It baffles me at how a person can support the burning and purposeful desecration of the American flag as freedom of speech, but lose this logic when a state or person flies an additional flag with the American flag. I’ve seen parades applauded throughout the Country that march down the streets with many different flags that mean many different things to many different people. The funny thing is that people believe that if they say their opinion enough times about what the flag means to them it somehow becomes a fact, regardless of the truth. In reality, who knows the truth about what happened 150 years ago; different teachers have seemed to have different facts all my life (except in Science and Math class). I was inspired to write this message, provoked even, by the recent fame some politicians have gained as heroes by applying this immoral logic.
My first problem was reading the news in the first place, but I do need to stay informed about what is going on. However, ascertaining any truth from what I read is very difficult because the news contains about 90% persuasion and 10% of what actually happened. But for some reason I was inspired to listen to the words of several “heroic” politicians who changed the tide in the debate about bringing down the Confederate flag in South Carolina. I really don’t care if they fly the flag or not, but I wanted to hear the powerful argument that was used to sway a group of people deeply rooted and set in their beliefs to finally bring down their beloved flag. I was expecting a humbling argument of ration, but was left empty when I read nothing more than opinions (that were deeply rooted in the opposite direction). I read about some people who were upset and crying because they think that the flag is a symbol of hate and the flag is the reason why black and white relations have not gotten any better than 75 or 100 years ago. I’m not going to pinpoint specific speeches or people because I don’t want any problems, but you can read the news for yourself and see if you find any arguments different than what I just stated as the “turning point” reasons why they finally decided to take the flag down. My first impression of the arguments I heard was: “more mindless people who say things that aren’t true are speaking again; although they have good hearts”. The arguments were based on opinions and feelings, not facts. I heard no logical connection made or no facts stated as to why the flag needed to come down. The fact is that different states joined the confederacy for different reasons but the main goal was to fight tyranny, invasion of your own land by your own government. Some might consider this more symbolic of America than what the North was doing, so I suppose it could be debated which flag actually represents America better. But once again, this is just lots of opinions and personal agendas that I’d be willing to bet are insignificant to the progress of our nation. The other fact is that the relations between white people and black people now are without a doubt better than what was taking place during the “Jim Crow era”. Has hate and racism ended? Hell no. Hate and racism thrive in every corner of this planet and if I knew how to get rid of it I would tell you. Do we need to continue to grow together into one nation of Americans? Hell yes, that is the purpose of this website. However, I do know that taking that flag down has not ended racism and has only led to more hatred.
Since they’ve taken down the Confederate flag in South Carolina I’ve seen more Confederate flags than I have in the past 20 years. I’ve seen more provoked bickering, fighting, and racial outbursts. I’ve seen more stereotype induced injustices too. Remember this story every time you think you know why an evil, unknown act has been committed: I walked into the boy’s bathroom when I was in Junior High and saw a black acquaintance of mine spray painting KKK on the wall. When I came in he was immediately startled but when he saw that it was only me he said, “Oh, it’s just you.” He then continued to write racists, hate statements on the wall simply because he wanted to stir up trouble. The lesson to learn here is that we can never be sure of what we hear reported on the news or why a horrible act was contrived, which is why every case is supposed to be brought before a court of law to be judged. Have we all forgotten, innocent until proven guilty? We all know black people have never experienced this phrase, but what we all refuse to acknowledge is neither have poor, rednecks.
So at first I was left with a feeling of emptiness to see our elected officials having an empty discussion; empty of truth, logic (if…then geometry 101 statements), awareness, etc. I was expecting cause and effect statements that directly defended some truth instead of arbitrary offenses and opinions. However, what mortified me the most was to see politicians responding as though taking the flag down was somehow driving us closer to being united. As though we are becoming closer to reaching the vision of America by regulating localities and silencing people we don’t like using incorrect facts, feelings of offense, supposed demands by the majority, and government perception of a philosophy being good or bad. There are good arguments about why the flag should be taken down related to governmental promotion of a philosophy, but none of these arguments were used. The only argument that made sense was associated with a financial loss that a town would suffer because outside investors would pull out if they decided to leave the flag flying, but this type of influence over what our government does is wrong. Profit should never be the determining factor over our freedoms and morals. Otherwise, we are travelling down that road that leads to selling our children just to turn a couple of dollars. Are we really becoming a nation of people who would promote killers and rapists as long as it returns the money flow? I became enraged because no one has a clue what the philosophy of America is anymore and they wildly applaud as we kill it. In addition, another example has been set where a certain group of people can be offended by something (whether it be a majority or not) and the government imposes their will on all of society. In a court of law, if I argued that somebody did something because they hated something, the judge would throw my argument out because I can’t prove that I know what someone else is feeling (especially if they lived 150 years before me). However, today it seems like it depends on which feeling you are accusing somebody of having, how much money is involved, and who you are accusing as to whether it will be counted or not. And the sad thing is that the money part of this equation has nothing to do with the government (excluding corruption that is common in all systems), but is fueled by each and everyone one of us threatening to not spend money if we don’t like you. If I’m buying biscuits, the only reason I should buy biscuits from somebody is if they taste damn good. It makes no sense to buy biscuits from somebody just because I like the person and what he/she says. As long as they haven’t broken the law and aren’t plotting to end my freedoms, I’m going to buy good, tasty biscuits.
[At this moment we could discuss the misuse of popular opinion to create laws and regulation that benefit certain groups with power and money and the failure of our judicial branch to hold our politicians accountable, but we’d be getting off track].
The main reason I’m so angry is that people don’t understand America’s philosophy, E Pluribus Unum, out of many, one. This means many voices are allowed to exist together. And what makes us one is that we agree to allow many voices. The idea of America is different ideas and opinions living peacefully together, not one idea or opinion becoming powerful in an attempt to gain systematic advantages from our corrupt government. The government is not supposed to be involved in developing agreeable regulations for the majority or minority; regulations should make sense for the betterment and ease of function for all. The message sent by South Carolina that is so openly applauded is that it’s ok to eliminate certain voices. I want to be very clear at this moment; I do not care whether they decided to take the flag down or not. I am not upset that they decided to remove the flag; I am upset by the reasoning they gave for removing the flag. It is another step towards one voice for all, fascism. The left is becoming the right; the only difference is that they have another version of conservative federalism. This blind hypocrisy is what angers me most about liberals; they violently argue to replace an injustice with their own form of the same injustice. Many dictators have already existed in the history of man, never has it ended with many people living peacefully together or prosperously. To hide the confederate flag will not change our history or solve our problems. An infected scab left untreated will not heal in nature. Likewise, an argument put to sleep in a marriage will eventually end the union. We should know this all too well in today’s society judging by the number of single mothers and divorced couples (or am I not allowed to discuss this because it’s offensive?) Hiding a problem will cause it to fester and implode but this has always been the luxury of the ruling class in America. Look at all the government programs that are nothing more than “Ponzi schemes” that end up becoming the burden for the working middle class (of all race and gender). In South Carolina, we see another example of how politicians always deal with black people in a similar manner to a “Ponzi scheme”. Take down something that has no direct bearing on anything that seems like a punishment to certain white people (who had nothing to do with slavery) to appease certain black people (handing out insignificant cookies), but the problematic system that continues to benefit the white ruling class prevails and grows unnoticed and untouched. This is called pretending to fix a problem to get some relief while the real problem gets bigger.
I’m not sure, but I believe I remember a pattern from history class in which all dictators and fascist regimes tried to eliminate history, so they could make it become what they wanted to fit their agenda.
It’s pretty easy for people who understand Math and Science to identify a bad idea because for these people facts do exist. However, because for the last 20 years or so people have to pass school whether they deserve it or not we have a lot of bad opinions regulating our laws in America. The most annoying part is that I have to listen to stupid people act like they have a valid point. The most horrifying part is that these invalid points are being used to create laws and regulations that influence my freedoms. I can only imagine that these are the ancestors of the same stupid people who punished the first free thinkers for insinuating that the Earth was round. America was supposed to be a place that promoted and rewarded free thinking, but thanks to an out of control government supported by people who gleam with pride over statements that have no solid justifications we have strayed so far from this novel, grand philosophy. The main thing I want to accomplish is to give you some checkpoints to know if you have a stupid idea. After all, that is the essence of this website. And feel free to use my own checkpoints on me in the future. A true, solid idea is the goal of this website.
If the justification of your idea or argument is arbitrary, then you have a stupid idea. A proof must be something that is unique to a well-defined situation and directly connected to it. I’ve already written about this type of philosophy in relation to people getting offended. Being offended does not prove anything simply because we can all be offended; we can all use this same argument for whatever we want whenever we want. There is nothing unique about being offended. It’s pretty straightforward and easy to identify when two people are using the same defense and recognizing this arbitrariness has ended quite a few dates for me. Not because I didn’t want to continue the discussion, but because my dates left because according to them, I just couldn’t understand how their being offended was different than mine. If I can use your argument/justification in the same manner, then you have a stupid idea. Often times you will hear people tell you that you’ve been influenced by your upbringing, which is why you can’t see the difference in their usage of the justification. This is a key phrase that lets you know they have no real proof of what they want you to accept. For we all know that they too have been influenced by their upbringing and experiences.
Second and last checkpoint for a bad idea is when an argument cannot be used without “exceptions”. It is really common these days for people to arbitrarily decide when a philosophy is important and when it’s not. If you can’t stand by your philosophy at all times, then a stupid idea is probably lurking somewhere. I suppose double standard would come into play here, but I hate using that word because people have such a hard time distinguishing it from natural, common characteristics freely chosen by people in a society. The main idea here is that if something is really important, then it should always be important; not just when you want it to be important so that you can get your way. A good idea is something that we should all be able to take part in all of the time, not just certain people at certain times. Basically, you will become a hypocrite of you think like this because at some point you are going to support an action that contradicts your core philosophy for taking action in the first place. These types of philosophical arguments lead to indirect relationships verse direct accountability through cause and effect.
For example, I’ve been listening to two idiots argue about whether George Bush or Barrack Obama created ISIS. When the fact is that the lunatics in the Middle East who have been using Islam and propaganda to brainwash people into thinking that there is a righteous God who wants them to sacrifice their lives to punish innocent people are the real creators of ISIS. Otherwise, you could just say the lunatics’ mothers created ISIS for not making their breakfast the way they like it so they got mad and started a hate group. With this mentality of displacement of blame, I would never be responsible for my actions. I could always find somebody else to blame for why I’m doing wrong. The scary part is that now in America there is some arbitrary idiot dressed in a robe who will somehow be allowed to decide which indirect variable (Obama, Bush, or a mother) is responsible.
On top of all this, I saw an idiotic analogy being praised in the media, “that blaming Obama for ISIS would be the same as blaming Obama for George Bush crashing a car just because Obama was the passenger”. First off, if the passenger grabbed the steering wheel then it could be true that he/she is to blame. Second off, the analogy makes no sense because Obama was not with George Bush when the crash happened. George Bush crashed the car and Obama is the guy we hired to clean up the mess. And yes, either one of them could be responsible for their part in the events that unfold after the crash. But the fact is that neither one of them created ISIS. Maybe it was Osama Bin Laden who had planes flown into the Twin Towers that set forth the actions that unfolded. Maybe it was the first George Bush that stirred the pot that led to the creation of ISIS. Or just maybe, it’s the fact that these people have been creating terror and have been at war with each other for thousands of years. However, none of this is important because the only fact is that ISIS exists and they are doing wrong. And fact number two is that blaming George Bush or Barrack Obama isn’t going to solve the problem.
[By the way, using an incorrect analogy to support your argument is only more justification for me to say that you have a stupid idea. Mind you, it’s not proof that your idea is stupid, but at least I have a justification for why I’m calling you stupid]
What I don’t understand is how the media can legally make up crap and stir up trouble based on assumptions and false information, while a citizen who tells the truth about someone or some entity or who offers his/her true feelings about someone or some entity could be sued for defamation.
Bad ideas lead to theories verses direct causes and effects. Interpretations of theories and statistics, much like laws that come from interpretations of religious beliefs, give us the following conundrums:
The College Football Playoff Selection Committee uses rubrics, statistics, and matrixes (theories) to determine who is the best football team and which team would win a football game. Then, two teams with the same record in the same division play and somehow the fact about the outcome of the game was ignored in favor of the original theories that were only supposed to be used to predict the outcome of the game. It would be the same thing as a Scientist ignoring the results of an experiment that disagree with his/her original theory. You definitely have a bad idea if you have to ignore a fact, and an even worse idea if you think a make-believe opinion should replace something that really happened. The only sad part is that Americans continue to sit by and let this crap happen. The only way to challenge the system without being termed “crazy” is to stand up for injustices against other people. If you wait until the injustice is directed to you, people will question your motives. This simple underlying theme of unity in the name of morals is what made America great. And regardless of whether you like it or not, it comes from the teachings of Jesus. I’m not here to tell you what to believe about Jesus, but I will tell you that his philosophies are what provoked the conception of this great Nation.
One thing to be careful of when analyzing an idea is that sometimes people try to hide a bad idea by just always sticking to it. They can avoid being called out for making exceptions to their own rules. But a bad idea will always stink up the place. Anything that is logistically impossible to achieve is a bad idea, even if it sounds nice. It would be impossible to never offend anyone, although I’ve heard people argue that you should never be allowed to do something if it offends just one person. First off, I don’t know how you would prove if somebody were really offended. Second, it is a false hope. Sure, it would be great if everyone could be happy all the time but that is impossible. If we lived by this law, none of us would ever be able to speak or look at each other for fear of causing an offense. And that is why it is a crappy idea.
Another example would be this new theory of “equity” that says the government should fix everyone’s problems. The idea of treating everyone equally has somehow been transformed into an idea that different people have different needs (not sure when this was decided, but I definitely see it happening). Although this philosophy sounds very appealing and euphoric, it is logistically impossible to satisfy all the different needs of people, once again a false hope. At some point, you will have to make “exceptions” and ignore certain differences. Hence, falling into the definition of a bad idea. False hopes should never replace facts and good logic when making decisions that affect other people.
There are many identifiers of bad ideas that accompany any poor philosophy that should be excluded from any form of government; regardless of whether you are communist, socialist, totalitarian, democracy, or a republic. Some things are just pure stupid and will never work regardless of your political philosophies. I’ve always said that some things just won’t function properly in any society because they make no sense at all. Here are some indicators of bad ideas for all societies:
Contradiction, acceptance of two wrongs making a right just because it makes some people feel good, hypocritical actions, effects that are the complete opposite of what was predicted, the statement: “it’s just different because” being applied, avoidance of discussing the philosophy, the philosophy lacks unique justifications that can only be used for its own support, changing the topic when an explanation is required, and yelling and getting angry without making a point (although sometimes the person who has made a point just can’t take the stupidity anymore so be careful with this one).
I must proclaim that a lot of what I just described fits the majority of all “liberal” ideas in America now. I wish Jeff Foxworthy would write a book called, You Might Be a Liberal…, What it comes down to is that bad ideas are just opinions that some people want to force on everyone else. What is the difference between an opinion and a fact? I believe the lack of understanding on this topic is part of the arguments that exist in the US. It would help us all to get a better grasp on this concept so that we can progress rather than digress. I suppose it stems from the devaluation of Science and Math I’ve talked about, and the fact that many people aren’t very good at understanding the facts in Science class. The combination of stupid people being given a diploma and unconstitutional decisions being made has encouraged many young graduates to believe their opinions are more valuable than facts. And don’t be fooled by your professors; just because you can identify and interpret a linear correlation doesn’t mean your explanation of why it exists is a fact.
I can always distinguish a bad opinion when it has one of the two main characteristics I’ve described above. A bad opinion may have only one or both of these identifiers. Regardless, all bad opinions have some arbitrariness to them.
There’s a couple of problems with what insurance has become in America and it has to do with the fact that it’s a bad business much like a “Ponzi scheme” or social security, and the fact that it has become something that it was never intended to be. But the true fault lies with the people who always vote for false hope and impossible security. People want something great without having to pay for it and I don’t care what system you live in, Communist, Socialist, Trade Union or Capitalist, that’s an impossible concept. Now that I think about it, you couldn’t even be a capitalistic system with this ideology because it is the exact opposite of the philosophy you supposedly live by.
Sure, insurance is great when you first get it. Everyone’s putting money into the pot and only a few people are using it. But do you really think you can continue to get a great service for $10 a month, when you can’t even buy a happy meal for that much money? In this life, you will always get what you pay for. And I don’t understand why people will blow their disposal income on liquor every weekend, but refuse to pay top dollar for health insurance. People act like it’s a sin for doctor’s to charge a good price for a service that could save lives, but are perfectly fine with the local pub charging 600% profit on tap beer. This mind set is what got us into trouble in the first place because it allowed insurance companies to form monopolies supported by the government. It turned insurance into something different. Oh yes, the people chose to have shitty health care in America and the government took advantage of it.
Insurance was a decent idea when it was only supposed to cover absurd, unusual emergencies that could require costly procedures. And I don’t consider flood damage in a flood zone an absurd, unusual emergency, so that should tell you right there that certain insurance policies are absurd in and of themselves. The idea was that people would still pay for normal health care costs or damages to their vehicles. The insurance was only meant to be support in the case of a life threatening, rare emergency or possibly if you totaled your vehicle. Companies like one sure insurance have a range of policies available for vehicle drivers to protect themselves in case anything was to happen. This is how insurance is supposed to work. In this way, a lot of people will be bringing money together but only a very few will actually need it. Every person I know in my life has insurance, except for a few people. Yet, I only know one person who has had heart surgery. Interestingly, that person was the one who didn’t have insurance. My point is that there would be enough money to help a few people overcome something uncommon that will probably have a higher cost than what most people can afford.
The idea was that the insurance was for emergencies. Insurance should have never become a third party provider for common health care. It is mathematically impossible for a third party, who doesn’t provide the actual service, to make a lot of money without driving the cost of the service up to an unrealistic value. It is a fact that a service cannot exist for less money with a third person involved that needs to make money. Why would you ever want to involve a third party that is going to profit but never actually do anything? This is the reason why insurance companies were never supposed to be involved with routine visits to your doctor. This is the reason why my father used to tell me that I had to pay for car insurance but that I should try not to use it. This idea sounded absurd to me, but what was missing in the explanation was that it was only supposed to be for emergency damages that the average person couldn’t pay for. It was an idea that got passed down from generation to generation, but the actual meaning got lost because the role of insurance companies slowly changed. However, the idea lingered even though people couldn’t necessarily pinpoint why. As soon as the insurance company has to start using the money it is collecting to pay for everyone’s damages, it becomes just like all those other “bad businesses” that can only exist because of position, power, and/or government interference. It works great at first, but there will come a time when more people are taking out of the pot than money going in.
When the insurance companies became the middleman, negotiating our fees with people who actually care about us and provide the service, the system was doomed. It’s easy to build up a group of followers by offering $10 copays for $100 a month insurance, but do you really think that the cost of a happy meal is going to get you a healthy steak dinner? It’s easy for me to see that this is a false promise, but many others have to wait until that $100 a month becomes $600 a month and the copays increase to $100 and the service becomes shittier before reality sets in. What is frustrating is that after reality sets in, some people still don’t understand why it set in. The insurance basically became a monopoly because they can tell a doctor what they will or won’t pay and I can’t. How will I ever be able to afford to do business with my doctor under this system? And we all already know how badly of an idea monopolies are to a free system. How would you like it if all the doctors got together and refused to see you for anything less than $1000 a visit?
I remember when it got to a point where you had to have car insurance, but you were never allowed to use it without penalty. At this point, I said that the government needed to do something about this injustice. However, I did not mean for the government to actually support and foster the growth of the monopoly. And we arrive at the most important concept of this webpage. At one time, our government would have broken up the monopoly because the people would have demanded it. Now, we have a required third party that must make a profit and the only service they provide is dictating the cost of a service they don’t provide. The third party provides no value what so ever, but makes most of the profit. And the government doesn’t care because they gain control and know the people aren’t serious about holding them accountable. I would love for the government to force people to help me make a profit without me offering any real service, or at best a shitty, unneeded service.
Any time a monopoly is created poor conditions will follow. The interesting thing is that the poor conditions always fall back on lower class, even if the lower class created the monopoly. To clarify, often times when “unions” exist the poor conditions still fall back on the people who were used to create the monopoly. This happens because the “union” is just another form of government with certain people in position of power. Yes, the power comes from the masses but the masses are not directly controlling the monopoly.
[To put it into perspective, a tyrant can only dictate because the masses allow it. Essentially, democracy is always in control, which is why it angers me when I here people talking about the greatness of democracy like wandering sheep all the time. It’s kind of like people who use the phrase “think outside the box” all the time. Whenever they can’t think of a good reason to support what they are saying they fall back to this one liner and all of the sheep just follow right along because we all know that thinking outside of the box is so great. When in reality there are many things smart and stupid outside of the box. America is a great nation because of the Republic formed by our Constitution that can only be held accountable through “democracy”. However, this is a completely different discussion and I don’t want to get off track.]
When rich people form monopolies because of their position they are controlling their own destiny. When masses form monopolies they are typically not in control of their own destiny. So I don’t really see a difference between a union and the original city. This is why trade unions don’t make sense to me and for hundreds of years created turmoil in Europe as the original ideas of self-government were being fostered. I was fortunate enough to never have to work in a union, but I lived around many people who were in unions. And all they ever did was complain about how the unions were cheating them. Yet, they willingly pledged allegiance to the unions so religiously. I don’t understand why people can’t see that unions are just another form of a government. People coming together to fight an injustice are America. People coming together to form another system that is eventually going to screw them because they hope the system will allow them to switch roles with the upper class is giving me a headache right now. The people in unions are making less money than the union. Without the formal existence of the union, that could be more money for the workers. The people paying for health care and the people providing the health care are making less money than the insurance companies.
The city or county is supposed to be our union. Yes, we should be allowed to come together and form our own groups and have our own discussions. But I don’t understand why those groups are allowed to become monopolies and force people to start doing things. Persuasion is one thing, but force is another. I suppose there is nothing wrong with everyone agreeing not to work for anything less than $10 an hour. I just think it should be at the city level. Why would anyone want to create another system to monitor and hold accountable, a separate union? For ten thousand years social systems have demonstrated that even though they are necessary, they function poorly and always become corrupt. So, I have no idea why anyone would want to make more than one of these systems. And I also have no idea why anyone would want to make any of those systems too powerful or too involved in their decisions. The only people who can benefit from the system are people with enough money to sway the judges and their courts and the politicians and their policies, the rich. Ironically, the poor masses continue to ask for more control by the system because of false hope on impossible promises.
[This would be a good lead into the Democratic way created during the social movement of the sixties and a how lawyers do their jobs; it is the judges and their unconstitutional and/or corrupt decisions that are the problem in America, but I will leave that for another day].
It seems to me that the people I’ve been listening to who work in unions not only get screwed by the city, but also by the union that they chose to join. I would rather have a doctor who is providing me the service screw me out of a little money, rather than some third party who goes golfing all the time and never really does anything. The only system that follows laws fairly without corruption is nature, God. I’m not here to tell you how to worship God or explain God, but there is a greater power. And this uncorrupt power is supposed to be the cornerstone of our Nation.
At the end of the day, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Nobody forced us into believing that we could maintain excellent health care for $10 a visit. If you want a nice car, you have to pay for it. If you want good health care, you have to pay for it. And it would be a lot cheaper if I didn’t have to pay for a third party to live a better lifestyle than me in order to get that healthcare.
Regardless of what CNN tells us, America is no different than any other society that existed, exists, or will exist on this earth. From the tribes of the Amazon to the Castles of England (the great European system of equity that we always hear about), groups of people have secured borders and created rules by force. And its no secret that most of those in charge have created rules that specifically benefit those who are already in charge. Although some places have done a better job of taking care of the masses than others during this process. What separates America from the rest is that the ruling class specifically created a system that limited their own power and held themselves accountable to hard work and good decisions. I might be the only person who understands why we should love our 1% who has taken the blame for what politicians with their masses have created.
America has always been a socialist Country that believed in Capitalism and the laws of nature. The original aristocrats had morals and Jesus to bring out the desire to improve social conditions for all making us socialistic. They also were trained scientists who were skeptical of organized religion and understood the beauty of the natural functioning of systems. I’ve never talked to the people who wrote the Constitution, so I don’t know if they were atheist. I’m sure some of them were, but I’m also sure that they were well read in many religions and philosophies. And it seems obvious from what is written in the Constitution and their personal memoirs that they highly regarded the purity found in the teachings of Jesus (regardless of whether they believed in the trinity). The combination of morals and logic produced the idea of America. Although I do not believe America was ever intended to be all out Capitalism, the intentions were to leave her to be as naturally of a functioning system as possible. At the root of this Capitalistic system was the goal of creating a place where anyone could succeed in the system regardless of the circumstances one could be born into. Characteristics inherited from God were out of man’s hands, but the rules created by the system could be designed to favor hard work and good decisions free of “parental influence”. In this instance I’m referring to influence that comes from status, not because you got a whipping because you did something wrong and “its just not fair.” I want to be very clear that I am not talking about the current idea that if little Johnny doesn’t feel loved as a child he can never be successful and the world needs to do something about. I’m referring to the fact that we are all born with different advantages provided by our parents. However, if the system focuses on hard work and good decisions although these advantages may make it easier for some, they certainly won’t be able to stop or interfere with those who work hard and make good decisions. Especially, if the power offered to those with the “right parents” by the system is limited.
[This distinction of our government only trying to avoid advantages of social status verses trying to play God and eliminate differences in inherited traits is the key downfall of our current system. But that is a discussion of its own.]
Antitrust laws and the idea of preventing monopolies is an example of rules that limit Capitalism in the name of socialism. Maintaining competitiveness in the system from top to bottom was the idea. Not allowing an advantage of circumstance that is created because we made rules and a few people are already in a position of power to benefit from those rules is believed to maintain a natural functioning of the competitive system that is trying to be achieved. In other words, regulations have to be made, let’s just make sure that the regulations avoid giving people already in position an advantage. This sounded like a good idea then (when the monopolies were being prevented) and it still sounds like a good idea now. But for some reason, everywhere I look, I see monopolies.
Ideas based off of envy and hate will never lead anyone to prosperity and happiness. And we as a working class need to be able to admit right from wrong. It’s obvious that corporations have been allowed to become monopolies. But I feel people are ignoring that same characteristic in unions and the monopolization of work. An idea that I will consistently oppose in everything that I write is contradiction, in this case evidenced by some people accepting two wrongs if the “right” person is being punished. A monopoly isn’t fair because it is using some advantage created by the system to exploit others in the same system. For a group of people to be allowed to control the value of labor, with the support of the courts, is the same thing as the courts giving a group of aristocrats control over the value of wages or price of a necessary product.
Operating a business requires a great amount of risk, time, management, stress, and energy. People who show up to do a simple task and feel they deserve the bulk of the profit are no different than aristocrats, kings, or queens who expect subjects to bear the bulk of responsibility to support their lavish lifestyles just because the system has given them control. This is not an attack on unions per say, this is an attack on unions with this mentality. The idea of being angry because people were born at the top of the system and wanting to reverse the roles is not something I want to join. It is replacing one evil with another and it is a monopoly. It has already been demonstrated that monopolies don’t benefit competitive systems. And just because somebody is born rich doesn’t mean he/she is evil or deserves punishment. We all deserve a competitive system and it is between you and God/Nature as to how hard you have to work to find your own happiness. I would rather eliminate the advantages of being born at the top by making it possible to be my own boss, the true reason why people used to flock to America and love America.
I suppose a lot of people wouldn’t be able to understand why I wouldn’t want somebody to get me an extra $10 an hour. I’m not against people coming together to resolve injustices. But we must be careful that we do not come together and create injustices. I also understand that an extra $10 an hour doesn’t mean anything if everybody gets it. One can travel around America to easily see that some people who make $15 an hour actually have more buying power in their community than someone somewhere else who makes $40 an hour. Understanding economics could probably help clarify many things to many different people which is why I wonder why its not taught in schools. Many of our costs are set simply by what people can and are willing to pay. The problem with getting me that extra $10 an hour is that it really doesn’t help in the long run and it only promotes inflation and the situations such as the roaring 20’s (and we all know how that ended). So nothing is being achieved and the trade off is forcing someone to pay me something I might not be worth (especially if the price of what we are producing becomes so high that nobody wants to buy it anymore).
People should definitely be able to come together to solve their own problems and make injustices known, that is the purpose of our local government. I just don’t believe that the extra $10 an hour is a true solution. And I certainly don’t think that people should be able to come together, with the support of the courts, to force people to do things. I want to be successful like everyone, but I want someone to pay me well using their own free will because they are satisfied with my work and appreciate it. People who say this can’t exist in America are people who aren’t willing to produce work that others will appreciate. Spend a few years of your life living in areas governed by unions verses areas free of unions and assess the quality of work and pay you observe before you cast stones. The bottom line is that I don’t want to create a monopoly to accomplish my quality pay. If the people at the top aren’t allowed to do it because it is wrong, why should I be allowed to do it? I would rather keep the business of monopolies out of our system and find a true solution. We shouldn’t have to search hard for these solutions because they have already been discovered and used throughout the history of America’s success. However, we are at a time when people are trying to hide these solutions for their own personal gains. None of my ideas are original; the true thinkers have already solved many of these problems for us. Unfortunately, politicians with their masses have undone many of those resolutions.
I see two major monopolies in America right now, corporations that have all the money and those who don’t want to work but want to live as nice as those who have all the money. The rich are the rich and we can’t touch that, so get over it. But what can be touched is the middle class and this is what has suffered to satisfy those at the bottom. Obamacare hasn’t affected one rich person in America, but I guarantee you it has drastically impacted the middle class that works. The Republicans have been supporting the development of the corporations (although I believe you will find many Democrats aiding in this aspect as well) and the Democrats have been supporting the development of those who don’t work. The ironic factor is that the majority of the people who represent “Republicans” and “Democrats” are more similar in ideology and what they want than what their respective political party leaders have been developing. However, it does no good for me to be the only person who recognizes this point.
This isn’t a message against unions; this is a message against monopolies (Besides, I thought my local government was my union). It’s also a message for the middle class to stick together and pay attention to what politicians are really doing. Politicians have turned the 1% and the middle class against each other in America. Although the 1% today is not like the rich, aristocrats of yesterday who gave us all the opportunities we are blessed with by creating a Constitution that took away their power, it is not all their fault for the divide that exists. The reason why many middle class workers have sided with Republicans is because they’ve been given two choices; give away your money so that you can have the same quality of life as someone who doesn’t work or keep some of your money and help solidify the rank of the upper class. I don’t call this free will or much of a choice. The problem is that gaining a cookie to keep some of your hard earned money out of the hands of those who don’t work isn’t enough to solve the problem. That cookie will probably cost you a baker’s dozen down the road in the long run. We need to stick to the ideas that are core to making a competitive system. Monopolies are bad because the system is actually fostering some exploitation. For this matter, any time the system helps bring one person down for the benefit of another, I’m against it. I want to be successful and happy, but I have morals. Forcing people to give up money to make my life better is stealing regardless of whether a judge approves of it or not. I wouldn’t want a judge to approve of a monopoly in the other direction, that is how I know it’s wrong. This is the key that makes the morals of a philosophy so important to avoid corruption. If the opposition can use the justification of a philosophy then it’s probably not a good philosophy. Most likely, the philosophy is just an opinion or desire that people want to force on others. In this situation, the side that wins depends only on whose in power. I believe many good politicians have summed it up by saying, “there will come a day when you will want the rules to be followed…”
I don’t believe in Kings and Queens; nor do I believe in gangs and robbers.
The truth about gay marriage is that in America you do have the right to marry whoever or whatever you want. You can have whatever type of religious ceremony you want and walk around holding hands with whoever or whatever you want and call the entity your husband or wife. People can accept you and be friendly or they cannot accept you and leave you alone. The only thing people who don’t accept you can do about it are go home and cry. But under no circumstances do I have to recognize your beliefs or applaud them. Even though I don’t believe gay marriage should be a discussion, I do believe I would be the first person to step in front of a gay man or woman if they were ever being threatened by anyone solely for this belief or practice. The reason why people argue in current “America” is because they are confused about the argument; and now they just argue. People don’t know what a “right” is and they don’t understand the purpose of law and our courts.
Regardless of your feelings, the fact is that a marriage license is no different than a food stamp, qualifying for a government loan or housing, affirmative action, or any other government subsidy or regulation. The reason people care, and the only reason, is because there are so many economic benefits and privileges that accompany that marriage certificate. The government does not issue marriage licenses for the purpose of promoting Christianity; although there are probably many that argue it should. In our country the government is specifically suppose to stay out of the business of promoting religions, ideas, or values. There is a reason for the existence of a marriage license, just like there is a reason for the government making it a law not to kill another person without a valid reason. The government is not promoting Christianity, or “thou shalt not kill” with the law; there is a reason behind the law. The government issues marriage licenses to promote the idea of a man taking responsibility for having sex with a woman and how he will treat her and any consequences that result. My entire life I’ve heard white males from the South be chastised for being bigots. Yet, all of their social customs that are reinforced by certain laws promote the welfare and wellbeing of women even at the cost of fair or equal treatment from the law. A person who receives food stamps is getting a bit of unequal treatment from the law, but we allow it because we are a Christian nation. We are many different groups of people who for hundreds of years have been trying to discern which laws from the Bible promote a healthy community while maintaining free will. We allow the government to establish criteria or qualifications to receive certain benefits for those who need it. In theory we do this to promote a better community that will benefit all in the end, but in reality it is probably because the spirit of Jesus lives in all of us. In America, I see people who really do want to help other people for nothing more than it is the right thing to do; regardless of whether it benefits the whole community in the end.
The real reason for a marriage license it to hold a man accountable for how he treats his female partner because there is a possibility that he could get her pregnant. That is why waiting until you were married to have sex was once a big deal in American households with daughters. There is no possibility of being a single mother if a woman waits to have sex until the man has taken an oath to be accountable for her. And a society of single mothers with hungry mouths to feed is believed to be bad for the whole community. I really don’t know if women still need this type of protection in today’s society with current laws. I do know there are many cultures around the world where single mothers with many children and no male support still exist. I suppose you could visit these cultures and see what you think. So avoiding illegitimate children who become the responsibility of the society is the real reason for making the union between a man and a woman the qualifications to receive marriage benefits. Two men or two women couldn’t accidentally have a child to burden all of society. So regardless of your ability to understand and distinguish differences in our world and biology class, there is a difference between two people of the same sex getting married and two people of the opposite sex getting married. A person’s inability to understand the Pythagorean theorem doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. So regardless of your opinion, there is a factual distinction between the two types of unions, homosexual and heterosexual (that is why they have a different name).
[I find it funny that liberals are always toting a big “Scientific Stick” as though they have some type of scientific fact on their side but they don’t even understand (or choose not to understand) Biology 101 when it disagrees with something they want].
Heterosexual marriage and gay marriage have a much clearer difference than one person receiving food stamps for making under a certain amount of money, while another person does not receive food stamps for making over that certain amount of money. The moral to my story is that there is no purpose for homosexual marriage other than making people happy and giving out more benefits. I’m sure it would make us all happy to also qualify for food stamps for no reason. It would all be much clearer to the mob if they had just called it qualifying to get a marriage stamp instead of a marriage license. A marriage license sounds too much like a driver’s license, when in reality it is something much different. However, one thing that is similar is that all people, including gay people, must meet certain requirements to obtain a driver’s license.
To insinuate that people have the right to get married has two faults. Obviously, you can get married whenever you want with who ever you want and the government won’t stop you. So you don’t even have an argument; you do have the right to get married. I just explained it above. There is no law that makes it illegal to be gay or have a gay ceremony. Police are not hunting down gay people and punishing them. Some people are just mad because they don’t qualify for the benefits and people don’t applaud/endorse their lifestyle. If you understand that the reason for the marriage license is not to support Christianity but because the government felt that it was needed to benefit the society, then this first point should be clear. You are creating an argument to end all government subsidies. For the judges to make the statement that two men are not getting equal treatment by the courts for their “marriage” agreement undermines the reason for making qualifications for any type of legal agreement supported by the government (whether it be subsidy programs, business regulations, or basically any distinctions that the government makes). In my mind, I believe that whatever business I create should get the same breaks as every other business but I guarantee you that’s not going to happen (and nobody cares). Every day of my life I’ve been doing the same thing as other people who get benefits that I don’t from America’s current system, welcome to the middle class. (Get over it)
As much as I hate distinguishing qualifications, I suppose they are necessary or we wouldn’t have any “poor” laws. And the clarification I am getting ready to make is at the root of all problems in America. Dumb people misinterpret good ideas because they are unable to identify differences from similarities. Distinguishing qualifications are not the same thing as treating people differently once the rules or qualifications have been set so that people who don’t achieve can achieve. What’s the point of everyone being a winner of nothing or something that doesn’t represent reality? Likewise, treating people differently so we can all be “successful” is something all together different (not to mention impossible). It’s like having a God who decides when the logic of the rules apply and when they don’t. Picking certain people to win the game, or making it so that it appears they win the game, just to make certain people happy at certain times is completely different from the idea of qualifying for food stamps. Food stamps were not created so that people could be as successful, or more successful, as everyone else. Where’s the morality in elevating some above others in the name of “fairness”? Well fare was never meant to be a career.
What are we going to do with the winner of a race who really wasn’t the fastest person? Are you ready to hire the first place runner, only so that you have to hire the person who really is the fastest to do the actual running for the “winner” you hired?
The second fault is that people are acting as if the government has some responsibility to support their religious ceremony or way of life. And constitutionally speaking, the government is specifically supposed to stay out of the business of promoting religions.
What bothers me most about this entire argument is that people are acting as if it’s evil when the government does not glorify their way of life. People actually think they have a right to get the government to force people to value their lifestyles and opinions. People keep saying, just let people live the way they want to live and make their own choices. Great! I agree! Yes, gay people can get married; they just don’t qualify for the benefits. But this doesn’t make them happy. They want the government and everyone else to promote and acknowledge gay marriage. And this is what makes me mad. I’m evil because I don’t promote gay marriage. Yet, there are some people who protest hunting and this is cool. There are vegetarians who promote their lifestyle and it is no big deal. I thought we all just wanted to be left alone, so why does everyone’s opinion and feelings have to be acknowledged by the government? There are people who promote taking away guns, and this is a clearly defined right, and there is no evil outcry by the media. Hell, there are places in America where the guns have already been taken away; I reiterate a specific constitutional right. There is no amendment that specifically says the government must support people’s marriages or force everyone to glorify their beliefs. In fact, our founding documents specifically say the government is supposed to stay out of people’s beliefs and lifestyles. People are saying gay marriage is a right but the only arguments I see are about making people feel good about how they live. People have created some notion that gay people have a right of acceptance and glorification. Yet, our documents specifically say that the government will stay out of these matters. It also specifically says that people have a right to defend themselves. However, people protest this and in some places have taken away this clearly defined right identified in our constitution. Let me break this phenomenon down for you: We’ve all made a specific agreement that we are not following and people ignore it. On the other hand, people want something and pretend like it’s a guaranteed law even though it’s not and people support it. You tell me who’s evil.
Nobody has to make gay people feel good, just like nobody has to make hunters, vegetarians, or meat-eaters feel good. Of all the evils that exist in our society, gay marriage should not be the governing factor because gay people can do whatever they want. I see no valid reason for gay marriage. I only see people seeking glory, wasting tax money to discuss opinions, and acting like being offended makes them a victim. I am concerned over the amount of emphasis this issue is receiving in the face of so many other crisis our country is experiencing. I see the media coverage of gay marriage as a distractor from our out of control, overbearing government that is getting ready to force another minority opinion on everyone. And no I won’t kiss your ass and act like I’m a bad person just because you’re upset that we disagree.
I personally have no problem with gay people because I have Jesus in my heart. And I know its not my place or anyone’s place to judge anybody. And because I’m American I don’t think my beliefs should be forced on anyone; in the same way that Jesus never wanted himself or his teachings to be forced on someone. I have no desire to keep gay people down. I honor gay relationships and will gladly work with gay people and support them. And to be honest, I really don’t care if gay people are allowed to get a marriage stamp or not. However, I strongly disagree with central courts dictating the beliefs my community will or will not recognize. The sad thing is that I don’t even know if heterosexual marriages were ever a good idea for the government to monitor in the first place.
The problem is that I truly don’t see where a gay relationship should be valued more than any of my relationships with friends of the same sex. I see no purpose in gay marriage other than to please certain people. The only unfair thing I can imagine is if your loved one ends up in the hospital and you are not allowed to visit. I don’t really know how hospitals identify family, but it seems like with the technology we have today it should be easy to figure out who qualifies as a visitor in emergency situations. I’m sure our government has over complicated this problem but I know that when I went to visit a family member in jail it was pretty easy for them to generate a preapproval list of visitors. And if this solution isn’t good enough for someone, then it all comes back to my original complaint: People just want glorification. People want the government to force everyone to acknowledge their way of life and be happy about it. No, it’s more than that; they want it systematically promoted for no reason. And that’s what pisses me off.
The sad thing is that it’s not the majority of gay people that I get this vibe from. It’s the media and liberals. I have had the honor and pleasure to come in contact with many gay people during my life and I feel that we have good relationships. Our relationships are so good that I’ve hashed this conversation out with a few of them and I still feel as though they value my friendship. When the “Phil Robertson event” of Duck Dynasty blew up in America I didn’t hear one gay friend mention it. Yet, I couldn’t have a conversation with any one else without talking about it. I see a common thread of liberals and the media. They always seem to be an unaffected third party who wants to drive a wedge between two people having a discussion or settling differences. Further, they try to divert attention away from the real discussion by focusing on vocabulary and whether it was proper and upsetting verses focusing on the message/meaning of what was said.
I believe the comedian Louis C.K. sums it up best,
“It doesn’t have any effect on your life. What do you care? People try to talk about it like it’s a social issue. Like when you see someone stand up on a talk show and say, “How am I supposed to explain to my child that two men are getting married? I dunno, it’s your shitty kid, you fucking tell them. Why is that anyone else’s problem? Two guys are in love but they can’t get married because you don’t want to talk to your ugly child for fucking five minutes?”
Liberals and the media are always so funny to me because they always make points that actually verify that their arguments are wrong but they don’t even understand it. Exactly, if it’s not a social issue, why is the government even talking about it? Why does gay marriage have to be put on the dinner table for every American if it’s a belief that doesn’t affect anything or anyone? We should be discussing things that matter and affect all of us. The only purpose of the federal and state governments are to make sure laws are not being made that restrict the freedoms of citizens. Yet, our current government does the exact opposite. It tells localities what they will and will not do. Central governments can only tell us whether we can make decisions about marriage licenses or not. They cannot tell us how to have a marriage license. Nor should a central government ever make beliefs legal or illegal. By leaving people alone, you are giving them the right to practice their beliefs. I find it interesting that judges and the media have found marriage to be a practice of beliefs making it a constitutional right but not prayer. Something that affects us all much less than gay marriage would be prayer. And some how praying has been made illegal, but marriage practices must be made legal.
I personally don’t think schools have time to acknowledge all the possible scenarios of prayer to keep everyone satisfied. Thus, schools should only focus on educating people with facts. However, I also don’t think it’s necessary for the government to send feds down South to rough up a bunch of communities and children to keep them from praying for a minute to start the day off if it’s something they choose to do. It blows my mind to think that praying in school could be either legal or illegal. In this situation, honoring one view creates the exact same offense in the other view. The question should never be whether something is legal; therefore, it must be done. Legal is supposed to mean you can do it if you want or not. Now, it seems like legal means we all have to do or think the same thing. The only question that should ever be asked is do we need to make something illegal because it directly causes an effect on someone not making the decision. If we don’t need to make something illegal, then leave people alone and let them choose to do what they want. Your happiness should not depend on my acceptance or forced behavior; it is something you are free to pursue but are not guaranteed.
[And don’t be confused about cause and effect when I referred to making something illegal: me not bringing you water is the same as you not bringing me water. If I don’t bring you water, it has no affect on your circumstances created by nature. However, if you send people to take my water and give it to you, you are affecting my natural circumstances.]
The way to exercise our rights is by NOT having laws on things that are beliefs that don’t affect anyone. A community that has a higher institution of learning that chooses to say a prayer should be left alone. If a person doesn’t like this, then they can go through the local government to change it or move. Otherwise, there is no local government or there is nowhere to move. A common theme that will appear in most of my articles is the contradiction in what the government enforces on the citizens verses what they systematically promote. This is related to the fact that the government has a habit of thinking two wrongs make a right. Also, the government being involved in decisions they are specifically not supposed to be making. And the whole time they use Science as a weapon to trump free will and promote selected beliefs in selected situations. As though some psychologist can prove us all guilty with a multiple-choice questionnaire regardless of any crime having ever been committed. As though there is some statistic that proves who has to follow the rules and who doesn’t.
My real intention for writing this particular article is that I see far greater issues in this Country that deserve more attention because they could affect all of us much more seriously. The government also needs to be limited in the decisions it makes for localities or we will lose the idea of “governed by the people for the people”. People just don’t understand what they are arguing about because they really don’t know our founding documents and don’t care; they just want things to make them happy. People don’t understand the purpose of laws, judges, or rights. The minority does not have to be promoted, nor should it ever be allowed to become the tyranny. The real question should be whether the government is involved in marriages or not. If there is something unfair about heterosexual marriage licenses then they should not be given at all. Should we give food stamps to certain people who qualify or not? Is it something we should even be deciding for localities or individuals? You would never consider just giving everyone food stamps; that would be called communism.
The next thing you know, vet bills will be covered under “obamacare”. The day that happens will also be the day you won’t be able to afford a good vet.
Of course people don’t understand why they have to learn the Pythagorean theorem, they don’t understand Math and logic. If you don’t understand the Pythagorean theorem, then you won’t understand why you need to learn it. People don’t understand that facts exist that trump opinions and being offended. They think everything is a grey area, when in reality they just don’t understand the fine line. And the truth is that there are not that many people good at Math and Science.
You learn Math to understand that logic and truth exist. I always think its funny when I see educators arguing about how to teach critical thinking because they don’t realize that Math and Science are critical thinking. When you teach Math or Science, you are teaching critical thinking. How do you teach somebody to hit a baseball? You show them how you do it and let them practice. When you teach somebody Math you show him or her how you do it and then let him or her practice. Learning Math allows you to develop critical thinking because you are practicing critical thinking. The Math has a true answer and I can show somebody how I arrive at the answer. It is up to the person to process the logic and arrive at the same answer. I can demonstrate how to think or hit a baseball, but only the individual can make himself or herself better at it. And just like some people hit a baseball very well even though they do it a little different than me, Einstein thought critically well in his own way. The scientific method is the process of critical thinking. The process can have variations but the overall task of proving a fact has restrictions created by nature/God. You can arrive at the conclusion in your own manner, but one thing is for sure. In order for your conclusion to be correct, it has to be an undisputable statement.
Due to the devaluation of Math and Science, obtaining a college degree doesn’t mean that much anymore. And when I say devalue, I am talking about the level of understanding that is required to pass the subjects. Because God knows there is plenty of emphasis and time put into education these days, just not quality accountability. In an attempt to make it seem like more people are passing classes and our educational system is getting better through the idiotic policies that have been implemented over the past 50 years, assessment of Math and Science knowledge has been watered down. Equity has been misinterpreted to mean lets create an assessment system that hides how many students really don’t understand. The promotion of students who don’t really achieve understanding has been something socialists always excel at pushing in society. And the lack of understanding about logical truths by people who have been promoted to positions of power only fosters the continued misinterpretations that lead to poor decisions and systematic actions.
I find it ironic that most major societal entities, educations systems, government agencies, etc., are moving to data driven decisions when over the past 50 years people who don’t understand Math and Science have been arbitrarily pushed to the top. I’ve had 4 different professional bosses who have openly admitted that they never understood Math or Science in school. So my question is how will they ever be able to process incoming observations and data to make decisions about how problems need to be solved? If you don’t understand Math and Science, you have no business being a supervisor. In the same way as if you are the slowest person on the team, you have no business being the running back. One hundred years ago, a person who couldn’t do Math would have never been promoted to supervisor. If a person can’t even accurately describe a relationship on a linear correlation graph, how could they ever supply accurate reasons for the existence of those relationships? But socialists know this and know that they will never have a chance if they don’t create a meaningless diploma. If everyone can pass math class, then whom will we promote? At this point it becomes arbitrary. It’s how communism and socialism work. The masses of people force others to provide them with security and comfort that hasn’t been earned. If everybody has a meaningless diploma, then government quotas can be systematically filled. A small population of people who are capable will then be responsible for doing the work of all the incapable people who probably make more money. Liberals love an unaccountable system that can be manipulated in their favor with no “proof of purchase”.
An added bonus is that this system actually benefits the rich. If everyone’s diploma is meaningless, then there is no argument for a rich, white man to not give his son the job. Liberal policy always has results that contradict their purpose. Liberals talk about it not being fair that rich kids get the jobs, so they create a system that allows rich people to make arbitrary selections. I firmly believe that the original Americans created public schools to create a competitive chance for those born without hope. School was a competition just like professional sports. In fact, it was a much easier way for someone from the hood or trailer park to make it to the top. The number of people who could be benefited by a “real” diploma is far greater than those who can play professional sports. Now, schools specifically attack competition as a bad thing, an idea that is not consistent with our Constitution.
I find it funny that people are always referring to China and India and the greatness of their educational system (kind of makes you wonder just how important education is when you analyze the quality of life in both of those Countries compared to the US; or wonder about the truth in the statistics). China and India are glorified because of their students’ test scores. Yet, nobody identifies that the Chinese educational system resembles what used to be the norm in the American educational system before the Social Movement of the 60’s. Teachers are well respected, students are held accountable, students are expected to listen and work, and competitive classroom achievement is the norm. Ironically, the same people in America praising China blame Capitalism (competition) and the old way of doing things in America for the failing system. How can people who insist God doesn’t exist because of their precious evolution theory insist that Capitalism isn’t a fact of life? It’s been fifty years or more since we’ve done things the old way, so you can’t keep blaming it. But this is a typical Liberal scenario. They attack a system they don’t like and change it. Then the new way makes the system become crappy and they somehow redirect blame to the original way as proof that we need to go deeper and further into the new way that doesn’t work.
I love the fact that we care about education and we are trying to make it more organized. However, don’t let a bunch of gloss ever cover up chicken shit. Just remember that fantastic nationwide standards have no effect without quality accountability. And fantastic nationwide standards do not change the concepts in Algebra or Chemistry class that were taught 100 years ago.
The word interpretation has become to mean something different in society, as the meaning of words often do change over time. Only in a world of people who don’t understand Math and Science could interpretation signify that laws can mean whatever people want them to mean. We’ve had laws that have existed for hundreds of years that all of a sudden don’t mean the same thing, “interpreted” differently. This is a dangerous practice for society because you could end up with another “Jim Crow” asshole “interpreting” things. The meaning of interpretation is quite simple. When you are baking a cake or performing a science experiment, you must interpret the directions (understand) properly or your cake will taste like shit or your lab will blow up in your face. A person cannot make up his/her own directions and still be making the same cake. If we agree that we are a nation that makes chocolate cake and your interpretation makes upside down pineapple vegetables, you just might deserve to be hung for treason; especially if you are an elected official who has sworn an oath. This idea is something that people who understand Math and Science know. Directions are not interpreted for your own personal outcomes. The goal is to understand the directions, not to promote your opinions or make yourself happy. When your laws turn into something other than what is clearly written as expected results then a serious problem exists.
A good start would be for people to understand that just because one judge makes a decision it does not mean that all judges have to agree. In fact, the way Science works all judges would have to agree before something became a law. Men of Science and logic wrote our founding documents. The grey areas were eliminated. And if you don’t understand Math and Science, you have no business interpreting those laws. I went to school with a lot of people who opted to study law instead of medicine because they weren’t too good at Math and Science. This scares me because I wonder if any of those people became judges. I don’t consider myself to be that enlightened but I can use the Pythagorean theorem in several different setting and situations. My fear is that people less enlightened than me are making our decisions now.
Common sense among Americans used to be logical because our leaders (decision makers) were enlightened, logical thinkers that showed us how to make sense of common problems. Now our leaders don’t earn their positions and don’t understand Math and Science. Look around you and tell me what the common sense among Americans has become. The more “enlightened” our society proclaims to be the more it appears to me that we are regressing to ideas that existed before the enlightenment age.
No, you don’t have to learn the Pythagorean theorem. But if you don’t or can’t learn it you have no business expecting our society to promote you. If it is such an unnecessary thing, then go start your own business and show us how it’s done. The purpose of school is not to make each individual happy. It is to conserve knowledge and create some common understanding so that we can function together as a society. You learn Math to see how well you can process logic that has already been discovered. You are creating truths in your mind to see if you can apply them to solving problems that have already been solved. If a person is not good at this, he or she probably won’t be good at solving problems for which he or she has no knowledge either. I’m not saying its impossible, but I don’t see why they would deserve a chance to be a supervisor over someone else who is good at this task. I don’t won’t to stand in anybody’s way of proving themselves worthy, but at this point it should be on their own shoulders if they don’t like learning the Pythagorean theorem and don’t think its important.
If we don’t learn truths in school and study concepts in depth, how will we ever know what to “google” on our smart phones? If we don’t know anything, we won’t know what to “google” or how to make sense of anything we do find on the Internet. It is impossible to solve problems or look up answers if we don’t understand anything. And the more complete understanding of concepts a person has the better they will be able to do both of those tasks. If we reduce learning to what individual students are interested in, then none of us will have a background to solve problems that arise that do not interest us. Also, a concept is not typically understood fully if only one problem is solved with one part of the concept. We learn Math to build a basis of truths and problem solving skills. You don’t learn the Pythagorean theorem because you will find the missing side to a triangle one day, although carpenters apply this skill often. You learn the Pythagorean theorem so that one day you can create your own theorem to solve your own problems. You learn so that you can understand logic and progress us beyond the Pythagorean theorem. We all use different skills and theories that we learned at some point in our lifetime at school. It’s always the liberals who think every concept and every lesson must have an immediate benefit for them when that was never the purpose. These people typically put the least amount of effort into the system but expect the most from it.
“We do not learn the Pythagorean theorem because it is easy, we learn the Pythagorean theorem because it is hard…” (guess who)
The original Americans had also wanted school to be a way up for those at the bottom. HOPE, the key to America’s success.
The Father of Modern Genetics, Gregor Mendel, Received Praise for His GMO Work
It’s been several months since I’ve written anything because there has been so little interest in what we are trying to establish here at ConstitionalSense. Everyone seems to agree and complains about what the government is doing, but in the end never take the time to get involved.
And I’m certainly not going to take the time to determine the risk factors of all GMO’s. I’m not here to tell you whether GMO’s are good or bad for you. I simply want to point out the ridiculousness of what the media perpetuates and what people seem to be willing to blindly follow. Mendel’s pea pods were the first GMO’s documented. But in reality, any time in the past that humans have cultivated plants in a garden they have been modifying the natural selection process. Mendel is just the first to document his work for the specific purpose of modifying inherited genes. Interestingly, many modern sciences that have advanced the field of medicine and improved human healthcare credit Mendel for their ability to progress. When I think about the use of the term “natural selection” I find it interesting that people view animals’ and pathogens’ effects on plants as natural, but humans’ effects on plants as unnatural. I thought we were animals too. What do you mean by natural? I’ve seen a group of fox naturally eat all of the rabbits until there were no more rabbits to eat and their own population began to starve to death. I’m sure the genes of the faster rabbits were promoted, but I’m not sure that this created any more chance of some mutant gene that would release a pathogen or create a super rabbit to kill all of the foxes. Nature can do that on its own without the effect of the foxes.
People are confused about what GMO represents because people get all of their information from the media and the understanding of Science has been devalued by our educational system. People haven’t been taught to be as smart as what used to be a “natural” necessity. When America was free, you had to be intelligent to make your way. So, the truth is that the majority of people probably have no idea what GMO means or anything about genetics. Genes are naturally created by the organism. The genes that are being selected for plants are genes that already exist in the plant or in nature. There is no lab creating mutated genes with special properties releasing them into the environment, or at least not to public knowledge (or my knowledge). God already does that every day in this world. The mutation of genes and their promotion because of superior characteristics are why Evolutionists exist who try to discredit God in the first place. Although, I acknowledge the fact that we are affecting this process, but we are a living part of this system. It is impossible for a part of a system not to have an effect on what has already been set into motion. As a result, the life expectancy of humans has increased greatly because of human manipulation. However, I am glad that people are concerned because human manipulation has also had many negative effects. But to insinuate that eating a natural gene from a natural food source is scarier than drinking a synthesized coke product or poisonous berry (which is natural by the way) doesn’t make sense.
People are always talking about the government trying to kill us with the food source and how horrible our food products are these days, yet we live much longer than our great grandparents who ate “healthy, natural foods” (not by choice but because that’s all there was). The theory doesn’t seem to go along with what we are experiencing, but I’m not about to address whether or not you should eat a Twinkie. [Here is a moment to explain a huge problem in society today. I don’t need a statistic, the government, or the media to tell me that the life expectancy of people is longer today than 100 to 200 years ago. I can look around me, make my own observations, and collect my own information to make that understanding. And the fact that you know one old man who lived to be 100 during the Civil War means absolutely nothing to the factual observation I made that our life expectancy is much longer now. However, that is another discussion.]
But the fact that people willingly and happily suck down synthetic medicines and pour synthetic chemicals all over and around their children on a daily basis is this discussion. Remember, I’m not here to defend GMO’s or tell you how to eat. I’m only here to point out the ridiculousness of the arbitrary concerns from the media and society. You question the eating of a natural gene that was selected for because of its desirable qualities but you’ll give your child a synthetic compound that is labeled with warnings about harmful side effects worse than the condition it treats just because your doctor prescribes it. The truth is that I don’t know if there are harmful side effects from eating GMO’s but I would like to know what it is that the GMO is producing that is not natural. Is it something you saw on CNN? GMOs contain genes that produce natural compounds. Whatever is inserted is still a natural gene that produces “Organic” products if it is being translated by the plant’s biological system. However, in most GMOs I don’t even know that they are inserting anything; they could just be using technology to select for genes (in which case there is nothing unnatural).
The other thing to think about is that when you eat a piece of rubber (something unnatural), our digestive system pushes it through. All substances are composed of just a few types of elements/compounds that will eventually be broken down either by our digestive system or nature. It is the arrangement of these elements and compounds that create different substances. Unless the GMO is being broken down into something that poisons our body, it can do no harm. But let me remind you that there are many natural plants that can be broken down into poisons that harm our bodies. This fear is something we should be concerned about whether our food is GMO or not. And I don’t see how GMO’s have presented a greater chance of this happening since they are natural genes from natural food sources. A pill on the other hand, is composed of synthetic compounds created in a lab. The compounds entering your body are typically not found in that arrangement anywhere else in nature. Further, most of these pills have already been documented to cause certain harmful side effects. So instead of fearing these pills, society has chosen to take out a vendetta on GMOs that have no known side effects. To reiterate, unless something is being inserted into the DNA to accompany the desired genes there is nothing unnatural about the GMO. If something extra were inserted, it would still be a gene created by nature. The only thing I can think is that when a gene is inserted possibly something unnatural was used to insert the DNA. But the truth is that most of our DNA is junk DNA anyways. So even if something unwanted were inserted it would probably not be translated and have no effect.
If GMOs were producing a toxin that had a harmful effect, it seems to me that with today’s technology it would be pretty easy to detect. In the same way as the next coca cola product, bacteria (and I remind you that there are numerous types of bacteria that our bodies require to be healthy), or pill that you are prescribed could be tested for toxins or harmful side effects before it is approved by the FDA. I don’t understand why people are acting as if there is something more to fear from GMOs in this aspect. Especially since some GMOs contain the same genes that are naturally found in the non GMO food source that has been eaten for thousands of years. I am in no way discrediting the concern that should exist if the GMO does contain something extra. I just don’t see where this information is being reported. People say GMO and assume something foreign is there. If something is in the GMO, surely its toxicity can be monitored in the same way as the toxicity of synthetic drugs and synthetic foods and beverages. For that matter, in the same way “Organic” peanuts were found to cause lethal allergic reactions in many humans. People seem to have forgotten that organic foods can be just as deadly (or deadlier) than anything synthetic that passes our digestive systems. If a peanut gene or anything ends up in the GMO you are eating, it needs to be monitored. But no differently than anything you eat needs to be monitored for allergens and toxins. I don’t have data, but I’d be willing to bet the toxicity from water pollution far outweighs the toxicity from anything in a GMO. And if you start talking about pesticides, the GMO doesn’t produce the pesticides so you are misplacing blame; a common practice these days in America.
As far as GMOs mutating into some monster (the other complaint I’ve seen in the media), I suppose it’s possible. I don’t feel like I’m knowledgeable enough about the process to predict the seriousness of this possibility. Different plant genes are being forcefully mixed. We are manipulating the natural process, but I suppose a monster could be created naturally regardless of what we do. Throughout evolution similar plant species have cross pollinated to produce new species without human interference. It seems to me that there are so many variables involved that predicting the future is impossible. I do know that science has been manipulating things for hundreds of years for the benefit of humans and the only monsters created were done so by evil people purposely. People applaud vaccinations and medicines that save them but for some reason want to hang this same process when it feeds them. People have been asking Science to intervene and manipulate the natural process to save them and improve conditions for so long and now all of a sudden have this objection. In reality, I don’t need statistics, a lab report, or CNN to tell me that I’m better off putting something in my mouth that I grew in my backyard verses some product centrally produced far away and distributed by some distant system that doesn’t know or care about my problems. Ironically, this theory of centralization and command is something that liberals normally applaud. The truth of the matter is that if people really cared about GMOs or what they put in their mouths it wouldn’t even be a discussion. Because they wouldn’t buy fast food and they would buy from their local farmers’ market. What they really want is for someone else to force someone to grow them fresh produce for the price of fast food (tax deductible for them and theirs of course).
Is curing humans of Polio any different from curing cotton of some pathogen? There are two concerns by the public: the GMO is dangerous to our bodies and a disastrous rogue plant species could be released into the environment. The majority of my discussion was regarding the first concern. The second concern has always been an ethics argument in Science. Altering the effects of natural disease, cross breeding species, and promoting the inheritance of certain genes can have unpredicted results. I just don’t understand why all of a sudden its taboo for only certain parts of science. It has always been a possibility that plant breeding could produce undesirable traits and for some reason it matters more now. I don’t discredit that messing with DNA should be a major concern. The Science does need to be held accountable. Yet, it must be noted that it is possible that some GMOs are perfectly safe and others aren’t.
The fact that the media without statistics or proof, without anything other than European disapproval, can convince you of the idea that GMO’s are more unhealthy or dangerous for your body than medications, fast food, or coke is interesting (something to think about). I don’t want you to accept GMOs blindly, but I also don’t want you to condemn them blindly; a common fallacy in current US (thanks to Facebook). I don’t think that you will ever find a situation in which the far right or the far left are actually correct. Normally, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. A picture on CNN, a statement (an opinion) you heard on FOX, the conclusions of an experiment that has procedure and calculation sections that you did not read, or something somebody told you that they read on the internet don’t prove anything. It was not my intention to give GMOs a clean bill of health. I simply wanted to point out how ignorant and contradictive the information and ideas are that the “politically correct” police and their liberal army are pumping into our society and schools. In many instances, their ideas are arbitrary and strictly apply to what they want and only when they want it.
There are no buttons on Facebook that say GUILTY or NOT GUILTY; nor should there ever be.
First off, my great, great grandmother was full-blooded Native American. So I am offended that you would be offended by the word Redskin. To be offended by a word insinuates that there is something bad and no good about the meaning of the word. Myself, I am proud to know that a part of me comes from people so cunning, natural, and passionate. So I don’t understand when you say you are offended, but you are entitled to your own beliefs. However, I am also entitled to my beliefs. How can a judge ever decide for me what is or isn’t offensive? To begin with, it can never be proven if I am really offended about you being offended. Our thoughts cannot be predicted, observed, or proven and have no place in the courtroom, something original Americans understood. If I can use the same argument in court that you are using, then convicting me guilty would be the proof that sets me free.
If you are offended, then you are the one that has the problem and needs to seek help. The words “Washington Redskins” mean Indians from Washington and nothing else. For a person to say they are offended means that something inside of them is processing the phrase in a negative way. So, going around and suing other people and trying to change the way others think will never fix the problem. The direct cause is the mind of the offended person, and that person is responsible for how he/she feels. The only person who can change how he/she feels is the person. So, when you look to point the finger at Daniel Snyder or some other entity you are by passing the direct cause (the problem). Once you skip the direct cause of something, you can find reasons to blame anything or anyone you want. Americans are supposed to be protected from this type of “moral superiority”.
Being offended is not the same thing as being harassed or threatened although certain people, with the support of the courts, are trying to make you think they are the same thing. As soon as being offended can be used as an argument, then certain people and certain courts are going to be able to do whatever they want. Any debate that has the same argument being used by both sides does not have a true winner. So, how can a judge pick a winner? It is absurd to act as though a judge can decide what words people are allowed to get upset over. This is exactly what “Freedom of speech” is trying to avoid. If expression can arbitrarily be monitored, then certain people can promote certain ideas while other ideas are eliminated. How absurd would any society be if the people who don’t like something always get their way? Getting upset is the reason debates are initiated in the first place. If getting upset makes you the winner, then both sides have already won; a scenario that makes no sense at all. But politicians like this scenario because then they get to pick the winner without having to provide any real reason for their choice.
But let us just skip all of this logical reasoning about our Bill of Rights for a moment and look at the stupidity of the argument. In the history of mankind, has a sports team ever wanted to call themselves a name that they were ashamed of and embarrassed to be called? No, athletes and coaches are extremely proud and competitive. Sports teams and fans honor their home field and their name. In fact, most people pick a mascot that they feel to be superior to all others. What reason does anyone have to suggest that Indians are being joked by the football team in Washington? It all boils down to the fact that you don’t have to like the Redskins, but I can. And you are not supposed to be able to force me to not like them or to not be able to cheer for a team called the Redskins. These kinds of arguments must be kept out of the courtroom. In most instances, it’s not even Native Americans who are complaining. In fact, the only thing that would seem reasonable would be me punching you in the nose for acting like being called a Redskin is something dirty and offensive; no, I’m just joking with you now!!!(Kind of). I’ve tried to keep this first post short and to the point. I will be able to gauge just how much we are all on the same page by the questions you ask about certain points I’ve tried to make. If we can’t all get on board with this initial idea, I probably won’t be writing for very long anyways.