First semester of freshman year

I've learned of how little I know. From anything involving academics to myself. I walked in on September 20th so sure of myself. And I've been completely broken down and had to give up a lot of things. But I've gained so much more. I've gained friends. Enemies. Knowledge. Mentors. And better sight of my selfie and the world around me.

I can only hope to do even better next semester. I came into college hoping that it would mold me into a better human being. So far I think that I'm headed in that direction. I feel like I may be starting to see the world from a better angle that I did before. Yes, the hound Marxist revolutionary that walked In a few months ago has now changed and while I still wish the world would see things from a truly communist perspective, I must also admit that at this point nor at any point in my life will it ever be realistic. But I believe I can do my part to push things more toward that direction as Ernesto Guevara did. But what is a human being? Is that something that anyone can even do research on, off is it something you have to come into your own?

To Lindsey

To Lindsey,

How could one forget,
Thy lovely ness hitch take my breath.
And all the beauty which shone through,
Shone trough the smoke and hue

One promise I am to keep,
To remember thy soul stout in my mind t keep
In my monthly memory sleep
So thy memory Am I to reap

Don't forget me my beautiful Delta G
The promise of a poem I am a obliged to keep
So I liv for thy smile
I pray for thy fierce fire

So you may think that I am but a lonesome child
Please don't leave me by the hall isle
For your red dress I must confess
Will leaf me in beauty's sweet distress

So here's to you with thy sweet charm
I leave my thought t your harm
And you may think me  of a foo your hate would be moats cruel
Your eyes will bing me such sweet calm

So as I lay my head to rest
I pray for your hands sweet caress
To ease me to a peaceful slumber
Pane my hearts cry for you forever thunder

Just to remind you that you're not THAT great.

Woot! Woot! Switzerland!

Way to put down the kids that cried too hard for their cake and didn't want to give to their own. Wait. What's that you say? If the CEO's worked hard then they should be able to have influence on their salaries? We'll I'm pretty sure that the workers are working just as hard and they don't get any breaks, they put in their hours to produce goods which the CEOs reap more than their fair share of the profit from. I mean I agree that they as the decision makers should make more money, but not by ridiculous  proportions. Also what kind of leader would this CEO be if they thought themselves so highly above their subordinates that they can't bear to attach their incentives for higher productivity and output than to that of their workers?

Go Switzerland!

The posh and pomp of politics

Oh how they like to fire up the crowds. The speak so beautifully, but what the hell are they really saying? Take Detroit for example and how they've been pretty much screwed by incompetence over the last 5 years. And it's mostly due to the fact that many politicians often don't understand how to truly work with economics.

I see that a lot now. It seems as though public officials are basically just some idealists that make themselves sound like good people and promise great things, and people believe them. Yet when they finally get to work they realize how little they knew about what they were talking about. It's pretty much society electing the best cheerleader to be the head football coach.

I see this not only in the speeches of the Detroit mayoral candidates (who did talk a lot for a a position that couldn't do much of anything). In political clubs. And political science majors (yes I'm calling them out). I really think that these people need to come up with something more than just a good idea. They need to proof it first. They need to read an econ book. Or at least plan to do so anyway.

Ya can't fix stupid

A story:

A couple of guys go in the woods with guns with the idea that they're going to find Bigfoot. Through the course of events one gets jumpy and hears an alarming noise that causes him to turn and shoot his friend in the back. The guy and his family later go on to obstruct authorities. Moral to this story? Well to me it seems to have told me something that I already knew, and that is that people have the great potential to do something greatly stupid. 

It was dumb to go out with a weapon and not handle it safely (aka keep it on safe until you have a clear target in your sights). It was dumb to lie to police (they'll find out eventually). And it was dumb to let it go on for so long. I understand that they guy may have been really exited to get to shoot Bigfoot. I understand that he and his family were panic mode over getting arrested. But that does not in my mind justify their actions and I'm glad that this guy won't be out in the woods anymore with a weapon that could harm someone else this time. 

*side note: It kind of scared me a little how the Sheriff's department of the county stated that if they had told the truth then nobody would have likely gone to jail. What does he mean? A guy mishandled a weapon and injured someone. I know I'm not a lawyer so could someone just explain to me how telling the truth would have prevented an arrest?

Whoops, ya caught me

So apparently Germany is pretty pissed, but can one really blame them? I mean think about it, what if your supposed "friend" had records of your conversations with your other friends? It wouldn't really seem like they trust you now would they. And if they don't trust you, how could you trust them?

So why would one do it? Was it out of paranoia that we thought Germany was up to something? Was it that we thought they knew something that we didn't and we couldn't hold our curiosity? Why is every sentence I write down a question?

To me it seems that there was perhaps a bit of paranoia mixed with just a more simple thought that we just wanted to run a check up on our allies to make sure that they were truly our allies. The real problem is how far did we go exactly. It would have been one thing to run spy operations on their military capabilities. However a leader's personal phone calls does seem a bit far. I mean for all we know Merkel could have been on the phone with her husband talking about all the things they were going to do that night. Now imagine if THAT tape got out...............we'd be in serious trouble then.

Racism, prejudice, and other bad words

So I think it's safe to say that racism exists pretty much anywhere in the globe, and that not everyone has the same definition of it or views it in the same way. For example, I myself view racism as a belief of personal superiority over someone else simply based on one's race or religion. Others might view it in terms of nationality, or they might sometimes combine prejudice and racism into one.

In Russia we see a form of racism, or at leas prejudice occurring between ethnic Russians and immigrants from the Caucasus region. In 'Merica we like to often think of segregation as our example of racism. Or in Africa you often find racism between groups along cultural or ancestral lines. But where does this unprovoked hatred come from?

One idea that I've always had on this is just human competition. You see, as we compete with one another we like to think in our heads of ways of getting ahead of one another. We often do this by grouping ourselves by similarities and like to exclude those who think differently as a means of using teamwork to gain the upper hand against those that we marginalize or other competing groups. So therefore people often try to look for differences among one another.

However bad this may sound, I'd like to give a high five to society for teaching us to be able to look beyond surface things (like skin color), or at least starting to. Granted we have a long way to go before we eradicate   racism but I think we have the ball rolling at least. 

TV will turn your brain into tapioca

So when I think of the so called "Golden Age of Television" I tend to think of the old school show M*A*S*H. It was hilariously witty, had heartfelt moments, and always seemed to have a subtle message at the end of every episode. Today you hear a lot of older generations say "Television isn't what it used to be", or "tv today is a bunch of nonsense". I hear it now from my generation with comments like "Disney Channel movies and shows suck compared to what we had", or "I miss the old Nickelodeon".  To them I give a splendid FU.

Now while it is true that there are times when television could expand beyond its superficial topics you have to remember the original purpose of it, and that is to give a form of entertainment for someone who is probably just coming home from a long day of work and could care less for having even more complexities thrown at them. I also want to thank the television industry for picking up the slack in this sector actually. While the mainstream shows may be pretty stupid, you can go out and find the shows of "a woman struggling in the workplace", the bad part is that they are not mainstream and you have to dig for them. This however should not be blamed on the industry and rather on society. Why? Because we demand it.

Let's face it, the majority of television viewers is not a college student looking for a more intellectual for of entertainment. Mainstream often has to make itself palatable to the masses in order to survive in a capitalist society. But with the rise of television came the opportunity for the creation of more specialized shows and even networks to feed the hunger of an audience looking for something more than just the average soap opera. So if you think that your show "deserves more attention because it touches a serious topic", or "it goes beyond the normal TV bullshit" then welcome to our society. I feel the same way about Surviving the Cut, Inside Combat Rescue, or even the original British version of The Inbetweeners. So if people want to have better quality and more meaningful entertainment the society as a whole has to demand under our system. Until then, you're going to have to dig for your shows and then share among friends in hopes that they will see the meaning too.

But let me just say that even I don't mind a little of this to take my mind of things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4lWGGx6g1E

In the trenches

So people have been complaining lately about the government. Particularly the shutdown and the debt ceiling. People often say that they want Congress to come together compromise, talk, make deals and get things done. As if it were that easy.

People often forget that all members of Congress are democratically elected. Therefore, they were chosen to be in that position because they reflected the views and ideals of the majority of their respective constituencies. So therefore, isn't Congress simply reflecting the way we behave toward each other's ideals in today's society? I mean we are quick to say that we want them to make a deal, but if you go a little farther into that conversation then people will often propose a deal that is biased toward their ideals and would require the other side to lose more than they gain.

So that's where I believe we are now. We can all live together and be friends just fine. But when it comes to decisions we have become so entrenched in or views that we ourselves will refuse to give ground and instead want the other side to give up theirs. So here I say that the only true solution to these issues would be on a grassroots level where people actually talk "politics" to each other and sort things out themselves. It is much easier for common people to compromise and make unified plans based on the outcome of their debates, than it is for an elected official to do so with worries that they might lose their job if they give away too much if any.

So I want all you gun -totin', Bible-pundin', closed minded, oil-hungry, corporate-greedin',  conservative Murican's to sit down with the Marxist, Islamic, welfare-bumin', tree-huggin', Big-gummint liberals. Have a chat on the questions that you've been avoiding. Get all your anger out at each other. Maybe have a drink or ten. And talk about finding a middle lane to hop on, then elect people who will do the same.

Is the Joker real?

Does everyone remember that phenomenal performance by Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight?" Well if you do then in that case you saw how he portrayed the Joker as a truly evil man that had no regard for human life. This really hit me as I read the accounts from the Nairobi survivors. Then I thought of an idea pitched to me by Dr. Herron on my last post about "disinterested malice." Where supposedly Francis Hutcheson believed that there were actually people out there who killed for their own delight.

So my thought there is "were these attackers killing for an idea or pure delight?" There had to obviously be a loss of humanity in these people to be able to cause pain t helpless human beings. So were they getting pleasure out of it? Were their own minds so twisted that in their heads they were happy to do this because they honestly thought they were supposed to? Not that this would justify their actions, but all I'm saying is that these creatures to me seem that they've had their minds so distorted that they are no longer human but rather some more demonic beings.

And let's not forget the other side of the spectrum. Let's not forget that there were good people there too. From the helpless people themselves who helped each other get out. The security forces who braved the demons, who ran towards the sounds of chaos to help their fellow man. They knew that they faced true evil here and yet they charged into the fray knowing that there were humans in the hands of demons that needed to be freed. So I want to leave you with the thought that while there may be pure evil in this world, there seems to also be as pure good in men out there. I'm not a religious person so I don't intend to use this quote in any such way, but I do see it fitting to this situation "greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for a friend" John 15:13

His head is broken and so is our brotherhood

He was clearly broken, any idiot could have seen that. But could we have all seen it? I don't really want to talk much on how inhumane the actions of the Naval shooter were. What he did was something far more removed from a human sense, or an animal sense from that matter. He killed simply to kill. He made no gain from it, and only created loss to others and himself. Not even an angry dog would do that, but a rabid one might.

What I'm saying here is that this man's brain was clearly broken. Things weren't working properly. The machine overheated and exploded. What's worse is that there were some that could see the metal turning red and the boilers going haywire. The problem was that individuals saw it and not groups. Had a means of communication, or much more a sense of brotherhood among ourselves as humans to be able to see a struggling brother who needed help. So yes the faults in the inhumanity are his but maybe we could have done something to.

The articles pint out how there had been points that we should have gotten hints. And then I clicked with something that Marx spoke of and that was the collective workers. We are the workers. And as workers we have to look out for each other. Marx would have frowned on society, he would have pointed out how we were too much of an individual based society that failed to look out for its fellow worker that had been injured and was not being taken care of. And in the process we lost more brothers and sisters.

I'm not saying that we are 100% to blame, but we do have a fault here too. And maybe there is a ray of hope here that as we show compassion for the lost ones, we will grow closer together and learn to use each other as a support system. Maybe, and this may sound too idealistic, we can progress toward a society that resembles a sports team. Where everyone may have their own duty to fulfill, but at the end of the day we see each other as team mates and not just another stranger.

On Syria

So we've been hearing about this tiny country in the middle east for the past two years now. It seemed as though we didn't care for it before. We didn't care for the fact that it had a dictator. We didn't care that it had no democracy. We simply wanted to keep it happy so it wouldn't become another Afghanistan where anti-american sentiment would grow and breed a new Al-Qaeda. And now we care for what actually happens in this country half way around the world. But why?

Well the answer may be found in ether Mandeville or Smith. I prefer to talk from what I think Smith might say. Mandeville in all his dickheadedness would probably say that we want to set America up to exploit what we can out of Syria, or make ourselves look good in front of the world, or keep from looking weak, or to just simply get it off our television screens because we don't want to hear about it. In other word we might get something out of it. Smith might say that we have empathy for the Syrian people. 

Maybe some of us are picturing what it might be like to live in a city where you can't cross a street without running risk of sniper fire. Maybe some of us can imagine ourselves as a ten year old holding his screaming little sister as the await another bombardment to pass. Maybe some of us imagine ourselves as the woman who had to carry her teenage son to a hospital with a sucking chest wound. Maybe some of us could see our faces in the corpse lying on the street, see the potential that could have been but is now dead. In other words, what if some of us are motivated by empathy to close this bloody book so that way a new, better story could be written for Syria?

As to what exactly we should do is the debate that is currently happening. I will not go into that. I only see it as we want to do something to help the innocent, the truly innocent people in Syria who are caught in a crossfire and can't get out. We see the suffering and with our imagination put ourselves as one of them, feel for them and therefore care for them. At least that's the way I hope we see it.

Depression and a ray of light

So I walked out of class Tuesday with a huge sense of depression. I got an interest in economics with the idea of trying to find a way to help those in need, particularly the poor. So with our readings into the fundamental motivations of human actions I have to say I was a little crushed to find that the arguments presented to us really both relied on the sense of human selfishness as the reason for doing good deeds.

The arguments varied in directness, with Mandeville being as straight forward as possible saying that humans only act if they can get something in return. Smith countered by trying to provide evidence for humanity by stating that humans sometimes do good for others by putting ourselves in others shoes. This still conflicts me because its still relies on self service as the mechanism for aiding others in need. It's like saying that if we didn't picture ourselves in that position, if we couldn't imagine the pain felt by others then we would not be able to feel empathy.

None the less, on my way back to my dorm I thought a little deeper on what Dr. Herron told me on that idea. He said that the very idea of putting ourselves in others shoes, of being willing to step out of ourselves was human. That the senseless and irrational action of being willing, and sometimes wanting to feel the pain of others erases the cold heart rationality o simple actions for return and instead presents the element of humanity.

These are mine, someone else stole them before I was born

1. So I started working on this poem.....

Battle Of Brunanburgh

Athelstan King,
Lord among Earls,
Bracelet-bestower and
Baron of Barons,
He with his brother,
Edmund Atheling,
Gaining a lifelong
Glory in battle,
Slew with the sword-edge
There by Brunanburh,
Brake the shield-wall,
Hew'd the lindenwood,
Hack'd the battleshield,
Sons of Edward with hammer'd brands.

Theirs was a greatness
Got from their Grandsires--
Theirs that so often in
Strife with their enemies
Struck for their hoards and their hearths and their homes. 

2. Have you guys ever wondered about the Gettysburg Address? Well let me break down what Lincoln said for you......

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. (Lincoln, 1863)

3. Now have you guys ever wondered about this?

We invaded Iraq with the pretext of assured weapons of mass destruction which turned out to be a lie, now that we found an actual country lead by a coo coo man there seems to be a problem getting our troops to North Korea

4. And I have another cool idea!

What about a device that lets you talk to someone who isn't in the same room? I'm thinking maybe a box attached to a wall and through an electronic cable you are able to reach the person on the other end of the wire with a box similar to yours? Almost like the cans and string except with wire.