I guess the mosque issue is important; I guess a better way to put that would be, I guess the mosque stirs up emotions but really isn’t that important. The controversy seemingly can be solved with just a single sentence:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Unfortunately, it’s not –that- simple; I mean the 2nd and 4th Amendments are pretty straight forward and are often used in arguments, but people ignore them. We can express our views and religion in many ways that is almost endless, but the question is what is appropriate? I asked Glenn Greenwald on twitter if his stance for freedom of speech and expression extends to other amendments. I did so by asking a simple question such as “do we have the right to cull gun ownership in areas where crime has occurred? (after all what’s the difference between culling one Amendment over another?)” and “would it be ok to build a gun store across the street from columbine?” Unfortunately he never addressed those questions, but instead asked me a question of “is it ok to stop a church from being built across the street from an abortion clinic or near Oklahoma City’s bombing site (the last one doesn’t make any sense)?” I wanted and should have replied, “no, but you or your cohorts probably would.” Instead I insisted that was unrelated to my argument, and I was merely pointing out his double standard…for which he asked me the question again. At that point I gave up on trying to convince someone who is more bullheaded than myself. The 1st Amendment argument helps to create a pedestal for defenders, but I’m not so sure that’s the argument that people have been using against it; some are making a stink because Glenn Beck wants to hold a rally near where MLK did a speech and on 8/28 because it’s on “hallowed ground”…how is this any different? It’s not, as Greta Van Susteren of all people points out.

Remember…the Muslims in NYC have a First Amendment right to build a mosque but most Americans don’t want it…and you have to ask the wisdom of the Muslims to push the issue. Just because you have the right to do something does not mean you should. My view? No mosque at ground zero and Glenn should move his event.

It does not help heal the country on so many fronts if we poke a stick in eyes.

The issue I have with the mosque doesn’t really involve the mosque, but people who support the mosque having double standards. Most people protesting the mosque aren’t arguing on the validity of the 1^st Amendment, in that no one (excluding Newt Gingrich) has suggested the government censor or not allow them to build there. The thing is, this happens all the time under the guise of social agendas. Land is confiscated, cities have zoning laws. Since we are arguing on the basis of location, I believe all avenues should be opened; because after all this is about property rights and freedom of religion. Yet, the simple fact is that you could never have an ammunition store across the street from a high school, you could never have a strip club across the street from a church; remember the “ground zero cross,” Trump’s American Flag? Those were just small examples, that just so happened to land on the front page. We (as a society) selectively censor people’s speech and property rights, and it’s not until we agree with someone’s position that we defend their rights; we call this censorship “societal norms.” But that’s not how the Constitution works, the simple fact is that the people supporting the mosque (in most instances) are just as hypocritical about 1^st Amendment rights as people like Newt Gingrich.

Unfortunately, this angle will never be explored, because both sides are so caught up in their own world view that they both deny their own hypocrisy. To me the people have every right to build the mosque, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Just like I should have the right to build an ammo store across the street from Columbine, but that’s not a good idea. I think the whole idea boils down to what you think is considerate, if where you draw the lines of society norms.

In other news, Greg Gutfeld from Fox News Red Eye, says he’s going to build a gay bar beside the mosque (which really isn’t so much a mosque as a community center for Muslims.) I support his endeavor, because he has the right to do so, it’s not a good idea because it will likely offend people…but I think that is the moral question that Gutfeld is trying to raise…and one that almost everyone has ignored. In a world, and a political world that lives on political correctness, it’s interesting to see the sides reversed.

Quick Update:

The argument of “hallowed ground” I guess doesn’t apply if you’re defending the “hallowed ground?” Newt? Anyone? An anti-mosque rally on 9/11 ? Really?

I don’t have a lot of regular readers, but I do have some…so some might be wondering why no posts in nearly a month? I have 4 reasons:

1. I took some time off to research for some upcoming articles
2. I created or updated 3 new websites (Cover of the Week, Virtual Blend, Yellowcard Forums); I’ve also been messing with stuff I didn’t realize existed such as Cufon, which you can see in action at Cover of the Week.
3. I’m going to New York in a week to attend FEE and I’ve been getting ready
4. I’m lazy.

So take the edge off and listen to some of the covers that I will be posting weekly on “Cover of the Week.“

In response to this

It comes at an opportune time, ahead of the looming elections, in which our political philosophies and principals are put to the test through practice. One such test involves the mosque slated to be built in the region; and while supporting other’s rights to express their distaste with the project, I do not support their views of not allowing other’s similar rights.

The opinion which struck me as the most odd in this debate, was purported Tea Party leader Lou Ann Zelenik’s claims that, “Until the American Muslim community…condemn(s) those who want to destroy our civilization…we are not obligated to open our society to any of them.” Coming from the conservative libertarian viewpoint, I found this statement and those that accompany it, to be hypocritical at best. If such a political movement or a purported leader of it, which prides itself on the Constitution, openly threatens the Constitutional rights of fellow citizens, I am quite concerned as to how this person could be trusted with the powers to act on such threats.

It’s not just Mrs. Zelenik’s views though; upon further examination it has been an uproar among, what appears to be, a majority of residence. But lest I remind these individuals, that this right which has been afforded to them to show their outrage, also affords those in the Islamic faith the right to express their religious views without government abridging it. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights.”

This is not a country of one religion or one creed, if it were we would not be free. All liberty is individual; it is not of collective ideals, but of individual ones. Those of the Islamic faith are not asking that you or I convert to Islam, but in many cases, the Christian view is being forced upon them with government as its sword. You would be hard fit to find even two Christians of which agree upon every issue, nor two Republicans, nor two Democrats. If we pick at the seams of our free society through our collective ideas we will do nothing but undermine, not only the rights of others, but of ourselves. As Jesus once said, those who live by the sword will die by the sword; and in this case, many threaten the rights to both expression and of property as they wield the power to do so; a power which may not always be there.

In short, wearing the flag does not make you a patriot any more than wearing the cross makes you a Christian, nor does flogging others for their unconstitutional acts, while threatening the violation of others’ rights make you a Constitutionalist. I believe that people of all views in the matter, should take a step back and ask themselves if they are swimming with the stream or standing steadfast with the principals that they tout in their own name.

If I’ve learned anything from the Wizard of Oz it’s that tin men have no hearts and straw men have no brains; so it comes as no surprise that brain dead people throw around terms such “straw man argument.” It’s a cop out to actually having a discussion, and in many ways is just creating a “straw man” by falsely presenting someone’s argument as misconstruing what you said. This isn’t to say that straw men arguments don’t crop up, only that every time I’ve been accuse of a “straw man argument,” I was the victim of being grouped with a group of people who I generally disagree with. You see this all the time, Republicans say you’re an “Obamanite” if you so much as take up for anything he does; the opposite is true you are called a “Paul-ite” if you take up for Ron Paul, a “Tea Bagger” if you take up for the “Tea Party” and a racist if you take up for Rand Paul. After these claims are made and you try to have an argument, about half way through you are accuse of a “straw man argument.” Wait a minute buster, what was that you just said? Did you just use a “straw man” 30 minutes ago and I ignored it? You can’t have a discussion without sometimes misconstruing someone’s beliefs on occasion, but likewise getting a fact or two wrong is completely different than grouping people together with a belief, so that you can let your mind at ease and ignore what the other person is saying. I’m just going to start throwing out the term “Representativeness heuristic” so that these people have to go look it up and I can go find a match.

Anyhow here’s a song about Cognitive bias:

This is a poem first published in 1705 from “The Fable of the Bees or Public Vices, Publick Benefits,” by Bernard Mandeville; it connects well with the the latter (in time frame) two of the past three posts about what makes the world go ’round.

The Grumbling Hive: or, Knaves turn’d Honest.
A Spacious Hive well stockt with Bees,
That liv’d in Luxury and Ease;
And yet as fam’d for Laws and Arms,
As yielding large and early Swarms;
Was counted the great Nursery
Of Sciences and Industry.
No Bees had better Government,
More Fickleness, or less Content:
They were not Slaves to Tyranny,
Nor rul’d by wild Democracy;
But Kings, that could not wrong, because
Their Power was circumscrib’d by Laws.
T h e s e Insects liv’d like Men, and all
Our Actions they perform’d in small:
They did whatever’s done in Town,
And what belongs to Sword or Gown:
Tho’ th’ Artful Works, by nimble Slight
Of minute Limbs, ’scap’d Human Sight;
Yet we’ve no Engines, Labourers,
Ships, Castles, Arms, Artificers,
Craft, Science, Shop, or Instrument,
But they had an Equivalent:
Which, since their Language is unknown,
Must be call’d, as we do our own.
As grant, that among other Things,
They wanted Dice, yet they had Kings;
And those had Guards; from whence we may
Justly conclude, they had some Play;
Unless a Regiment be shewn
Of Soldiers, that make use of none.
Va s t Numbers throng’d the fruitful Hive;
Yet those vast Numbers made ’em thrive;
Millions endeavouring to supply
Each other’s Lust and Vanity;
While other Millions were employ’d,
To see their Handy-works destroy’d;
They furnish’d half the Universe;
Yet had more Work than Labourers.
Some with vast Stocks, and little Pains,
Jump’d into Business of great Gains;
And some were damn’d to Sythes and Spades,
And all those hard laborious Trades;
Where willing Wretches daily sweat,
And wear out Strength and Limbs to eat: Read more…

I took ~45 hours of religious studies…which in short means I am not limited to economics. So here is an essay I wrote on the Centurion from the Gospels:

The Gospel means “good news”, which is derived from the Old English “god-spell” translated from Greek. Four Gospels were chosen to be placed in the New Testament, based on the idea of the four corners of the earth and the four winds. In these Gospels known as the Canonical Gospels, there are interestingly restless ideas that can be interpreted in a number of ways.

An interesting passage, Matthew 8:5-8:13 raises an interesting question. The question being, “why was Jesus not present during the healing of the Centurion’s servant.” In this passage Jesus states, “Go! It will be done just as you believed it would.” Never in the passage was Jesus ever in contact with the servant, but rather he talked specifically about faith. Although often times we see textual inconsistencies within the Gospels, the same trait is displayed in Luke 7:1-7:10. We see no presence of Jesus during the healing of the Centurion’s servant, but still we see the display of faith and healing as a result. This healing is uncharacteristic and unlike many of the other miracles and healings. Was this passage simply meant by relaying faith through Christ, or in having faith within and relaying it through God’s power?

Perhaps Jesus revealed something deeper than what the Gospels would have us believe. Perhaps there is a point in the human evolution of thought in which you must quite asking and start knowing, and believing. Assertions of your faith in living and feeling it surely are more powerful than mere requests to the divine. Possibly the story of the centurion gives us insight to our own faith and power of prayer, through mind, body and soul. Jesus says “Go your way; as you have believed, so be it done unto you”. The servant of the centurion was healed that very hour according to the Gospel of Luke.

Possibly Jesus was teaching us to lift our consciousness out of our narrow ways and onto a broader scale, in which what we need to be happy is already given. This appears to root back to Genesis 12:1, “Go Forth”, in Hebrew “Lech-Lecha” or “walk into yourself.” Even still we see more examples of this ideology of journey of Moses, as Moses leads the slaves of Israel out of Egypt. Egypt, also read as Mochin d’Katnut, or mind of narrowness; to travel out of this state is to travel to Mochin d’gadlut or a mind of spaciousness. Perhaps Jesus realized these ideas fully and tapped into the kingdom of heaven by doing so. The Bible translates God, or the lord rather, as the “ising”. Is it a matter of God being what he will be, through our own thoughts and prayers? God says to Moses, that “I will be, (what) I will be”, conceivably through this God is what we wish.

It is well known that the desire and belief of victory increases your chances to do so. Buddha been noted as to saying things similar to Jesus, such as:

“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him.”

Believing it is important to note the unity of multiple religions and philosophies, we begin to see a much broader picture. The idea of the outer, physical world being an effect and not as a cause lifts many more questions and ideas, or rather philosophies of living. Perhaps in saying these things both men had found the power of prayer and meditation, the freeing of the mind and soul. If what is needed is already provided, what is there to fear? Buddha proposes that through our doubts we create our own pains or failure.

“What we think, we become”; a quote of Buddha often mentioned by teachers, and preachers alike. In saying this Buddha implies what was fore mentioned in earlier texts. Buddha has many other quotes that progress this idea of unity with God through faith, the idea of men shaping their life with their own thoughts and prayers. The idea of pure thoughts is distributed throughout the teachings of Jesus and Buddha; one would think that the subject would be more widespread.

Jesus performed his miracles, and healings with the faith that what was needed was already provided. Perhaps we should learn from the Centurion and have faith; faith that our prayers have already been answered, ambitions, hopes and dreams already true. Perhaps if we think, act and live as Jesus taught, with such faith that we knew there was nothing to fear, we would grasp faith greater than our problems.

Robert Frost once said, “Poetry is what gets lost in translation,” and in reading Kirby’s “The Big Jacket” and Tate’s “A Knock On The Door,” I’m not sure exactly what to make of it all. The “poems” seem more like commentary than poetry, and more like mindless ramblings than commentary. Where do I draw a line to say something is poetry, and when do I read between the lines to find the art. If poetry is what gets lost in translation, then I suppose I need to decipher it, but with poetry being a language of the soul, are we doing a psychological analysis of the authors, or of ourselves?

James Tate, a Kansas City favorite son, was born on December 8^th, 1943, and his father, a fighter pilot, was tragically killed in the Second World War. It is quite apparent that this affected his poetry, in that his first collection of poems was called, The Lost Pilot.[1] While unsure it is fair to say this is the only inspiration for his poetic musings, it would be ignorant to say it didn’t play an important role in his childhood and general outlook on life. When speaking of Tate’s work, the poet John Ashbery wrote in the New York Times:

Educated in Kansas and Iowa, whose idiom may not sound familiar to inhabitants of those states. But then again, it may. Tate knows that all places are the same place, and conversely, ”If you ain’t where you are, you’re no place.” Elsewhere he writes, ”Adios Toledo, see you in Ohio.” Local color plays a role, but the main event is the poet’s wrestling with passing moments, frantically trying to discover the poetry there and to preserve it, perishable as it is. Tate is the poet of possibilities, of morph, of surprising consequences, lovely or disastrous, and these phenomena exist everywhere.[2]

As we have delved into James Tate’s shortened life story, it becomes essential to finally dive into the work at hand. In Tate’s poem, “A Knock On The Door,” he discusses his distaste with those who would rather speak of death than to live life as it is. In the instance of his seemingly observational narrative he gives us a hint at Jehovah’s Witness evangelists who he invites into his home, only to find they would rather speak of death than to partake in his pastries. He goes on to mention the “Grapeleaf Skeletonizer,” which is somewhat of a pest that devours leaves, usually consuming all but the veins; A stark comparison with time eating away at life, and life eating away at us.

Diverging from James Tate for a short period, now we move onto David Kirby, who wrote the poem “The Big Jacket.” Unlike Tate whom has a vast amount of information available about his early life, Kirby has little to none. What little could be discovered about the man’s early life tells us one thing, he was born in the same war torn world that Tate was born into, as he was born in 1944.[3] Kirby has an apparent sense of humor and drives his inspiration from John Keats and Little Richard.[4] Interestingly enough his colleague Thomas K. Wetherell wrote “Your poems have evolved into complex, commodious, overlapping narratives blending stand-up humor and knock-down wisdom.”[5] It seems that would highlight the man’s personality and writing style pretty well.

In “The Big Jacket,” Kirby discusses the days leading up to, and the day of an Opera. When first reading the said poem, one might have trouble distinguishing; exactly what is occurring because the writing style is so rambunctious, and seems very much like rambling of a drunk man. Fortunately the poem shapes up as it moves forward and it becomes very apparent what the poem is about. Now as to whether there is a deeper meaning behind the poem, that has yet to be seen, but it’s doubtful. The poem very much has a face value, and based on what we know about the poet, it points us towards not reading too deep into the poem and rather enjoying the narrative as comedy.

Both poets use a humorous dialogue to draw us into the writings, and both poets actually have similar writing styles in that they are, both presenting their works in a narrative voice, a commentary of events rather than a deep description. They both seem to evaluate everyday life, and take a Seinfeld like approach in that it’s poetry about nothing. Nothing but the everyday, yet it remains interesting.

The poets both grew up in the 1940s and 50s and both poems were written in the 1990s, which surely had an effect on their outlooks and comedy tastes, though frankly they both seem to have a satirical reflection that is seen mostly in the nineteen nineties. Tate’s sarcastic remarks ring distinctively in his work of “A Knock On The Door.” He verbally dismantles the Jehovah Witness ideas of death and expresses his own coming to terms with it in a fowl swoop of “smart” remarks. He goes on to make an interesting comment at the end, “a black cloud over their heads and they seen nothing without end.” Nothing without end is or could be a Jewish reference, seeing as the term “nothingness without end” is used to describe God in the Jewish tradition, depending on translation.

Kirby parallels this dialogue with his encountering tale of a credit card company, which again he has a very Jerry Seinfeld like view on the event, rambling on about how an every day event could be so ridiculous and humorous at the same time. Tate and Kirby both have very similar humor style and again, they are almost indistinguishable in these two works that have been assigned to be analyzed. Kirby does have a distinction though, he uses a lot of slang and even, at times, improper grammar, using regional accents to highlight, and bring his poem to life.

One might find it rather enjoyable that Kirby was able to twist the story from, initial confusion and turning it into a satirical piece on an ordinary situation. A very Larry David like touch, knowing that this is never described in either of their biographies; it is still felt one can almost bet they both have general roots in dry, smart humor that parallels very much with a lot of comedian and sitcom observations. As both men were born in the 1940s, having come out of the depression and going through adolescence in the 1950s and 1960s, one could say that American pop culture definitely played a role in raising the two men.  Especially considering Tate lost his father at a very young age, so he likely never really grew up with a father figure.

Going back to the poems, in “The Big Jacket,” the narrative sounds very feminine, in the smiling foolishly at the Opera performer over the collar, which seems almost flirtatious. One might have gotten the impression during the reading of the poem that the author was indeed a female, especially if one didn’t know that the author was a male. Meanwhile the poem, “A Knock On The Door,” has a transgender feel that could either be male or female. It’s difficult to determine why this occurs, but perhaps there are other intentions in using this style of narrative.

Both authors leave a feeling of mockery in the narratives, which again ties their types of humors to be very similar. In “The Big Jacket,” Kirby leaves a sense of childhood wonder and mockery of the stage performers. It may have been safe to assume that the poem was about a child if not a female, but the poem discusses adult issues and uses derogatory language, and makes references to his elderly mother. One may still feel that the person in the poem has maintained a child like wonder and teenage persona. However in contrast, the poem by Tate, offers a more adult aspect and a coming to terms with death, which is not dealt with in the other poem. Tate expresses that life should be enjoyed rather than counting down to the end, watching the sands of time wash away beneath our feet.

Tate maybe expressing this feeling more so in his poem, as we reflect back to his childhood, in that he lost his father at a young age. Some people may find it less important, but the role of parents is likely one of the most important molding factors of a child. While, little information is available about the early childhood of David Kirby, one may also assume that his parents had a possible disruption, possibly growing up without his father for a short period of time because of the wars of the period.

“Good manners are the glue of society,” or so says Seinfeld’s Kramer, yet we see both poets having questionable manners in their mocking and off the cuff remarks to either the Jehovah’s Witness evangelists or credit card agencies. Are we to assume that these are for comedic effect, or are they trying to bring out and question cultural norms and etiquette? Culture is somewhat of script in and of itself for acceptable behavior in a society, and I keep going back to Seinfeld references because I feel that it is a good parallel with questioning cultural norms and the type of humor the two authors present to us. Both attempt to draw us out of our comfort zone in facing real life situations, yet keep a reality check on their audience and members of the narrative.

James Tate and David Kirby both share many similarities, in their types of humor, but what hasn’t been greatly discussed is what Tate’s colleague called, the poets “wrestling with passing moments, frantically trying to discover the poetry there.” Kirby and Tate both draw from what seems to be direct observations of their surroundings, while maintaining a satirical and exaggerated environment to which they can stretch their humor over our eyes like a veil to see as they themselves have seen the event in their collective minds.

Neither poet keeps meter in their writing; rather it feels more like reading ramblings and cultural insights from a comedic person. It feels very much like a sitcom’s dialogue or a script proposal, yet each has an element that separates it from that genre. It almost forces us to leave poetry undefined, as Wallace Stevens once said, “Poetry is the statement of a relation between a man and the world.” If this is the case, then poetry is everything, like art, but these poets don’t even fall under this large scope, because both men have a statement between themselves and other men.

Upon looking at what people think about poetry, it’s hard to distinguish what exactly has been lost in translation. If poetry is an echo, asking a shadow to dance as Carl Sandburg has stated, then perhaps poetry is what is heard but never seen. The idea that poetry is lost in translation is perhaps true, but poetry is what we perceive it to be, much like the worlds the poets present to us in these two poems. It is hard to analyze a poet’s intentions without asking them directly, and even with enough background information we find ourselves paralyzed by our own unsound minds. So in all reality, reading a poem and analyzing it isn’t so much a reflection of the poet, but a reflection of our own world views. Language shapes our perception of reality, and our own reality shapes the perception of language.

---

[1] “James Tate”, Academy of American Poets 19 Oct. 2008: <http://www.poets.org/poet.php/prmPID/70>

[2] John, Ashbery. “The Poetry Symposium.” The New York Times [New York] 21 Nov. 2004: <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/books/review/21SYMPOSI.html>.

[3] David Kirby (poet), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kirby_(poet)

[4] Robert O. Lawton, David Kirby, http://www.fsu.edu/profiles/kirby/ (2004).

[5] Thomas K. Wetherell, Citation for David Kirby, http://www.davidkirby.com/about.html (2 May. 2003).

Here’s a paper I wrote, and it was just sitting there un-admired and un-indexed by Google…I figured hey, why not share. Someone might read it one day. (spoiler alert: it’s actually pretty cliche and horrible.)

One thinks a thousand thoughts; recollections slip in and out and around time, leaving plenty of room to weave, backtrack, drift and glide. Our imaginations swirl and twist in an intricate dance that is our past experiences, our future ambitions and our present omniscience. In remembering and imagining our lives as they are, were, and will be; we retain the sad sweet reflection of the dangers, toils and snares of our lifelong hymns. Memoirs of the spirit seem to linger and sweeten long after the memories of the brain have faded.

The temptation to view the past and future through the lenses of the present is all too overwhelming, yet it is undeniably a result of our consciousness. In fact, it may already be thought that the topic of this paper is known, but that is quite a predicament, and falls right into the hands of temptation. It’s humorous to know that even now as you read this very sentence your brain is estimating, with the current mind set, as to what the next word will be. Your brain is using the words you’re reading right now and the words it read just before to make a reasonable guess of the word it will read next (Gilbert 162). You cruise right along, happily reading left to right, left to right, turning black squiggly lines into ideas, scenes, characters and concepts (Gilbert 7). Remarkably the brain is able to digest these words even if you aren’t fully concentrating, that is until, supercalifragilistic expialidocious; you come across something unexpected, see?

As much as many of us despise racism and sexism, they have only been considered morally wrong in recent years (Gilbert 162). You wouldn’t expect to get a traffic ticket for speeding 4 years ago, yet the same often times is not logically applied to the likes of Thomas Jefferson for keeping slaves, or Sigmund Freud for patronizing women. However the temptations arise; and worst yet the temptation arises more so while viewing the future in the eyes of the present (Gilbert 162). It seems as if the ends justify the means, until you get to the end. Time is a slippery slope that we often view as now happening then; we give our futures a twisted view based on our present emotions. The inability to take the perspective of the person to whom the rest of our lives will happen is the most menacing dilemma we can face.

Despite our best efforts of knowing our future selves, we remarkably are able to adapt to our mistakes. Our ability to find something positive in the haze of life is actually quite easy. Studies show that consumers evaluate appliances more positively after they buy them, job seeks evaluate jobs more positively after they accept them, and high school students evaluate colleges more positively after they get into them (Gilbert 175). This positive hind sight stretches to many subjects, and the end result is always the same, people seem are quite adept for finding a positive way to view things once those things become theirs. This could be applied to sports teams, religion, race, and various sensitive subjects that relate to elitism, but that goes without saying.

To further review this phenomenon, let’s consider that when taking a poll of who people going to vote for president, you would expect the person taking the votes for the poll to consider a broad spectrum of political demographics; you wouldn’t expect them to only evaluate members of the NRA. Still though we as individuals have a tendency to do just that, for example, when volunteers in one study were told they had scored poorly on an intelligence test and were given an opportunity to pursue newspaper articles about IQ tests, they spent more time reading articles that questioned the validity of such tests than the articles that sanctioned them (Frey 434). When volunteers in yet another study were told they were given a glowing evaluation by a supervisor, they were more interested in reading background information that praised the supervisor’s competence and acumen that background information that impeached it (Holton 42). By controlling the information to which they were exposed, these people indirectly controlled the conclusions they would draw; which would be unacceptable in a political polling (Gilbert 180).

Likewise, studies reveal that people have a desire for asking questions that are subtly engineered to manipulate the answers they receive. A question such as “am I the best lover you ever had?” is dangerous because it only has only one answer that can truly make us happy, but a question like “what do you like best about my lover making?” is good because it has only one answer that can make us truly miserable (Gilbert). Studies show that people intuitively lean towards asking the questions that are most likely to obtain the answer they want to hear. And when they hear those answers, they tend to believe what they’ve nudged others to say which is why “tell me you love me” remains such a popular request (D.T. Gilbert 269). In short, we obtain support from our ideal conclusions by listening to the words that were put in the mouths of people who have already been preselected for their compliance to say what we want to hear (Gilbert 181). Read more…

(Who the heck is Ward Churchill?)

It would be easily construed that Ward Churchill committed an act of tyranny on September 11^th, 2001; it would be even easier to point to his flawed statistics and flagrant language as unjust libel. That being said, the idea of patriotism is called into question, interrogated and beaten into a form that agrees with our perception of justice and reality.

All told, 2,740 people were killed on that fateful day, but to narrow a life down to a number is inhuman. No, 2,740 individual mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, cousins, friends, and lovers died innocently by the hands of men bound by a narrow vision and the perception that human life is not equal. Joseph Stalin once said, “A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.” On September 11^th, 2001, the nation was shocked by a tragedy, a nation united by a notion of humanity, courage and the human spirit. As the smoke cleared, the same did not come of our own hearts, eyes, and judgment; instead we vowed revenge, to destroy those who took a staggering statistic of 2,740 lives.

Ward Churchill, while writing his rant, may have missed his own point. It becomes apparent while reading his paper that the very idea of revenge, of his own cries for humanity, undercut his own perception of that very idea. Calling into question the ideas of your country, of its direction and moral perception is very patriotic, that is indeed true; but just as the idea of protecting your citizens turns to scorn the lives of others with bombs, so do the words of Ward Churchill scorn the lives of the of those lost on September 11^th, 2001. The ghosts of our past, always come to hit us back as though there is some circular balance to the Universe, some underlying message in the response to our actions. Whether it is karma or sinful revenge, the question arises of what came first, the chicken, or the egg. Why should there be repercussion if there is nothing to sway that outcome, why fight if there is no reason.

Upon the attacks against Iraq and Afghanistan, can it be said that those innocent lives lost were justified by the means of revenge. Furthermore, could the attacks against the World Trade Centers and Pentagon justify the innocent lives lost in Middle East by the hands of Americans? Can it be said that the ends truly justify the means? Perhaps, we should take this lesson from Ward Churchill’s paper, and ignore his inhuman judgment of bringing a human life down to a statistical anomaly. The point we should call to attention, is not what is justification, but rather why are we killing our brethren, for money, for oil, for justice, for God? What are these but human thoughts that are so inhuman, that it’s hard to believe that they in all of their mystery are pure human nature.

It’s surprising, that we the western world with our advancements, fail to evolve enough to see that the mirror and the outside world aren’t so different. Our forefathers have written a document describing the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; it’s written in ink, but sadly disobeyed in blood. Should our Declaration of Independence not only fall in the order of our country’s freedom, but for the freedom on humanity as a whole? Should that not be the mission of The United States of America? Not to kill innocent lives with scornful revenge but to truly show the world freedom by allowing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to prevail in all cultures through peace? That is what one should call truly American and divine.

All in all, Ward Churchill was a jerk…and yet still there are many more jerks out there like him. You can be against war, as I am, and not become just as bad as your perceived enemy…and it is often even 9 years later that people on the from the anti-war perspective can justify the deaths of Israelis or Americans, or Spanish, just for their mere involvement. The circle will be broken when someone walks away, and even now there is a war of words between anti-war and pro-war, and really it’s just a small scale war where no one really gets hurt; Easier to argue on the sidelines than enter the playing field.

Ashton has been getting some bad press as of late because of his mocking of “drill baby drill,” when he said:

“If you could go back to the Republican national convention and look the guys in the eyes that were saying, ‘DRILL DRILL DRILL’, at the Republican national convention, those guys, there you go, that’s what we got, like, we did it, we drilled drilled drilled.” …

“But at the end of the day the truth is, is like, we got to think about the world we live in, I mean we have to be conscious. This is like not a right, it’s a privilege to be on this land and using its resources and we have to be smart about it.”

You wouldn’t have thought I’d take this angle, but we should really leave Ashton alone about this. Sure, he drove a 14,500 lb. Navistar CXT that gets 7 MPG; but I ask you this, how else is Ashton supposed to haul around his huge ego? Did you ever think of that? Do you think he can just jump in a Ford Fiesta and get around town? I think not, and maybe you should be more understanding. So, anyhow he’s hauling big cargo, and that requires a huge truck that gets 7 mpg.

I won’t stop there, I have yet another reason why he’s a good environmentalist, he’s using a used model. Think about it people, he could be out chasing tail of young 20 somethings but instead he has settled for the 48 year old Demi Moore, who was previously married to Bruce Willis. So really he’s actually doing more for the environment than any of us, maybe you should look at yourself before you cast a stone. Ashton is a great person, so great of a person that his memorial of Britney Murphy included 1 tweet using bad grammar and text speak…which in this day and age is the most you can of someone as busy as Ashton.