Posted in Politics, Teenage Life

National Heathcare

We Americans live in a country where people say we have the best medical attention, how come it costs millions of dollars to get any treatment in a hospital. why do americans have to go to canada for cheeper medication. its because we do not have National Healthcare. the one thing that could change all of our problems, from the economy, to the social security. Continue reading “National Heathcare”

Posted in Issues

I know, I know, I’m obsessed

First off, how do you all like the new logo? I like it, but I think I need a different color for the background, instead of orange. Thoughts?

So I just though I’d share this little tid bit of Jason Mraz with everyone. I found his blog last night and got really excited. But shhh. It’s (mostly) healthy.

“My mom sings in the Choir [in her church] and I volunteered my time to sit in at a later service and do the same. If I believe in any God at all, my God exists in music. I know this because music makes me happy and that’s the point of having a God. God isn’t responsible for Wal-Mart or for the War on terror; therefore, I don’t blame God. I believe those things happen by people who forget to look up and see what God is. They kind of ruin it for the rest of us. But then again, maybe their God gives them riches and power and that makes them happy, so who am I to judge?”
-Jason Mraz, 2007

Posted in Issues

Something Corporate

…Is a good band.

But that’s not the issue I want to talk about today. Because it’s the holiday season, I want to talk about a more festive topic.

Santa.

I am one of the millions of kids around the US that believed in Santa. Heck, I believed up until 6th grade, when my [younger!] brother’s guitar teacher ruined it for me. Granted, I was leaning towards disbelief, having figured out the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny, but Santa was real for the longest time.

Recently, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune was unable to publish an article about the existence of Santa in the newspaper, so the Tribune posted it online instead. This was because many readers expressed that their children read the newspaper and didn’t want their childhoods crushed. Also, acclaimed author of A Great and Terrible Beauty, Libba Bray posted a blog on her LiveJournal about breaking the news of Santa’s fictional character to her ten year old son. She talked about how hard that was, for the both of them.

So I ask you, you few readers of BOW, is Santa a good idea? I know that I for one was not particularly crushed when I found out he wasn’t real, and it has not caused me to distrust my parents any more than before (hah. hah. I joke). It did make Christmas Eve a lot less fun and exciting, I suppose. However, I also know that some kids do feel duped to be lied to, and hold that against their parents. Even Bray’s son, although her forgave his mother, said “I don’t like it when you lie to me. It makes me not trust you,” then said “Well, I’ve told you some lies, too. Little ones. I mean, we’re just people. People do that.”

And he’s right. People do lie. So is the Santa lie one that we should be willing to risk? I’m torn on the subject, since it depends on the kid how vehemently they respond to the news, but also since I enjoyed being lied to for those eleven-odd years and don’t really hold it against anyone.

We’ll discuss the holiness of the holiday tomorrow. Today, it’s Santa. Talk! Discuss!

Posted in Issues, Politics

A change in pace (capital punishment)

Well, although I don’t think we can ever thoroughly exhaust the topics of gay rights, it really is time for a chance of pace in the social issues department. This week’s topic of discussion: Capital Punishment (aka, the death penalty).
This is an extremely controversial topic, but it seems to get a bit drowned-out in all the noise from other social issues, such as gay rights and abortion. This is a very delicate subject, and there are many facets to it. Many argue such things as “eye for an eye” and justice, as well as what a civilized community should do, the right to life, the chance to repent before death, the mortal sin of murder, and many other things. It may take hours to explain them all, so I won’t even try.
Personally, I find the idea of capital punishment primitive. It doesn’t matter how “painless” and efficient the process becomes, it is, in it’s raw form, the most primitive legal act of our society. It goes by the “moral” that humans have upheld for centuries: “an eye for an eye.” It is one of those morals (like gay rights) that needs to be rethought. We may have rethought it on the lower levels: we constantly teach our children to never respond to violence with violence: always talk it out; always forgive. But when it comes to our harshest sentence, we are blatantly hypocritical.
Another thing worth mentioning is that this is one of the few social issues (if not the only social issue) where I concur with the Roman Catholic Church. Murder is a mortal sin, and that not only goes, of course, for the murderer himself, but for the executioner, who really is forced to murder by the job description. I do not doubt that most executioners kill more people than any murderers they have put to death. The emotional toll must be rather horrific, as well.
Also on the matter of mortal sin: those who are subjected to the death penalty never really get the chance to repent (even though I am agnostic, I still think that you really ought to have the chance to reconcile with yourself and the people whom you have hurt before the inevitable end: it gives a sense of finality to the whole matter). Sure, criminals end up on death row for years and years, but I don’t know if I would be able to come to any conclusion whilst berating my horrible demise day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, and, in some cases, decade after decade.
Now this brings up the point of the sense of justice that the family of the victim often desires. I can understand their anguish, but what they really desire is nothing more than petty revenge (this is assuming that they really believe that the person who killed their relative truly deserves death). I cannot begin to think what it would be like to loose a family member at the hands of a murderer, but I would certainly hope that I would retain my current outlook if I do: which is that I need to be the better person and allow that person to reconcile with himself, the victim’s family, and their god (if they believe in one). I don’t think I could ever truly forgive that person for what they did, but I would hope that I would not stoop to their level by thinking that capital punishment would be a just compromise for the loss of my own family member.

Well, I think that’s about the sum of my beliefs (and it truly is a summary – if you want to argue on the subject then you may hear more), so let’s hear your beliefs. What do you think of capital punishment? Good or bad? Necessary or primitive? Just or unjust? Whatever you’ve got to say, let’s hear it.

For now, this is Aardvarki, signing out.

Posted in Issues

Ok….ok….STOP

This is a response blog to The Maker’s gay rights blog.

I did not hear about this blog of his until the morning after, when a friend (who happens to be gay) printed out several copies and handed one to me. “Read this,” he tells me.

Of course, I’m always happy when people go to my website of their own free will, so I gave it a look over. And, admittedly, my first reaction was chagrin and anger. He misquoted and misinterpreted me! The Maker and I have recently had an e-debate over email about this very subject, and all the points in his blog were ones that we’d already fought about. Then I got confused, because the week before, in Trig, he told me that he had revised his opinion because obviously, it’s not someone’s choice to be homosexual, so why should we restrict any rights?

Then I read his blog again. It says he doesn’t “necessarily” agree with the things he was about to write. I’ll admit that this was a badly phrased pre-reading statement, but he means well, guys. In Ford Prefect’s blog about Tolerance, there was a comment from someone asking for The Maker’s arguments AGAINST gay rights, even if he didn’t believe him. True to his word, The Maker posted just these.

HOWEVER, he does not believe the things he wrote. As he said, in speech and debate, we have to be constantly reminded of the “other side”. Those arguments are the “other side” of gay rights arguments. So please, cut the guy a break. It’s perfectly fine to argue against his points, but please, no personal attacks. Especially when he doesn’t believe in those things.

Something else was brought up in the comments section by Adventure Captain Pants, how it would be beneficial for the neutrality of the site if we could get a non-bigoted religious argument against gay rights, because that’s erally the only argument you can use against them. All others, as demonstrated in The Maker’s blog, fall through. So, if anyone is interested in writing a blog from the religious perspective, KEEPING IN MIND that you have to remain non-dogmatic and non-offensive, please let me know. I’m ashamed to admit that neither I nor most of my admins are very religious and cannot offer this other side. If you don’t already have an adminship and wish to write a guest blog, email me at brianna [at] brisownworld [dot] com with your blog. Please check for spelling and grammar, because I’m not going to correct it for you.

So, once again, leave The Maker alone. Argue about his blog, but not about him.

Posted in Issues

Homosexual Rights

Since it was requested, I will lay out my argument against homosexual rights, and I hope it does not leech interest in the much more intriguing Tolerance is Bad blog. Keep in mind that I don’t necessarily believe or support what is listed below.

I will say this again: I do NOT believe or support everything below: I apologize if I offend anyone, and I do know all the fallacies in this reasoning. This is my argument against Gay Rights, since Mr. Prefect asked, and, again, I do NOT believe everything posted below. I know that many of them are partially unsound: hey, everything mostly is, and especially for arguments advocating intolerance.

Also, I would like to mention that I was originally pro-gay, and would scream at everone against gay rights, but then I had a conversation with our esteemed webmistress concerning a philosopher we both knew. She brought up that he was not such a good person to believe, amoung other things, and that I shouldn’t follow his opinions. Many other people, including Mr. Aardvarki, who I had know had also attested to his alledged incompetance, and that originally sowed doubt into my opinions. I got better, eventually.

Again, I would like to reiterate that I do NOT believe most of the things down here (except the pollution clause, as pollution messes up so many things, and many chemicals simulate hormones and chemicals that are known to cause homosexuality, as Mr. N will attest. The homosexuality and AIDS clause is a real, if unpopular, theory, as many scientists refuse to admit the possibility that AIDS is not caused by a virus.). I deeply apologize if I offend anyone,

First point, and I have supported this all my life until Mr. N told me it was totally wrong: Genetics has nothing to do with it. The epiginome and prenatal chemical conditions have a little bit to do with it *, but mainly it’s the environmental effects. Tabula Rasa and all that: one’s sexual orientation is determined by choice and what they experience:

Thesis: Homosexuality is bad, and we should not encourage people to be homosexual, or condone homosexuality.

1: Homosexuality is bad because it is not how it’s supposed to work
a) It’s not natural
b) It’s not productive
c) It detrimentally affects both the homosexual individual and society.

a: Species did not get where they are by being gay.
This doesn’t mean homosexuality is not found in nature, it just means that it is not how it’s supposed to work. All species have a 1-2% anomalous population who are chemically messed up,(2) so homosexuality is accounted for, but, again, species did not get where they are by being gay.

b: From a genetic standpoint, the primary point of a species is to reproduce.
Some anomalies, such as sterile people and homosexual people, do exist, but, in a genetic standpoint, they can live normally and then die naturally, not passing on their genes and thus not affecting anyone else. But, now the homosexual population is increasing, so something must be wrong.

c) Being gay hurts everyone.
1: From personal expirience, most gay and lesbian people I have known are perverted and profane, rude, and basically just bad people. I have counted three people who are good enough to accept and be accepted, and every other gay guy I met is a jerkoff.

2: Another edition of Discover Magazine discusses a certain doctor’s theory on AIDS. I have been looking for this article with little success, and I don’t remember his name, but I think it’s German, but I would encourage all interested partys to look into it. Basically, since we have spent so much time trying to find exactly what causes AIDS, AIDS might not be caused by a virus. Back in the 70’s, gay men used a certain type of drug called Poppers to facilitate intercourse. These drugs actually lowered their immune system, and this evolved into AIDS. Coupled with the fact that, back then, a gay person might have had over one hundred companions in his lifetime, AIDS could have spread among the homosexual population and then spread through blood contamination to all sorts of people. This is why the first AIDS victims were homosexual, and while only 10% of the entire population is homosexual, 25% of the AIDS population is gay. There is a disproportionately large amount of homosexuals who have aids.

3: Homosexuality is a mental disorder:
It has been conclusively determined that homosexuals have a reciprocated hypothalamus,
something not normal affecting their brain. Although we do not look down on people with mental disorders, having a mental disorder is not something most of us would aspire to. (Note: this was originally upheld by the American Psychologists Assosiation.)

2: Someone could be born gay, someone could have seen jacked up muscular men so much that they turned lesbian, or someone could be bisexual because they are really desperate. Homosexuality is attributed to choice, social influences, environmental conditions, and a little bit to prenatal chemical conditions. The last one accounts from the 1-2% of homosexual humans, but the actual figure for homosexuality is more around 10%. This can be because:
a) more people are choosing to be gay
b) more people are turning gay because of social or environmental influences.

a) This could be the result of a degenerate culture, which now not only causes gun violence and prostitution, but now homosexuality

b) this could be the result of pollution and chemicals (Heard about Nalgene? Chinese toys? Chinese milk?) that contaminate the earth now more abundantly, contributing to prenatal chemical conditions. So not only does pollution cause cancer and Global Climate Change, it also causes homosexuality.

3. Even if people were born gay, they can change.
a) DNA changes in real time
b) We suppress genetic impulses all the time
c) The Empirical method.

a) please bear with me, I’m SO tired of explaining to all the ignorant plebeians about genetics. First, genes change in real time: people have studied twins, and their genes are identical at birth but start getting different as they get older and are subjected to various social, psychological, and biochemical influences.

b) We suppress the detrimental genetic impules sexual urges and tenancy to violence all the time, and the government takes pains to treat people who were born violent or addicted to drugs, so why should we condone homosexuality, just because “we were born that way”. I would like to site Mr. Bennett who has only one leg and continually assures everyone that it doesn’t matter.

c) We are not our genes. We are subjected to countless social, biochemical, and stuff whatsit thingamabobs that really determine our being. So what about genetics and all that junk? Be who you want to be, that’s the American idea.

Now consider the analogy of paraplegics:

Paraplegics can be paraplegic because they were born so, they suffered an accident or act of violence and became so, or (I know this is unlikely) they chose to become so.

And one would admit that, while paraplegics are not necessarily bad people, we do not want to many paraplegics rolling around.

So, even if gay people were not necessarily bad, and every population has it’s exceptional people, we do not want too many people to suffer from mental disorders, so we should not encourage people to be gay by condoning them, or offering too much incentive to be gay.

So, we should not encourage people to become homosexual.

Yet again, I reiterate that I do not necessarily believe all these arguments, and I, personally, believe that gay people should have thier rights. I apologize if I offend anyone.

Besides, isn’t the first step to being accepted accepting other people? Tolerate dissenting viewpoints!

I would include the counter-arguments, but I’ll leave that to our devoted viewers and our esteemed webmistress. I do realize that, basically, most of this is irrelevant to why gay people shound’t have rights.

*a 2006 Discover magazine edition revealed that mothers giving birth to male babies still had a bit of testosterone in their womb, which makes subsequent male babies more likely to be gay. The key word is more likely, while prenatal chemical condition effects sexual orientation, it is not conclusive.

Posted in Issues

The Importance of being Ernest

Here’s a little question that you can use in everyday life: Should Honesty and forthrightness still be used if they may be somewhat detrimental?

True, one can tell the truth without being honest, and one can be honest without having to point things out, but I wonder about earnestness, being sincere and forthcoming (Which is why I used the Oscar Wilde play for the title)

One, it’s nice and, well, earnest to be honest all the time.

But people mostly don’t want to know and don’t really care anyways.

And additionally, people don’t NEED to know every insolent item in existence

But being forthcoming shows one’s willingness to be honest and such.

But ignorance is bliss and people don’t need to know all the inconvenient truths laying around.

Furthermore, many times the truth hurts and sometimes one might want to tell a soothing lie.

But I would like to know what the internet population believes. This little topic applies to everyday life as well as things like politics. Should people be honest and sometimes mean all the time? Should politicians always tell the truth? Hmmmnm,

Posted in Issues

Tolerance

I have a very confusing conjectural moral question I was hoping the internet population could help me out with. Regarding Tolerance.

Now, It is not nice to prosecute people with a differing opinion than yours, and there are many pleas for tolerance from writers and critics old and new, attesting the desirably of tolerance. But…

If we accept tolerance, we are basically saying that every system of beliefs is equally valid and that we need to accept diversity.

That is saying that there is a possibility of our system of beliefs being wrong and their system of beliefs being right.

And to admit that possibility, we concede that we have doubts about our own system’s validity, which basically defies our system of beliefs.

So the only way to be true to our system of beliefs is to not accept any possibility that it is wrong, which sparks intolerance.

But to carry out that intolerance, we must squash the dissidents. But that leads to the first point, as persecution is not nice. And the thing goes round and round again.

So what do all you intelligent and opinionated people think? I hope you can alleviate my confusion. Or, if not, then you can join me.

Posted in Issues, Politics

Drugs…

Legalize or no?

Personally, I think we should legalize all drugs, the war on drugs is doing basically nothing and all it really resorts to is people on the street making money when legitimate businesses could be making that money and they could be taxed, getting more money for the government to pay for programs, and taking that money off the street. Making items illegal doesn’t stop them from being bought, it just forces the law enforcement to work harder. Look at alcohol (when banned, people who wanted it still got it illegally), guns (in D.C. they still have the highest crime rates, even with guns banned. This will just put arm dealers in control of guns), and abortions (they still happen when not legal, its just that people will self-perform them, making it ultimately more dangerous for the mother). Now, I hate drugs, I’ve made a 15 minute movie on how bad meth is, and 3 short commercials on smoking, but these videos won’t stop enough people to make a difference on the industry.

I’d like to hear your thoughts!