Civil Rights

As Americans, don't we all have civil rights? Are those rights not granted by the Constitution? I think that someone's opinion of something should not be asserted upon others simply because they do not like something. If they are not being harmed by something then how can they argue that it should be illegal? I think that the use of the noose as a symbol is appalling but I also think that the noose itself is simply a tool that represents much more than just racial hatred. The noose has been a method of execution throughout history. What about all those who died for "treason", "sedition", and "witchcraft" by way of the noose? Do these people that want to see a symbol made illegal think that there are other symbols that should be illegal? What about the confederate flag? Perhaps the Islamic groups should be able to push for it to be illegal for anything they find offensive, and the Christian moral majority's assertions of moral law should also be given credence. The slippery slope that these people so readily charge towards seems to be absurd, but I cannot help but feel like I am taking up a detestable position. People only seem to see the edge of the double-edged sword that is pointed at themselves. The ability for people to ignore the perceptions of others seems to be increasingly accessible in a world that is growing ever more faceless. Perhaps those that are marching deserve their assertions acceptance simply because they are at least making their opinions known. It will not be until we find ourselves unable to speak our minds that people will make a fuss. It is a shame that abstract thought is such an inconvenience to so a large portion of our population. Land of the free... home of the brave... I find it appropriate that nothing is said of reason for our country.

Professional Armies

It is amazing that we have a group of civilians in Iraq right now that is killing people. If nothing else, should international law not apply to them? Why isn't INTERPOL rounding them up and putting a stop to their trigger-happy forays? The Romans used professional armies when they began to decline. The European nation-states also used professional armies for a short period of history. However, it has been shown that it is almost inevitable that a force fighting for personal causes almost always defeats a professional force no matter the odds. Blackwater is a professional army that our president has employed to increase somebodies profit margins, and be able to wipe his hands clean of accountability for all of Iraq. Am I alone in finding this to be a complete shame upon our country's honor? Am I alone in thinking that this is something that almost deserves the recourse that is almost inevitable for the actions that have been allowed to take place in the name of American "Freedom"?

Dangerous Minds

The most dangerous mind, to me, is one that can justify cohersion. Reading a letter in New York Times, it was disconcerting how someone could write so vehemently about the laxity of Alan Greenspan's federal regulations. The writer even commented on the fact that states had regulatory juristiction, but tried to pawn the responsibility off on the federal reserve. I must paraphrase because I cannot remember how it was actually phrased, but he likened the federal reserve to a leader among equals. To me, equals are equals but perhaps my understanding of equality is off. I have been very disappointed in the Republican party from the onset of my awareness of politics, but the Democrats are becoming ever more vile in their pursuit of persecution. An entity's true character shows when its opponent is down, and the Democrats by and large have shown their eagerness to not only kick their opponent while down, but to spit on them as well. The letter I referred to spoke of stronger regulation, but that is simply under-estimating the intuition of humanity. People will always find a way to exploit the system they are in, in an attempt to improve their chances of success. Stronger regulation simply impedes the adaptability of our market to adjust to the exploitations that take place. As seen in our political system today, strong regulations do not allow for safer, more representative government. It has effectively cut off the people from being able to influence the governance of their own affairs. For a political ideology to be able to manifest itself in politics today, it must first be contorted and mutilated to fit within a party's guidelines, and then it is battered and maimed by the resentments of the opposing party for the sake of opposition rather than reason. And yet, the absurdity of such a system has manifested itself and rather than be recognized and revised, it has been justified and encouraged. By the opinion expressed in the letter, it seems that some confused individual is attempting to spread such infectious pestilence into the market place. I do not say that socialism is wrong, communism is wrong, or capitalism is wrong, but I do say that for a system to work, it must be implemented completely. Adaptation from one system to the next could even be possible, but it must be in the complete commitment to one system at a time. Regulation in a free market gives exploitation a bastion to work within. Capitalist interests in a communist or socialist structure eats away at the infrastructure as a degenerative disease. Historical evidence gives such a correlation, and I emphasize correlation because I will not attempt the assertion of a cause. Again bashing the letter, it criticized Alan Greenspan's lack of assertion of cause, and I say that is precisely why I would give credit to Greenspan over the author of the letter. To assert one single cause in any environment is impossible and ignorant. To find possible causes and their correlations, with the understanding of progress is by far a better way of advancing in a relatively positive way in an overall scheme. This is, of course, is my opinion and is by no means an authority of any kind, but I hope that it at least shows validity to an argument that seems to be suppressed for reasons unbeknownst to myself.

Party Politics in America 12th Edition

I must first say that this is just my opinion, and is just me exercising my right to do so. I'm referring to my opinion of a text book that I am being required to read for my education in party politics in America. The text by Marjorie Randon Hershey, Party Politics in America: 12th Edition, is perhaps the scariest thing in the world to me. This text is being used as academic material to study party politics. What scares me, is the bias that is present in this, "Academic," piece of work. I refer specifically to Randon's table 1.1, in which, she displays the differences in the parties, in the early 2000's. Her findings are basically her own opinion, and her wording is outright misleading. She states that the difference in the Democrat's and Republican's core beliefs. For Democrats, "A strong government provides needed services and remedies inequalities." For Republicans, "A strong government interferes with business and threatens freedom." May I emphasize her choice of words, "threatens freedom." I am not a Republican. I am by all means independent. I am adamantly against the party's influence in our government. I am so against party politics in our government for the very reason that Marjorie Randon Hershey has given me. One party can influence the education of people's minds and replace a student's education to learn how to think with education on what to think. Rather than conversion, we have subversion and it is disgusting to me that such a thing can be left unchecked and accepted as "education." The danger of such a text is in its choice of words. Every comparison down the line presents the Republicans in a negative context and the Democrats in a positive one. I'm not even saying that this is intentional, but I am saying that it is prevalent. Either it was simply poor word choice, or it is bias, and presents a skewed look at the topic at hand. Overall, I find it to be a either a very poor attempt at an object assessment of party politics in America, or it is a very comprehensive, but subjectively biased assessment. To me, both choices make it a very poor decision as to being a text presented as academic truth.

A Disclaimer

I must warn the world. I have no real training in poetry and really have no understanding of its structuring. I'm simply writing it as it is in my head. I try to make it the best translation of the thought in the least pervasive way. That comes from my thoughts on how communication may be able to be influenced, but that gets philosophical, and belongs in another blog.