"I don't think another Howard Cosell will ever be allowed in the industry, because they don't want the truth. I mean, the public really doesn't give a damn about the truth." -Howard Cosell
As much as I want to see this world as it ought to be, what I want is what it will never be. No matter what I do in life, if there is one thing I want it's the truth. But we live in a world that doesn't want it at all. We just witnessed one of the greatest financial collapses in this country as a result of the housing market and I can tell you one obvious fact in respect to this as well as virtually every other issue: every one has someone to blame and virtually no one has any idea how it really happened.
This world thrives on scapegoats or just blaming someone, especially not themselves, and usually it's one person or a group of people, but one person is preferable. Case in point, every one blames Hitler for the murder of millions of Jews, but do you forget that it took millions of Nazis to carry out that extermination? If we continue to simply place all blame on who we choose to be the "most blameworthy," then we will ignore all those who also participated in the wrongdoing. Responsibility is what we must enforce, accountability for all actions of an individual.
For some reason, though we have known for quite some time about the housing bubble and many of the problems that contributed to our current situation, people don't actually care about something until it happens and when it does they create some fictional world to help cope. I hear all the time people saying the phrase "you need to get a real life" to people, or we "live in a real world," but I submit to you that the world they speak of isn't real at all, it's the ignorant bliss we have created. A world where stronger voices make right, where responsibility does not exist in most situations, where victims who have no voice are trodden under foot of men and those who complain usually get what they want.
To support this fictional world is how when anyone dies, it's always the good things people remember, because bad things are only remembered in a world that holds people responsible for who they are and what they did.
What am I saying?
This is the top-down society we have created, we have choosen, and that we refuse to change. The only people blamed are those at the top, which is incidentally choosen through politics and not truth, leading everyone into a realm of comfortability through which sleep can be attained in the constant daily reminder that we have someone to blame.
Sure, a bottom-up society of responsibility on all people is much harder to achieve, but it yields a populace of people who are better than those in a top-down system.
I'm not sure how to finish this but this world is headed for a disaster, any logical level-headed person can see it, how dire it is I don't know, only time will tell, but know this:
We do not hold people resonsible for their mistakes.
Our education is failing to teach basic math skills to even the teachers who teach our children(gee maybe that's why we're failing)
A society built on a system of extrinsic rewards only, yields a more selfish inconsiderate culture.
A political system that time after time does not fix problems and only applies band aids or temporary fixes will eventually lead to total and complete collapse.
We all have a hope that someday we will fix these problems, but in the words of CCR "Someday never comes."
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
'Teenagers Being Teenagers' is NOT Normal
It really isn't, folks. A 16 year old is supposed to resemble an inexperienced but real adult, not an overgrown child with unrestrained urges.
Anyway, this isn't directly related to Libertarianism or freedom issues, but I have access to the blog so I'm going to share my opinion. :) This is something I think I had an apostrophe about (Ed. Note: Epiphany. I assume.) and wanted to submit for consideration here.
The sneering, haughty, contemptuous attitude of teenagers/young adults--I speak primarily of boys, but it often applies to girls also--is the direct result of organized, age-segregated schools. Among any gathering of adults of various ages where the few late teens are the youngest in the room, they will starkly stand out, because their attitude is easily markable as silly and juvenile. They're idiots, knowing nothing, yet each sincerely believes he is the wisest person in the room.
How does this happen? It's the inevitable product of the school culture. Yes, schools have their own culture, where the teachers are outside oppressors, and the ruling class, the people at the top of the social pyramid, are the high school juniors and seniors, the oldest/biggest kids. A 17 year old regards himself as the pinnacle of human development because in his world, he IS.
This should be no surprise. From age 5 forward a child's primary culture is the school culture, with all of its own cultural nuances. Every child spends the vast majority of his time surrounded by other children, primarly those of the same age, and rarely are adults around at all except to swoop down and try to impose undesired and cumbersome rules.
Consider: Within the standard family unit, a child's ruling class, life guides and role models are adults--primarily parents, who not only instruct them and rule over them but also live with them, and by that I mean perform the daily activities of life day by day with them*, and also parents' adult friends and acquaintances. All but the firstborn have older siblings in a similar role.
* This is something we've lost in modern excessively-busy society and sorely miss.
But within the school culture, a child doesn't participate in the daily activities of life alongside ANYONE older than himself! For a child growing up in a family, the ancillary people generally surrounding him are predominantly adults, with only younger siblings and their friends being younger than himself.
But for a teenager, in the school culture, his world is predominantly populated by younger children--so he's already mature by those standards (and he grew up believing that teenagers were the most mature people in the world). How is one supposed to learn to be an adult in that setting?
Therefore it's easy to understand why homeschooled teenagers tend to behave like inexperienced but recognizable adults, whereas school-cultured teenagers tend to behave like children with adult desires and passions.
Anyway, this isn't directly related to Libertarianism or freedom issues, but I have access to the blog so I'm going to share my opinion. :) This is something I think I had an apostrophe about (Ed. Note: Epiphany. I assume.) and wanted to submit for consideration here.
The sneering, haughty, contemptuous attitude of teenagers/young adults--I speak primarily of boys, but it often applies to girls also--is the direct result of organized, age-segregated schools. Among any gathering of adults of various ages where the few late teens are the youngest in the room, they will starkly stand out, because their attitude is easily markable as silly and juvenile. They're idiots, knowing nothing, yet each sincerely believes he is the wisest person in the room.
How does this happen? It's the inevitable product of the school culture. Yes, schools have their own culture, where the teachers are outside oppressors, and the ruling class, the people at the top of the social pyramid, are the high school juniors and seniors, the oldest/biggest kids. A 17 year old regards himself as the pinnacle of human development because in his world, he IS.
This should be no surprise. From age 5 forward a child's primary culture is the school culture, with all of its own cultural nuances. Every child spends the vast majority of his time surrounded by other children, primarly those of the same age, and rarely are adults around at all except to swoop down and try to impose undesired and cumbersome rules.
Consider: Within the standard family unit, a child's ruling class, life guides and role models are adults--primarily parents, who not only instruct them and rule over them but also live with them, and by that I mean perform the daily activities of life day by day with them*, and also parents' adult friends and acquaintances. All but the firstborn have older siblings in a similar role.
* This is something we've lost in modern excessively-busy society and sorely miss.
But within the school culture, a child doesn't participate in the daily activities of life alongside ANYONE older than himself! For a child growing up in a family, the ancillary people generally surrounding him are predominantly adults, with only younger siblings and their friends being younger than himself.
But for a teenager, in the school culture, his world is predominantly populated by younger children--so he's already mature by those standards (and he grew up believing that teenagers were the most mature people in the world). How is one supposed to learn to be an adult in that setting?
Therefore it's easy to understand why homeschooled teenagers tend to behave like inexperienced but recognizable adults, whereas school-cultured teenagers tend to behave like children with adult desires and passions.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Wickard vs. Filburn
Wickard vs. Filburn is a court case involving a farmer who went over a quota of what he could grow and harvest of wheat. His argument was that the excess was for his farm and family and therefore shouldn't be considered under the commerce clause, or rather that if there was an effect it was trivial. I can understand the want or need for legislation that brought order to an otherwise chaotic situation, but can we, as Americans not see the importance of this situation? If interpreted as so, that food grown for our family and farm be considered as something that can be regulated by the government, then we are wholly in subject to that government.
Indeed this court case was one of many that has opened the door for all liberty in this country to be stolen away in any situation, deemed by a small percentage of the population, as "necessary and proper." In fact I actually would have agreed with the court had they specifically stated that as long as you don't sell any wheat you can grow and do whatever with it as long as it doesn't leave your farm. That is not what the case said though. According to the case, if the amount allotted to him for how much wheat he could grow was not enough to sustain his farm, then he would have to purchase the rest. There is a big difference. In what I have said, the government could have regulated commerce and preserved liberty, in what the Court said, liberty was taken away.
I thought about putting possible things that government could tell you what to do under this clause, but I think I should let you imagine possible interpretations. And if I have interpreted anything wrong from this case please enlighten me.
Indeed this court case was one of many that has opened the door for all liberty in this country to be stolen away in any situation, deemed by a small percentage of the population, as "necessary and proper." In fact I actually would have agreed with the court had they specifically stated that as long as you don't sell any wheat you can grow and do whatever with it as long as it doesn't leave your farm. That is not what the case said though. According to the case, if the amount allotted to him for how much wheat he could grow was not enough to sustain his farm, then he would have to purchase the rest. There is a big difference. In what I have said, the government could have regulated commerce and preserved liberty, in what the Court said, liberty was taken away.
I thought about putting possible things that government could tell you what to do under this clause, but I think I should let you imagine possible interpretations. And if I have interpreted anything wrong from this case please enlighten me.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
A Cold Halelujah
"I did my best, it wasn't much
I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch
I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you
And even though
It all went wrong
I'll stand before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah" -Leonard Cohen
I find daily the hardest thing is accepting to live in a world where inspiration is met with depression, where enlightenment is met with ignorance and a heightened zeal for doing good is met with cynical pessimism built from self righteous smugness around a philosophy that no one can change this "three ring circus side show of freaks,"(Tool lyric from Aenima) so why even try?
Despite some nonsense that such a question is rhetorical when I believe it is not, to meet good with blame upon those who do good by pointing out the things they have missed along the way or that you believe their time could be better spent doing something else when in fact you yourself have done nothing, is most irritating. Somehow this world has born, out of some terrible illogic, that to denigrate a man whose actions makes you feel like a lesser person, somehow justifies your useless existence in this system; somehow makes you sleep better at night; somehow makes you think that you aren't as bad as the person you see in the mirror every morning; somehow you aren't part of the problem; somehow you hold all the answers and yet solve nothing.
As I grow older I see more frequently the shortcomings of men. When we are younger we are given images of heroes in our lives, take David for instance. We are told about his battle with Goliath, but it is not until later in our lives that we learn of his failures as a person; how could he have committed such terrible acts that I could never live with, having done? This appears to be a common theme with virtually every person I have ever learned about and I'm not sure what to take from it. Some might say that it shows we are all human, but if being human is giving in to the things which we know to be wrong, I am not content just yet to simply lay down in such a pit of failure.
Coming up is the day of remembering Dr. King. A man who up until recently was a great hero in my mind. No one can take the importance of what he did away, nor has the impact of his words found detriment in my heart, but he himself has lost reverence in my eyes. Now I am not certain there is absolute proof that Dr. King was an adulterer/womanizer, but when the government documents become unlocked in 2027, I expect to be met with something which will confirm just that, because I have become use to being disappointed with people.
I must say something though. I am not judgmental. I do not enjoy seeing faults of any kind in any man. But I am tired of failure. I am tired of seeing all of my heroes destroyed by some weakness they could not overcome in life.
I do not know how to put all of this together, but I wrote a poem over a year ago that I think addresses this aspect in relation to my life. I only hope that somehow it can convey what I cant describe at this moment. It addresses perfectionism, failure and the feeling that every time someone in this world fails, a burden is placed upon you to succeed where they have failed.
I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch
I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you
And even though
It all went wrong
I'll stand before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah" -Leonard Cohen
I find daily the hardest thing is accepting to live in a world where inspiration is met with depression, where enlightenment is met with ignorance and a heightened zeal for doing good is met with cynical pessimism built from self righteous smugness around a philosophy that no one can change this "three ring circus side show of freaks,"(Tool lyric from Aenima) so why even try?
Despite some nonsense that such a question is rhetorical when I believe it is not, to meet good with blame upon those who do good by pointing out the things they have missed along the way or that you believe their time could be better spent doing something else when in fact you yourself have done nothing, is most irritating. Somehow this world has born, out of some terrible illogic, that to denigrate a man whose actions makes you feel like a lesser person, somehow justifies your useless existence in this system; somehow makes you sleep better at night; somehow makes you think that you aren't as bad as the person you see in the mirror every morning; somehow you aren't part of the problem; somehow you hold all the answers and yet solve nothing.
As I grow older I see more frequently the shortcomings of men. When we are younger we are given images of heroes in our lives, take David for instance. We are told about his battle with Goliath, but it is not until later in our lives that we learn of his failures as a person; how could he have committed such terrible acts that I could never live with, having done? This appears to be a common theme with virtually every person I have ever learned about and I'm not sure what to take from it. Some might say that it shows we are all human, but if being human is giving in to the things which we know to be wrong, I am not content just yet to simply lay down in such a pit of failure.
Coming up is the day of remembering Dr. King. A man who up until recently was a great hero in my mind. No one can take the importance of what he did away, nor has the impact of his words found detriment in my heart, but he himself has lost reverence in my eyes. Now I am not certain there is absolute proof that Dr. King was an adulterer/womanizer, but when the government documents become unlocked in 2027, I expect to be met with something which will confirm just that, because I have become use to being disappointed with people.
I must say something though. I am not judgmental. I do not enjoy seeing faults of any kind in any man. But I am tired of failure. I am tired of seeing all of my heroes destroyed by some weakness they could not overcome in life.
I do not know how to put all of this together, but I wrote a poem over a year ago that I think addresses this aspect in relation to my life. I only hope that somehow it can convey what I cant describe at this moment. It addresses perfectionism, failure and the feeling that every time someone in this world fails, a burden is placed upon you to succeed where they have failed.
I wish I could be that son you never had
I wish I could replace that friend who left, when things were getting bad
I wish I could become everything you never had
I wish I could become…
But I can't keep thinking that all this weight belongs...
on me, it sits like a well, toss in a coin make a...
wish you could feel what it's like to have to be...
perfect, in every way like a light from heaven shining down...
on me this weight found peace, but I can't have peace… I can't...
sleep, my escape from everything that doesn’t allow me to be free when I'm...
awake and dreaming one day I might become what I was meant to be.
I don't want to look back and see that what this hate is, was me
But I look in the mirror
and it's not me
there's no self image
who could I be?
A world of visions
It’s like I’m lost at sea
no bearings for hope
right in front of me
I'm deprived
Cerebration unsatisfied
I have looked for a savior
In a race filled with failure
And all I see are these
Vacant spots, where leaders once stood
That now has become an occupation of false truth
Failures of those who came before
I’ve inherited their burden, to open the door
I’m left alone; they don’t have faith in me
How can I, make them believe?
B r o k e n h o p e
For a b r o k en d re am
Nothing left, no self esteem
Misplaced thoughts
Begin to drop
A once peaceful state
That begins to erase
An age of serenity
Now fades away
A mess of confusion
Now fills my days
I sit and wait and contemplate
I think I believe that I might not be
Everything I thought I could possibly be
But you got to try, you fucking try
To become that which you wished you would be
Maybe a thought, maybe a dream
You can’t just give up; it’s all we’ve got.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Conspiracy, how much truth is there?
By now many people have heard of Lindsey Williams. There's youtube footage of him divided into about 8 parts, depending upon what version you watch and it's roughly 80 mins long, though I could have done it in 10(after all he is a Baptist minister).
I wanted to write this for a couple of reasons:
1. To clarify some things I have told people that were somewhat wrong.
2. To get people to realize that there are people powerful enough to control this world, the only question is do they?
I had told people that there were two countries that opposed joining OPEC, when in fact what I should have said was that there were two members of OPEC that opposed Kissinger's plan in the 1970's. How much of it is true I don't know but you can watch the video that Lindsey Williams discusses this aspect of here. The basic idea is that there were two countries that wouldn't denominate the sale of oil in dollars and help to pay off America's debt. Those two countries were allegedly Iraq and Iran. He also speaks of Iran wanting to flood the market with cheap oil, though this doesn't make sense according to the news that suggests it is Iran that wants to drive the price up and our friendly Saudis who want to keep it down and it is the Saudis who have claimed to flood the market in order to oppose the Iranians.
Here is what I have a problem with in regards to people:
Most people believe the government is corrupt.
Most people believe that the two parties control our country (by this I mean that if you are not by default an R or a D, you will not win anywhere without a large amount of money backing)
Most believe in the statement that absolute power corrupts absolutely
Most people believe that our justice system is based upon the idea that money buys defense and no money means you are screwed.
I could go on and on with the list which leads to one inevitable conclusion: that an elite group of people could easily run this nation; and that even if you argue that they obey the will of the masses, they can easily manipulate that will. I find it hard to believe that people can believe in everything that would allow and support the existence of something and then not believe in it because the word conspiracy is attached to it. But it seems that people are easily misled by perception and not as strongly influenced by facts.
I think I want to address fear mongering, because it has become a powerful tool, even in areas where it is not supposed to be.
I wanted to write this for a couple of reasons:
1. To clarify some things I have told people that were somewhat wrong.
2. To get people to realize that there are people powerful enough to control this world, the only question is do they?
I had told people that there were two countries that opposed joining OPEC, when in fact what I should have said was that there were two members of OPEC that opposed Kissinger's plan in the 1970's. How much of it is true I don't know but you can watch the video that Lindsey Williams discusses this aspect of here. The basic idea is that there were two countries that wouldn't denominate the sale of oil in dollars and help to pay off America's debt. Those two countries were allegedly Iraq and Iran. He also speaks of Iran wanting to flood the market with cheap oil, though this doesn't make sense according to the news that suggests it is Iran that wants to drive the price up and our friendly Saudis who want to keep it down and it is the Saudis who have claimed to flood the market in order to oppose the Iranians.
Here is what I have a problem with in regards to people:
Most people believe the government is corrupt.
Most people believe that the two parties control our country (by this I mean that if you are not by default an R or a D, you will not win anywhere without a large amount of money backing)
Most believe in the statement that absolute power corrupts absolutely
Most people believe that our justice system is based upon the idea that money buys defense and no money means you are screwed.
I could go on and on with the list which leads to one inevitable conclusion: that an elite group of people could easily run this nation; and that even if you argue that they obey the will of the masses, they can easily manipulate that will. I find it hard to believe that people can believe in everything that would allow and support the existence of something and then not believe in it because the word conspiracy is attached to it. But it seems that people are easily misled by perception and not as strongly influenced by facts.
I think I want to address fear mongering, because it has become a powerful tool, even in areas where it is not supposed to be.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Traffic Law Proposal No. 1
I've long had a cherished short list of proposed alterations to traffic laws, which I'll share with you in this very space. Time is short tonight, so I'll start off with one nice, simple change: Between the hours of midnight and 5:00 AM, in all but the most heavily trafficked urban areas, all red lights are to be regarded as flashing red lights (that is, stop signs.) If you pull up to an intersection and your light is red, you may proceed after confirming there is no right-of-way (green light) traffic you'd be impeding.
I suppose the way the country is going now, we'll be seeing mandatory curfews that will render it all moot before long anyway. But as things stand, I've sat twiddling my thumbs for upwards of five minutes* at many red lights at 1:30 AM, the only car on the road for a mile in any direction, waiting for the light to change so I can make my left turn.
* Maybe it's just wacky ol' Altoona, but there are several intersections in this city where, if you're in the left turn lane, you need a left turn arrow to proceed, but your light is red while the light to go straight through the same intersection is green... and you CANNOT GET A LEFT TURN ARROW UNTIL A CAR HAS COME FROM THE OTHER (perpendicular) DIRECTION to trip the motion sensor and make the light cycle through (green -> red -> left arrow -> green).
I've noticed in my travels there are some cities that already do this--their intersections all automatically change to flashing red lights in every direction (effectively a four way stop sign) at around midnight and change back at around 4:00 or 5:00 in the morning. I don't even think it's necessary to actually make the lights change; just change the law so you can legally proceed through a red light as though it were a stop sign during low-to-no traffic hours.
Is anyone out there against this?
(On the docket for discussion in the near future: Speed limits on highways, speed limits in towns/cities, tailgating/aggressive driving laws, DUI laws, methods enforcement of traffic laws and punishments for traffic violations, and seat belt laws. At least.)
I suppose the way the country is going now, we'll be seeing mandatory curfews that will render it all moot before long anyway. But as things stand, I've sat twiddling my thumbs for upwards of five minutes* at many red lights at 1:30 AM, the only car on the road for a mile in any direction, waiting for the light to change so I can make my left turn.
* Maybe it's just wacky ol' Altoona, but there are several intersections in this city where, if you're in the left turn lane, you need a left turn arrow to proceed, but your light is red while the light to go straight through the same intersection is green... and you CANNOT GET A LEFT TURN ARROW UNTIL A CAR HAS COME FROM THE OTHER (perpendicular) DIRECTION to trip the motion sensor and make the light cycle through (green -> red -> left arrow -> green).
I've noticed in my travels there are some cities that already do this--their intersections all automatically change to flashing red lights in every direction (effectively a four way stop sign) at around midnight and change back at around 4:00 or 5:00 in the morning. I don't even think it's necessary to actually make the lights change; just change the law so you can legally proceed through a red light as though it were a stop sign during low-to-no traffic hours.
Is anyone out there against this?
(On the docket for discussion in the near future: Speed limits on highways, speed limits in towns/cities, tailgating/aggressive driving laws, DUI laws, methods enforcement of traffic laws and punishments for traffic violations, and seat belt laws. At least.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)