With the recent death of a certain singer, whom I have vowed not to mention while on the internet, I have been considering a subject that always gets me irked up. In light of this singer's death, two figure have reemerged from their regular, but temperary, boughts with social irrelevance, and their names are always mentioned alongside my topic. They are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and my topic is, you guessed it, racism. Racism, and specifically the issues of slavery and civil rights in relation to it, have given life to countless, supposedly not-for-profit organizations. The promotion of minorities in this country is an important step if you want to be considered as legitimate in business, Hollywood, and even as an individual. I think part of the reason for this is that many white people would like to make up for the many, horrible, horrible things that they did to African-Americans all the way up to, but not ending with, the '60's. I will be the first to admit that these things were horrible and despicable. Some will try to defend even our nation's founders for what they did and how they had slaves. I'm not one of those people. I will readily acknowledge that our founding fathers were bigotous men who's grasp of equality stretched only as far as their tax documents. They did not at all fully understand how true and important the words they spoke were.
I fear, though, that the desire to defend white people will turn into an obligation to place miorities first. I don't say that meaning that I wish for whites to be first, I mean that there should be no preferential treatment at all because of race. Forty years ago, preferential treatment meant that whites were always first, now it's completely changed. In America today, being a minority will give you a statistically better chance of getting accepted to college, getting financial aid for that college, playing in the NBA, and a whole host of other things. What is more, there are countless organizations that are considered noble because they support minority issues. If there were white-oriented counterparts of these organizations, there would be huge public uproar. Think about colleges that offer 'African American Heritage Scholarships', or about our official African American History month. What would happen if we had 'Causcasian History Month' or a 'Caucasian Heritage' Scholarship? What about the 'national association for the advancement of white people'? How many of you laughed just reading that? Those suggestions would be positively offensive if they were true. There is no denying it. So why the heck does our society put up with it? When I looked at the named scholarships for the University of Missouri, there were 16 total, a whopping 12 of which required you to be a minority and 2 required you be a minority AND a woman. What is this crap? If 12 scholarships required you to be white, there would total uproar.
So I ask you, is there racism in America? You bet there is. The land of the free and the home of the brave harbors an angry grudge and facilitates a double standard against those of the caucasian decent. Yeah, that's right, I said it. What is more, I can prove it.
Go ahead and leave me angry comments, I'm ready.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
College Stuff and more
Sooooooo, having not posted in absolutely forever, I have now decided to actually do something and give an update on my college situation. I have decided to attend Saint Louis University next fall(no, I was not wait-listed like the one commenter so rudely suggested). I am excited to be living close to home, but also excited to live outside the house. I will be up for some new scenerey and new challenges. I will be going pre-med at SLU, but I might major in some sort of language, we'll see.
On a political note, I'm very interested in how this new judge Obama has chosen will turn out. There's no doubt whatsoever that she will get confirmed, seeing as how she has at least some moderate viewpoints to her name, so she will appeal to Republicans, because she's about as good as they could have hoped for. Debate about her will be very pointless in the long run. What I and everyone else am interested in is her stance on abortion. Funnily enough, it seems that she has managed to be a high-profile judge and not ruled significantly on the issue. We'll have to see about that one. What I am also interested in seeing is her views on Gay Marriage and Eminent Domain. Given that she has described herself as a 'NewYorkrican', I am going to bet she's pretty liberal socially, but might have some common sense when it comes to economics. In other words, she's probably pro-gay marriage but anti-eminent domain. Here's hoping she turns out to be a reverse Sandra Day O'Connor and surprises Obama(can I call him O'Bama and make him Irish, that would be awesome). The court already leans right, given that we just came off a two-term Republican, and Sotormayor's appointment won't change that. But if she turns out to be at least marginally conservative, this court could be one of the most right-leaning ones ever.
On a political note, I'm very interested in how this new judge Obama has chosen will turn out. There's no doubt whatsoever that she will get confirmed, seeing as how she has at least some moderate viewpoints to her name, so she will appeal to Republicans, because she's about as good as they could have hoped for. Debate about her will be very pointless in the long run. What I and everyone else am interested in is her stance on abortion. Funnily enough, it seems that she has managed to be a high-profile judge and not ruled significantly on the issue. We'll have to see about that one. What I am also interested in seeing is her views on Gay Marriage and Eminent Domain. Given that she has described herself as a 'NewYorkrican', I am going to bet she's pretty liberal socially, but might have some common sense when it comes to economics. In other words, she's probably pro-gay marriage but anti-eminent domain. Here's hoping she turns out to be a reverse Sandra Day O'Connor and surprises Obama(can I call him O'Bama and make him Irish, that would be awesome). The court already leans right, given that we just came off a two-term Republican, and Sotormayor's appointment won't change that. But if she turns out to be at least marginally conservative, this court could be one of the most right-leaning ones ever.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Why yes, I would like a strong dose of Political Theory!
As I was listening tonight to President Obama's speech to Congress, I was reminded of the key reason why I and others disagree with his principles. I already knew what it was, it's just that I had'nt managed to put it all to words yet.
The phrase 'the ends justify the means' means that if doing something can accomplish something really good, then it does not matter what you do to accomplish those good things. Many countries around the world use this principle when governing. China keeps its citizens from watching pornographic, lewd, and anti-government material on the internet which produces citizens that are not expsoed to those things and who are unlikely to revolt against the government. The Chinese care not about the fact that they denied what we would call basic freedoms to their people, they only have eyes for what it does.
In America, however, the ends don't often justify the means. In fact, I would say that the ends virtually never justify the means. We live by our basic freedoms. It's why our country is so different from everyone else and why our form of government has so much left to prove to itself, to its citizens, and to history. Whenever politicians start to bring up cases where they look ahead to the result of what they are doing, but fail to see the wrongs inherent in the means, they make a fatal error(If you are wondering how I am going to bring this back to Barack Obama, then hold on for just a second).
I would venture to guess that many Americans out there want the same things. The problems and differences start when we use different means to get them. Most Americans believe in equality for everyone and fairness, its just that not all of us think that must be played out in the abortion of millions of human babies, or gay marriage, or a whole host of other things.
Back to politicians making fatal errors....When I watched President Obama's speech tonight, I was struck by his frequent use of the phrase 'whatever it takes'. This really denotes two things, both of which show his inexperience and his ultimate inaedequacy for his position: First, that he probably does not know what it will take to accomplish what he wants; Second, that he is willing to let his ends justify his means.
Hello Socialism.
America needs a President who has a developed plan, who will surround himself with knowledgeable and trained professionals, and who is willing to work through proper means to accomplish the ends that we all probably want anyway.
The phrase 'the ends justify the means' means that if doing something can accomplish something really good, then it does not matter what you do to accomplish those good things. Many countries around the world use this principle when governing. China keeps its citizens from watching pornographic, lewd, and anti-government material on the internet which produces citizens that are not expsoed to those things and who are unlikely to revolt against the government. The Chinese care not about the fact that they denied what we would call basic freedoms to their people, they only have eyes for what it does.
In America, however, the ends don't often justify the means. In fact, I would say that the ends virtually never justify the means. We live by our basic freedoms. It's why our country is so different from everyone else and why our form of government has so much left to prove to itself, to its citizens, and to history. Whenever politicians start to bring up cases where they look ahead to the result of what they are doing, but fail to see the wrongs inherent in the means, they make a fatal error(If you are wondering how I am going to bring this back to Barack Obama, then hold on for just a second).
I would venture to guess that many Americans out there want the same things. The problems and differences start when we use different means to get them. Most Americans believe in equality for everyone and fairness, its just that not all of us think that must be played out in the abortion of millions of human babies, or gay marriage, or a whole host of other things.
Back to politicians making fatal errors....When I watched President Obama's speech tonight, I was struck by his frequent use of the phrase 'whatever it takes'. This really denotes two things, both of which show his inexperience and his ultimate inaedequacy for his position: First, that he probably does not know what it will take to accomplish what he wants; Second, that he is willing to let his ends justify his means.
Hello Socialism.
America needs a President who has a developed plan, who will surround himself with knowledgeable and trained professionals, and who is willing to work through proper means to accomplish the ends that we all probably want anyway.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Politics Revisited (Finally)
I apologize for making few posts lately, but I have recently gotten worked over the idea of universal healthcare, so I decided to write about it.
In America, our doctors have in their best interest the proper treatment and/or healing of their patients. If they do their jobs, we get better and they get money. This works very well, albeit I will admit that not everyone can afford treatment(I will talk about this later). Because doctors want to get paid and patients are willing to balance quality with price, we have a competitve market for the best and the cheapest doctors(although they are not necessarily different entities). Despite this, some countries have decided to insitute universal healthcare, which means that all the doctors get paid virtually the same amount, and the one who pays them is the government through our tax dollars. Now, as you might expect, when the government is paying bills, they always look for ways to cut costs. They can't cut the doctors' pay, but they can cut down on the number of doctors and the number of patients treated. This means that it is in the governments best interest financially to tell you that you are not sick, or else that they have no room for you. There are plenty of examples of people in Canada(which has a form of socialized medicine) getting flown into the US for simple medical procedures that would have been performed if the doctors were able to compete by means of multiple health insurance companies. We don't want this in the US. It will not help us at all.
Now, regarding those who cannot pay. I propose that we use universally available healthcare. If we offer healthcare to those who are not able to pay for it as it is, then we can solve the real issue in this problem. Now to address the problem I pointed out before: The government in this case would not be able to offer horrible coverage to those who use the healthcare, because the people would see the coverage given by other companies and demand something similar, in the same way a union works.
Personally, I think this is a good happy medium that will fix our problem.
In America, our doctors have in their best interest the proper treatment and/or healing of their patients. If they do their jobs, we get better and they get money. This works very well, albeit I will admit that not everyone can afford treatment(I will talk about this later). Because doctors want to get paid and patients are willing to balance quality with price, we have a competitve market for the best and the cheapest doctors(although they are not necessarily different entities). Despite this, some countries have decided to insitute universal healthcare, which means that all the doctors get paid virtually the same amount, and the one who pays them is the government through our tax dollars. Now, as you might expect, when the government is paying bills, they always look for ways to cut costs. They can't cut the doctors' pay, but they can cut down on the number of doctors and the number of patients treated. This means that it is in the governments best interest financially to tell you that you are not sick, or else that they have no room for you. There are plenty of examples of people in Canada(which has a form of socialized medicine) getting flown into the US for simple medical procedures that would have been performed if the doctors were able to compete by means of multiple health insurance companies. We don't want this in the US. It will not help us at all.
Now, regarding those who cannot pay. I propose that we use universally available healthcare. If we offer healthcare to those who are not able to pay for it as it is, then we can solve the real issue in this problem. Now to address the problem I pointed out before: The government in this case would not be able to offer horrible coverage to those who use the healthcare, because the people would see the coverage given by other companies and demand something similar, in the same way a union works.
Personally, I think this is a good happy medium that will fix our problem.
Monday, December 15, 2008
College
Just a small update on my college progress: I did not get into Duke. They said they received twice as many early decision applicants as usual and they still can only use the 500 spots that they reserved for it. Also, on a lighter note, and contrary to what the random commenter said on my other post, I was accepted into SLU today. I am not on the waiting list, so there.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Yes, me is gonna be a kooledge stoodunt.
So right now I am awash in college app stuff. I really hate it. I have deadlines out the wazoo and I really want to get into one of my schools. My number one choice is Duke, then Wash U. You can decide which one is a safety school, because they're both pretty good. My real safety schools are SLU and Hillsdale College in Michigan. I am actually above the middle fifty percent with my grades and such, so I expect to get into those two. My safety safety school is Mizzou, and if I don't get in there I will cry. My complete wild card-just to say I got in there-school is NYU. But like I said, I just want to say I got in. It would take a fantastic financial aid package for that to happen, but if I got to that would be pretty awesome. So I spend this week fretting over my Mizzou and SLU stuff, then I have until January 1 for my NYU stuff. Finally, I have until January 15 to finish Wash U. However, by that time I will be completely subdued by financial aid apps. Those will be worse than anything else I have had to so far. Its a mess, and I hope it works out. If you wonder what my motivation for getting through all of this is, I've got two words: Community College. I refuse. I'm going to real college, thank you very much.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Politics #3
My installment this time will focus on two areas that have been irking me lately.
First: ''Spread the wealth around''
Barack Obama said this at an event last week. He said this as he was trying to explain the purpose of his more accentuated, graduated income tax plan. He wants to spread the wealth around to help out those who need it. The thought that immediately came to my mind was communism. Today I looked up the communist manifesto online, and I found something disturbing: The whole idea of graduated income tax was Karl Marx's idea! Barack Obama is advocating a core principle of communism for use in the ''land of the free, and the home of the brave.'' This idea completely repulses me. Why would you want to use these ideas in our country. Barack Obama is beyond socialist, he is a communist. Obama calls himself a friend for the middle class. Well guess what, so did Karl Marx. Game, Set, Match. Commie.
Second: I recently received my absentee balot(I will be working the polls), and I saw Proposition A on there. The proponents say that it will benefit schools by taxing casinos even more. I won't disagree with that, except to say that in order for it to benefit the schools, they must be managed properly, which they aren't. My problem here is with the way the government will get the money. This bill will actually eliminate loss limits at casinos. People who are addicted to gambling will give the casinos as much money as they can stay conscious
for. This puts both the casinos(which I hate) and the state in the position of ''stealer of the helpless addict's money.'' It makes me so mad that the state can justify taxing people on things that are addictive. These people need help, not higher taxes they can't afford. We have the same problem with enormous taxes on ciggarettes. If the government says it is raising taxes for public good(casinos), or public health(ciggarettes), then it whould ban gambling and smoking. THAT alone would improve the country. But the politician's are too happy with taking in the money to do that. I wonder, who is really addicted, the needy people, or the greedy intruding politicians?
First: ''Spread the wealth around''
Barack Obama said this at an event last week. He said this as he was trying to explain the purpose of his more accentuated, graduated income tax plan. He wants to spread the wealth around to help out those who need it. The thought that immediately came to my mind was communism. Today I looked up the communist manifesto online, and I found something disturbing: The whole idea of graduated income tax was Karl Marx's idea! Barack Obama is advocating a core principle of communism for use in the ''land of the free, and the home of the brave.'' This idea completely repulses me. Why would you want to use these ideas in our country. Barack Obama is beyond socialist, he is a communist. Obama calls himself a friend for the middle class. Well guess what, so did Karl Marx. Game, Set, Match. Commie.
Second: I recently received my absentee balot(I will be working the polls), and I saw Proposition A on there. The proponents say that it will benefit schools by taxing casinos even more. I won't disagree with that, except to say that in order for it to benefit the schools, they must be managed properly, which they aren't. My problem here is with the way the government will get the money. This bill will actually eliminate loss limits at casinos. People who are addicted to gambling will give the casinos as much money as they can stay conscious
for. This puts both the casinos(which I hate) and the state in the position of ''stealer of the helpless addict's money.'' It makes me so mad that the state can justify taxing people on things that are addictive. These people need help, not higher taxes they can't afford. We have the same problem with enormous taxes on ciggarettes. If the government says it is raising taxes for public good(casinos), or public health(ciggarettes), then it whould ban gambling and smoking. THAT alone would improve the country. But the politician's are too happy with taking in the money to do that. I wonder, who is really addicted, the needy people, or the greedy intruding politicians?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)