell Portman to have an abortion, right?
3/9/2011- An Unholy War: Or is it?
Honestly, I haven't kept up much with local, national, or world politics over the past few weeks, but the occurrences in Tunisia, Egypt, and now Libya give me pause to consider what's happening in global politics today and how it affects our world at large.
Someone once said the fall of particular regimes, something that appears to be taking place right now. Citizens are making a stand and demanding their just dues. They want something new and some semblance of democracy. Some may call it people just being fed up. Some may even call it God's judgment. Whatever the case may be, I'm wondering if our world and even our country is gearing up for an unholy war that may not be worth fighting or may not be worth winning. I'm wondering what we're really fighting for?
What I mean by unholy war is this idea of basing action on something that has nothing to do with purity, peace, nobility, and the like. I mean are we in this mess purely to hold up Judeo-Christian beliefs or are we using Jesus as a scapegoat to get what we want? What happens if the States don't "turn back to God"? Does it really matter? What about Abraham and his ability to stay God's hand? Do we really want all of this to be about God or our governments' agendas? Do we even want God to have any say in all this? Are we really willing to be humble?
I know this was just a stream of questiosn, but it got me to thinking what's worth more to us: righteousness or the power to start a fight?
12/20/2010- Gays in the Military: Do We Profit from Their Deaths
So a couple of days ago, Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed. I thought thank goodness because what does someone's sexual orientation have to do with his/her ability to serve the country or anyone. The most important thing is to make sure the troops can do their job successfully. Then I say a friends post on Facebook that was albiet sarcastic and caustic but also very disheartening and then I started to question whether or not our gay family members, coworkers, friends, and neighbors are truly safe to speak about their sexuality in the midst of a cultural, social, and even religious war.
The most read something like 'now our gay brothers and sisters can be shot openly."
I thought that was hilarious (mainly because I understand/appreciate twisted senses of humor and have one of my own). Then I thought: Hmm...as much as I'm proud to see our country move toward equality for somebody, I'm not sure if this really takes them out of harms way. Do I really want a gay soldier, let alone anyone, to die for something that seems so senseless and in a lot of ways is quite culturally and politically imperial? I've supported the repeal of DADT for gay soldiers to have the right to be open about their sexuality. Besides, what one really should be worrying about is how not to put civilians in harms way and make sure their units don't lose comrades, not if the next guy or girl is ogling your ass. But aren't they now in even more harms way? Whose to say homophobic and maybe even homonegative fellow officers, sergeants, commanders, and the like won't decide to haze the new gay officer? Whose to say more damage won't be done to them? Not every gay person has the luxury of having someone to love them regardless of who they are and someone who will back them up.
Then again, whose business is it anyway who you sleep with? We'll allow a slut to pass an STD around without an uproar, but just because there is a possiblity that Jane or Joe Schmo my like you in your army fatigues, you have to throw a hissy fit.
My rant and argument isn't really about how this will affect the troops as a whole. I'm more worried about the gay soldiers who've been denied the right to speak.
Some may even say this repeal is the final ass kick this country needs to make it's way into hell. That's up for debate. There is the element of religious discussion. What would God think of this? Christians should stand up against this? Again, this may be arguably true, but when is the last time any of us was nailed to a cross?
The Politics of Mindless Conversation (08/25/2010)
It's been a while since I've posted on this particular page. I usually try to avoid "political" conversations just to avoid the emotional exhaustion or some unnecessary argument about shit nobody even understands (omg, i just swore!). But I had a sudden burst of inspiration from the message I posted on this blog's main page: I had this grand epiphany about mindless conversation: there is some method to this madness that requires certain principles to keep the conversation going. Then I realized that "mindless" is a subjective term. Conversation isn't inherently mindless; it's the value one places on the dialogue/subject that determines whether the conversation is worth having.
This leads me to think that "mindless" is term created by the educated elite to appear more secure in our knowledge than we really are. Because after all, we're just as stupid as the rest of the masses. The only difference is, they don't know it nor do they know how stupid they are.
So maybe mindless isn't the right word. Maybe it should be blissfully content with ignorance or blissfully content with elitist education. That's sounds better. Way too many syllables, but a better characterization, I think.
And there in lies one of the many principles of mindless conversation; we have to define the term first before we can even set up a true structure. The next thing is the contract between to or more minds and mouths. (In some cases, it just may be one. Oh please! You know you talk to yourself as much as I do. You just prefer to call it thinking.) Therein lies the exchange. There is a sort of human contract (if I may be so bold as to borrow from Jada Pinkett Smith). You see, when we enter into the oldest form of communication, we enter into a temporary relationship with each other. It's almost as if we're dating for the ten minutes we make our small talk. We ask questions. We look each other in the eye (maybe). We smile and frown. We roll our eyes and engage in conversational flirtation (not exactly like regular flirtation; more like flirting with topics rather than with our bodies). We enter into a momentary bond. Then comes the entree.
Now it's time to choose the topic and this is where we determine whether it is mindless. Usually there isn't much concious determination. I say that because something isn't really given power until it's spoken of/named. All too often we complain about the irrelevance or offense of something by reiterating it's relevance and making it overly offense by actually discussing it. I just had this epiphany that maybe if we didn't give those nagging things a second thought, much less a breath of life we give in our speech, then maybe they would lose their value and die. But that's just a thought. Then the conversation/bond lasts for however long we want it to. So time is very valuable to the political construction of a mindless conversation. Or a conversation in general. This is all about the power to make decisions. So is power really lost because the dialogue isn't up to par to the educated masses idea of relevant conversation? But isn't power all about the right and ability to speak about anything? Is mindless conversation covered by the First Amendment? Or are we powerless just because we're not talking about what's "important"? How then do we define power?
Or maybe this whole post is "mindless."
What Exactly are We Paying For? (originally published 10/06/09)
I've begun reading Tom Wolfe's I Am Charlotte Simmons. It's basically about debauchery at a university and the status A-list universities provides. (Basically, it's a discussion of how top university breeds elitists and adult brats. At least that's what I gather so far.) I'm only a few pages in, but something struct me in the first few pages that just made me burn to learn that our (and possibly our parents') precious dollars are being wasted. On what? you might ask: EDUCATION!! Oh let me rephrase that: On the label of a "prestigious" university education.
Let's be honest, we live in a country (maybe even a world) of binaries: black/white, good/evil, ranked/unranked. Labels tend to be frivolous monikers, but they do serve some sort of purpose. That purpose being dividing the haves and the have-nots. This is one idea made plain in the first few pages of Wolfe's book. At one point one of the young men discusses his allegiance and appreciation of the status his top-tier university gives him. Then it dawned on me:
U.S. college education is much like designer clothing: we're not actually paying for the hours spent in developing the pieces or even the quality of the garments; we're paying for the label.
So to Harvard, Stanford, PSU, UPENN, NYU and the other Ivy League and Big Ten Schools and whatever other classified universities that are out there, excuse me if I don't faint, because contrary to what you might want to believe, you really aren't all that.
This is not to say these and other schools don't have good programs or wonderful teachers, but it is the name that is so expensive not necessarily the quality of education. This troubles me because ranking becomes more signifcant than what these schools actually offer students. So what really matters? Is it that the university has the facilities for a film class? Is it that it has a great working relationship with NBC and churns out great journalists and writers? Or is it that it's more expensive than surrounding universities? Or is that it's been, what my mom, says smelling itself and conjured up the idea tha its shit doesn't stink. Pardon my cynicism but I smell funk. I'm allergic to bullshit. (Cough, cough, sneeze, sneeze)
In the grand scheme of things, we're paying for the schools signs to be shiny and for the foliage to be healthy so the courtyards can be nice and primped. But we aren't necessarily paying for the best and most personally suited educational experience.
We're paying for status, not substance.
A Tale of University Politics: AKA A Nightmare (originally published 9/8/09)
Once upon a time, there was a young 20-something searching for funding to continue her education. Somewhere along the line, communication to one of the strongest links to educational funding was lost by a whirlwind torrent that severed the lines of security. But the nameless 20-something continued to press forward even though she wasn't so sure where her life path would lead her. She struggled back and forth between the dark forces of uncertainty, the unstable road to an advanced degree or the equally mirky swamp of job placement and instability. In a last ditch effort, she found a rusted link chain that would bridge the communication that had been broken. The problem was the chain disentegrated shortly after speaking to the King of Continuing Education. She believed the King to be noble, but was met with an unsettling reception. The unnamed one thought it might be contributed to her plea to the Gods of the Academy may have caused the King to turn from her inquiries. They battled and battled, and in the end, no one really came out victorious. Yes the unnamed 20-something came out a bit battered and bruised and did win the prize of self-respect and dignity, but the battle was unnecessary. In the end, she was alone and always had been. Once the funding for the unnamed's education was not available, she looked far and wide for help, but was either given false hope or no aid at all. She realized that education wasn't her best option, but she was to complete her maturity not only as a person, but as one of the employed in the great land of American Discomfort. But she decided to create her own world of strength, guidance, and stability because there isn't always some one to depend on.
Here it is kids. This short story should be a lesson to all who seek a higher education: be wise, be cautious, keep your eyes open, and stay guarded. The one thing that is never really spoken about in academia is the politics that can get in the way of the well being of a student, whether it be academically or personally. Enrolling at a top school (particularly Research 1) has its benefits: you become a part of a larger academic community and can network with scholastic heavyweights. The downside is that in the midst of the scramble for funding, maintaining a certain reputation, and the furor over publishing in academic journals, the student who is the consumer of the product of education, ends up being forgotten. Then comes the drinking of the Kool-Aid. Some of us turn into academic zombies that are feeding from elitist notions about education.
I so happened to be one of the few who was independent and usually didn't need much guidance. That was until funding became an issue. Then my aspirations for my immediate future changed. This coupled with one of the rudest reactions I've ever experience from someone I had grown to respect, became my sign of what I'd already known: I am jaded with the academy. I also learned that continuing my education wasn't a dream or aspiration of mine anymore. I realized that the academy can only carry someone so far, especially a person who has found passion in something else.
The moral of this story is university politics can shoot an innocent bystander. This is not to say univeristy administration, deans, or even professors at high-maintenance universities are all individually bad people. I've met some that are quite impressive. But that doesn't mean that when push comes to shove, one of us won't get lost in the crossfire and you'll either be lied to or not communicated with at all. Most times you'll have to tape-record conversations because you never know what someone will say. You will have to ask for documentation of some sort. The point is to not only be aware, but to beware.
This is not to scare anyone into not going to a huge, popular university. If it's your dream, then do it and don't let anyone stop you. But if you realize the stress and depression aren't worth a degree, then work on finding your passion. If you've suffered through the nightmare I presented above, just know that you are not alone. Stick with the people who genuinely love and care about you. Sometimes it will be difficult to tell who is who. Keep fighting for what you believe is yours. If you realize that it isn't for you, that's okay; just look forward to the next step. It's okay to change your mind; it's even okay to not trust a few people. But it's not okay to give up.
Politics are politics, even in education. I just wish somebody told us that a degree involves more than studying; it sometimes includes going to battle.
Obama: The First Black President or The Matrix Experience (Hmmm....)(originally published 7/22/09)
As I type this post, President Obama is discussing his proposed U.S. healthcare plan with the media and (sort of) addressing the concerns of U.S. citizens. Now first off, I'm not one to put much stock in politics or the general political experience. What I mean by political experience is not voting or protesting for the validation of First Amendment rights; I generally mean I don't have a whole lot of faith in the political leaders nor do I expect the most out of them. They have a hustle just like the next man on the street, but that hustle won't always flow for the advancement of the people in the community. I don't burn enough calories in listening to the meetings, watching CSPAN ad nauseum, or generally expecting a gracious and positively productive campaign of political candidates. But I must cut Obama a tiny bit of slack:
Our new leader has just inherited our worst economic environment probably since The Great Depression.
Because the economy is in such great jeopardy, healthcare for the less fortunate is far from believable.
We have our "war" going on that Bush claimed we "won".
And last but not least, the "American Image" has been tarnished by our government's historical cutlural, social, and political imperialism of countries that are either poorer or non-Christian. I will also add that some of these countries residents are predominantly people of color.
Now, with all this in mind, can't we cut the brother just a bit of slack? I'm not saying we shouldn't make him responsible for his actions and decisions. He is our leader and ideally should work for our benefit. What little power he has as a figurehead will reflect how the rest of the world will see us as a country, citizens, and a part of global humanity.
He's become a sort of Neo in this Political Matrix, bringing on the experience of hope, optimism, bipartisanship. But even in that, his approval rating on some issues has slumped, particularly on the issue of affordable healthcare.
Now, as I'm contemplating the severity and seriousness of these issues, I must take a moment and not be a constituent, but human and laugh at Obama's reference to the Matrix. He of course is not Neo from the famed trilogy (although he marketed himself as a sort of savior; or at least the wider public did), but this little reference in regard to making decisions about healthcare reform was a bit refreshing and also shows that our president is in tune with popular culture.
He said in making the best and most affordable healthcare plan for the millions of Americans without healthcare while also not causing anymore deficit in goverment funds is much like Neo taking the red or the blue pill. One pill will take you to an alternative world that will reveal the Wizard of Oz behind the curtains that is pulling the governmental strings, much like the pill that reveals the alternative machine that we as humans are blinded to because of our culture of blissful ignorance and infotainment. The other pill will just lead us back to "normality" as the constituent puppets that our government and culture have turned into. Now, which one of these pills is the right one to take? The taste doesn't matter, but it is the results after ingestion that count.
From my understanding, the red pill is probably Obama's plan for healthcare reform; the blue pill is particularly Republicans living by the "status quo," or a.ka. worrying to much about politics and not enough about citizens; this means remaining connected to the Matrix. Or is it the other way around?
What pill do we as citizens, especially us who don't have healthcare, should take? Should we take the blue pill and live in medical poverty? Or should we take the red pill and allow the status quo to discontinue? This is an even bigger question for the wealthiest one percent of Americans in this country. Now if Obama's reform goes through, the wealthiest Americans will be taxed to provide enough funds for the over 40 million uninsured Americans to recieve healthcare. Should they take the blue pill and live as the wealthiest people in the country with no financial regard for the underprivileged and underrepresented and complain that their funds are in jeopardy when they already have enough to withstand this recession (this is not every wealthy person; some are extremely charitable)? Or should they take the red pill and be the next Brangelinas to give to the poor to insure the betterment of their fellow man?
Ideally, going the Christian route and taking care of the widows and orphans (so to speak) is the best route to go if we all believe in the natural obligation to help our fellow woman and man. But, money talks (You can't serve God and manna). More money means more problems and one of these "problems" is giving to the needy. But, do we really expect people to not be stingy? Honestly, I don't know if I want my money being dipped into for people I don't know. Then again, if I'm a billionaire, then what are a few millions dollars in taxes to me, especially if I know I can make my money work for me? It's like Robert Redford's billionaire playboy in Indecent Proposal. The man practically lost between thousands and millions in a poker game without a second thought. Money means nothing to him, but not everyone that is wealthy is Redford's billionaire.
So, is this a case of real reality (red pill) or a case of Baudrillard's simulacra (blue pill)? Would we rather take the risk in considering every approach possible that will be benefical for the uninsured or do will live in a simulated world where men are ruled by their alleigance to some green paper that has lost its value?
Do we want truth and prosperity or do we want the Matrix?
Obama, what do you think?
