Marriage Equality

There is a debate that is taking place across America about same-sex marriage and whether or not it should be legal. What it comes down to is a debate of logic and reason in favor, with dogma and fear against. On the side of logic will be examples of equal marriage rights, legal rights as defined by the foundation of the country, and the absurdity presented in the arguments against. On the side of dogma will be clear examples of fear and religious text.

At least ten other countries have legalized same-sex marriage; the Netherlands,  Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina (Armestre, May 9, 2012). Meanwhile the USA only has it legal in eight states  and the District of Columbia (procon.org, 8/23/2012). So it is not a matter of it being unprecedented, or even a matter of only a few rebellious or dissident and uneducated areas that have passed laws to afford equal rights. In fact almost all of these countries have a higher education score than the US (OECD, 2009). As to the states, four of the states where it is legal are in the top ten of education with seven being in the top twenty-five (Ladner & Lips, 2011). So an argument could be made that it is actually a sign of better education that leads to equality in marriage. This can probably be best argued in the US because of the actual wording of some of our founding documents. In our “Declaration of Independence” (Jefferson, 1776) it states clearly that all men are created equal, and then goes on to illuminate the rights as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not say that some men should have rights, but others not so much, that some are more equal than others.

Another couple of ways to look at the issue is the past issue of interracial marriage which only became legal in June 12, 1967 in the “Loving v. Virginia (NPR, 2007).” Many of the same arguments were used against allowing interracial couples the right to marry, but the decision was that we could not bar them the right marry and not bar other couples from marrying.  Opponents at the time voiced the concern that allowing interracial marriage would disrupt the foundation of marriage and could lead to legalization of polygamy and bestiality. Similar upset was also raised during the reign of terror under Senator Joseph McCarthy in the early fifties. The link between the hysteria is noted by David Moats (Moats, 2004) as he thinks about his coverage of a Vermont town hall and the similarity to meetings from his childhood about communism. In his article the talks about the fervor to prevent talks being given at the university because of their communist nature and how it correlated to the town hall meeting in Vermont as panic broke out over a book in the library depicting a same-sex couple. Thus illustrating that irrational fear was the basis of objection instead of any rational objection.

To summarize the fourteen pros given as per procon.com (procon.org, 8/23/2012) there first of all that it is no one’s business. Next is the historical fact that there is no such thing as a traditional marriage, there are many examples of polygamy, concubines, and communal living. Then “The US Supreme Court declared in 1974’s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the ‘freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause.’ (procon.org, 8/23/2012)” There is the consideration that denying equal marriage rights stigmatizes unfairly the LGBT community. The additional marriages can help the income of communities and government through marriage licenses, taxes, and decreased costs. It will also help adoptions and therefore help with the problem of the growing number of unadopted wards of the state. Marriage provides both physical and psychological benefits, therefore reducing healthcare costs. There is anthropological studies that show a history of same-sex family relations throughout the ages. It is also pointed out that marriage is a secular institution even though it is often performed by religious institutions they are only able to do so under the regulation of the government that deemed that authority. There has been a study published that showed that same-sex marriage has no impact upon divorce rates, abortion rates, or children born out of wedlock. “Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. (procon.org, 8/23/2012)” Then in response to the argument that same-sex couples could not reproduce then it reasons that couples that are infertile, or choose not to have children should be denied marriage. Finally the Supreme Court decided in 1967 that marriage was a basic civil right. (procon.org, 8/23/2012)

With all of this being admitted there are still many that object to same-sex marriage. One of the most bought up arguments against same-sex marriage is from various religious text, but in the United States, it is primarily from the Holy Bible, specifically Leviticus. Leviticus which “means ‘pertaining to Levites’; that is, the book contains the System of Laws, administered by the Levitical Priesthood (Halley, 1965).” From this book of the Holy Bible they use Leviticus 18: 22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination (King James, 1985).”

Then there are those that, as pointed out by Sam Schulman (Schulman, 2003), believe that allowing same-sex marriage is a gateway to polygamy, polyandry, and polyamorism and therefore a destruction of the institution of marriage. That this is somehow the secret agenda of homosexuals. Which is a complete slippery slope argument. Then there are those, as pointed out by Suzanna Walters (Walters, 2007), that believe that homosexuals are not actually after the right to marry, but instead want to cause such a storm of discussion and controversy that the institution of marriage is abolished for all. Another version of the slippery slope. Both being equally absurd. Overall these arguments use the veneer of religion and the resulting dogma.

In the article put forth by procon.com (procon.org, 8/23/2012) there were thirteen cons presented. Starting with the idea that the accepted tradition is marriage is between a man and women with the purpose of having children. Next is the fear that somehow it would heighten divorce rates. Then the tired argument that it is a slippery slope into degeneration of the meaning of marriage that will lead to incestuous relations, bestiality and polygamy. The fall back argument that it is against sacred texts of many religions, which are of dubious origin. That somehow allowing same-sex marriage will put a burden on taxpayers. Another is that fear for the children that may be raised in a household that has two committed parents that are not man and woman. It is also put forth that it will allow the LGBT community to assimilate and lose its vibrancy. An interesting argument is that marriage is a sexist and oppressive convention that should be abolished for all, not just for same-sex couples. It is also feared that it will lead to a greater acceptance of single parent households. Then, despite the rulings of more than one court, marriage is not a right. It is argued that it should not be allowed because it does not lead to procreation. Then because the greatest protector of pedophiles, the catholic church, has stated that marriage is a religious and not a secular rite, that same-sex marriages should not be allowed. The final argument against was that even though they have to accept interracial marriage as a civil right, they do not feel that that same-sex marriage equates as a civil right.

As a counter to much of the argument made by the opponents of same-sex marriage it is best to use their own language and source against them. After all, do these same defenders of Leviticus offer animal sacrifice, as called for throughout the book of Leviticus? Do they believe that if they so much as touch an unclean animal, such as a pig, that they too become unclean, or if they touch or speak with a person that is unclean that they immediately as guilty and unclean as it states in Leviticus 5 (King James, 1985)? Do they keep a women separate and consider her unclean after giving birth a week if the child is male, and two weeks if the child is female as suggested in Leviticus 12 (King James, 1985)? Then there is Leviticus 20:10 calling for death of adulters (King James, 1985) there would be much fewer of them if they believed and followed this one. And it goes on and on. If they are going to claim to follow one, then it is only hypocrisy not to follow all. Yet for some reason it seems to be alright to pick and choose which parts of the bible that they wish to observe and follow based upon what is convenient for them and helps justify their fears.

If one wanted to live by the words as put forth in Leviticus, which one must if they want to accept part as law, then they must accept all as law, then they would have to live their lives pretty much as Howard Hughes did at the end of his live having absolutely no contact with the outside world because invariably they would come in contact with something that was unclean and have to go through purification or be just as unclean. Think about it, if they go out in public how many things will they touch or come in contact with that has been handled by another unclean. Then they will have the cooties and be unclean passing the unclean cooties on to whomever they come in contact with until they can be purified. Add on top of that how quickly they would find themselves in jail for their animal sacrifice to perform the purifications, then they really would be in cootie-ville. As an example of a simple thing, the money that most of us use every day. It is true that most transactions can be put on plastic or check, but there are still many places that still only accept cash. Even if you get brand new bills how do you know who has handled that money and if they are clean or unclean. If it isn’t new money… well let’s just say that I have worked in places and seen places and people that handle the money that may make one never want to handle cash again without a hazmat suit.

There are many examples of marriage equality throughout the world, and those places have not fallen into ruin and moral decay. It has also been shown that the precepts of the nation would have to be set aside for there not to be equality laws. It has been pointed out the religious arguments against equality laws, but it has also been pointed out the sheer absurdity and hypocrisy of those arguments. It all comes down to fear for those that are against. Logic and reason show clearly that there are no reasons besides fear and biased use of dogma to not have equality.

References

Armestre, P. (May 9, 2012). Countries where gay marriage is legal: Netherlands, argentina & more - the daily beast Retrieved 8/28/2012, 2012, from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/09/countries-where-gay-marriage-is-legal-netherlands-argentina-more.html

Halley, H. H. (1965). Halley's bible handbook (24th ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Jefferson, T. (1776). The declaration of independence Retrieved 9/1/2012, 2012, from http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

King James. (1985). Holy bible. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

Ladner, D. M., & Lips, D. (2011). Report card on american education | ALEC – american legislative exchange council Retrieved 9/1/2012, 2012, from http://www.alec.org/publications/report-card-on-american-education/

Moats, D. (2004). Fear itself: Meditations on gay marriage. The Virginia Quarterly Review, 80(4), 186-195.

NPR. (2007). Loving decision: 40 years of legal interracial unions : NPR Retrieved 9/1/2012, 2012, from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10889047

OECD. (2009). Educational score performance - country rankings Retrieved 9/1/2012, 2012, from http://www.geographic.org/country_ranks/educational_score_performance_country_ranks_2009_oecd.html

procon.org. (8/23/2012). Gay marriage ProCon.org Retrieved 8/28/2012, 2012, from http://gaymarriage.procon.org/

Schulman, S. (2003, Nov 2003). Gay marriage-and marriage. Commentary, 116, 35-40.

Walters, S. D. (2007). Threat level lavender: The truthiness of gay marriage. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(20), B.12-B14.

Sound Bites

As I was switching back and forth between news channels today as they invariably discussed politics, a certain topic caught my ear. The discussion was on “sound bite politics.” What this means is that more and more politics and voters’ opinions are influenced by sound bites and not by actual policy. The discussion not only discussed this phenomenon, but tried to answer why it happens. Of course they, as they wish to remain politically correct, never even approached the truth of why. The truth is people are too easily confused when discussing policy; it is easier to not think and just base their opinions upon the sound bites that make them feel something. The problem with this is that it does not give us the best candidate, just the candidate that can best play on the voters’ prejudices.

The thing is, policy decisions are a lot like philosophy; there are no easy answers, and often there are no answers. With this in mind, many people shut down when confronted with talk of these things. This can happen for a variety for reasons. One may be that they feel as if they are being persecuted because the education system spent years training them that they must have a ready and correct answer or they have failed. Others may feel ignorant or inadequate and therefore shy away from the discussion. There may be some that react to these conversations as I do with medical topics; glaze over and tune out because it seems to be another language, and one that makes you a bit queasy at that.

With this in mind, how do we fix it? The answer is we don’t. At least not anytime soon. There are solutions, but they will take a generation or more to fix. This should not be surprising as it has had many, many generations to get to this point. The solution begins with our education system. It is our most important foundation, period. There have been many proposals to “fix” our education system over the years, yet it still seems to be broken. Part of this is because some of the good programs have not been given sufficient chance to work, part is because good programs are prevented from being put into place, and part is because too many people with no training or understanding of education are in charge of making policy. America is an impatient society that wants immediate results, but with education, as with many things, results are not immediate, and take time to really create measurable benefit. It is like the old adage of working a job where the first day’s pay is only $.01, but the pay doubles each day. After 30 days it has grown into a great deal of money and it was all worth it, but no one ever gets there because everyone gives up after a week. Other programs are prevented from being put into place, sometimes because decision-makers fail to understand the plan. Sometimes, it is because they believe that the cost is too high for results that may not be immediately apparent, or because “that isn’t how we have always done things” or the program is not part of the core standards.

Here is the thing.  One of the keys to a good education is to remember that the learner is central, and because of this, the material has to somehow engage the interest of the learner. This does not mean that all or even most lessons need to be presented as entertainment, but there needs to be something at the school that draws the interest of the learner. Each learner is different, so for some a great art program will draw them in. (No pun intended.) Another learner may gravitate toward a great theater program, another to a good band program, another to science, another to a sports program, and for others it may be auto shop. It does not matter what the draw is, only that it makes the student want, really want to know more about it, to be better at it. For them to learn more about the program that interests them and become better at it, not only do they need to practice it, but they need the skills that are part of the core curriculum to best succeed. Once this correlation is made clear to the student, then they will flourish. Therefore, the important thing is to have all of these programs available, because our students are not automatons to be programmed in the same way; they are individuals and only by recognizing and celebrating this can we improve their education. As students become better educated and can actually think on their own, they will go forth and be more productive adults and then leaders as they get older.

This, however, is not a desired outcome by the system. Because the system keeps in power a very select few who can manipulate the world for their benefit with occasional public displays of benevolence to keep the ignorant masses happy. An ignorant population is easy to control.

Take for example the recent comments by Joe Biden speaking in Danville, Virginia about “putting y’all back in chains.” This caused a media uproar. Why? Was it because it was racially charged, referring to slavery as many in the media claimed? No. It was because it was too close to the truth that the Republican party, backed by corporate moguls, want to have conditions that are as bad as slavery or worse. After all, owners of slaves had to feed, house, and care for them, even if it was on the level of livestock. The current masters want to pay less than a living wage and do absolutely as little as possible, nothing if they could get away with it, to care for their workers. In fact, many companies are so linked through various channels that even if they do provide insurance, they are making the worker pay much of it and then getting a profit off of it in the back end. The scam and play with numbers on a page with never a concern that each of those numbers is someone’s life.  It is just a number to be crunched and manipulated to better get them another six figure or better bonus. No need to be concerned with it; after all, there are more drones and drudges being bred every day, because birth control is “morally reprehensible.”

Responsibility Changes

I was having a conversation with some people on a social media site the other day that made me realize something. It is one those things that you know, but it takes something happening to make you realize it. Most people approach and look at situations from the perspective of their experience, but there are some things that require looking and acting from a completely different perspective and set of rules.

The specific example of this is government. As an ordinary citizen it is the perspective and experience to stretch every cent to its maximum and to try to put away as much as possible in savings. As a business person it is similar, but it is not the goal to put away for savings, but instead to maximize profits to as obscene a degree as possible.

Fundamentally, while some may disagree, there is nothing wrong with that. However, once you take the step into government, no matter at what level, that perspective and approach has to be totally eliminated. The purpose of government is to govern or to serve as guiding authority. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure that there is fair policy and protections for all that it governs. This is not just the making and enforcing of laws, but also the institution, funding, and regulation of programs for the benefits of the citizenry and the nation. So while it is still important to stretch every cent to its limit, there is no putting away for a rainy day or maximizing profit in the sense that those outside of the government would look at it. The profits that are seen by the government is the benefit it gives to the citizenry. The primary benefit to the people and therefore profit to the government comes from a stable and consistent infrastructure. Things like well maintained roads, effective schools, properly staffed police and emergency services, open channels of communication and commerce, maintained historical sites and parks, properly funded scientific research and exploration, etc. Not only do these things help keep the movement and flow of business and people moving smoothly and efficiently, but they also place that money back into the citizenry many-fold.

It is a completely and antithetically different mindset and approach looking at what is best for all of the citizens, instead of what is best for this select few citizens. Any that cannot understand this to their very core have no business getting involved in politics at any level, at any time, ever.

Perception

Critical thought is an essential part of being a good learner, at least in my opinion. There are some that disagree. Take for example the article from the Washington Post (Strauss, 07/09/2012). In this article it is pointed out how some oppose “the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority (Strauss, 07/09/2012).” Personally this made my blood boil, but it is not an uncommon sentiment.

Part of being able to think critically is the ability to not only see the small picture, but the big picture and be able to make out the pattern. Once you see the pattern it cannot be unseen. In this case the common sentiment that critical thought is bad comes from a variety of sources, but it essentially goes back to what is good for the corporations. The majority of jobs that need to be filled by corporate America are not jobs that most people that are thinking critically will desire long term. Most often it is not the work that is the issue, but the working conditions. The purpose of keeping labor costs as low as possible so that profits for those in positions of power can be as high as possible make it undesirable to hold most jobs. Since this is the case, it is desirable to have a workforce that does not examine the work conditions critically compared to what is and what fairly should be. Only those that are determined to be groomed for the positions of power and influence should ever be able to debate the merits of any given situation. Many tools and conventions are systematically used to keep things this way. For those that question the status quo punishment should be swift and harsh. Some may think that I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but part of having Asperger’s is the ability to see patterns. Truly look at and examine the conventions of our lives and ask yourselves, is it really that far-fetched?

You can also look at the piece by Sir Ken Robinson (Robinson, 2010). He makes the point much better and humorously than I ever could. It is my intent to not be part of the factory, but instead be part of empowering my students. I believe that the instruction of Forensic Debate is a great tool for this as at its core Debate is all about taking apart arguments, looking at them, judging them, and putting them back together in a manner that gets one closer to the truth.

However, there are some that say that critical thought cannot be taught. Look at the article by Daniel T Willingham (Willingham, 2007), who is professor of cognitive psychology at the University of Virginia and author of “Cognition: The Thinking Animal.” In this article he states arguments that critical thought cannot be taught. He cites that while there are many programs out there that purport to teach critical thought there is no substantive studies that show the effectiveness of these programs, nor are there peer reviewed studies of these programs. He goes on to talk about how if these programs were effective that there would be an increase of students, and now adults that displayed the use of critical thought in every aspect of their lives. His supposition is severely flawed. Thinking that just because one knows how to think critically that they will do so in every situation, or even at all is just too simplistic. It does not take into account human nature. No one critically examines every aspect of their lives, if they did they would never make it past their morning absolutions. Nor is it reasonable to believe that everyone that knows how to think critically will do so at all. This is for a variety of reasons. One, it is much easier to react instead of consider. Two, it is easier to accept an issue as presented without having to go through the work of examining it. Three, there are many cultures and religions that discourage what they call questioning, but is really critical thought. But what it all boils down to is that it is more time efficient and comfortable to accept than it is to think and most people are going to take the easy path every time, even if it does them harm.

The other thing that Mr. Willingham fails to consider is that correlation does not prove causation. As an example of what I mean by this take a look at the New York Times Article (Meier & Musick, June 29, 2012) that examines if family dinner is overrated. For many years it has been put forth that they is a correlation between students that spend time at family dinner with better educational scores. For many years time with family at dinner was assumed to be a causation of improved education, when it should have been clear from the start to any that could think about the matter critically that it was merely a correlation. More of the causation was the fact that students that were able to spend time with family at dinner often came from a more stable and affluent household with access to better supplies and regular support and nutrition.

The take away for all of this is that we are here to learn and if we do not examine all that is before us and actually consider it in depth than we are not only doing ourselves a disservice, but also those students that we will someday teach. No matter what grade level, or course that you teach it is important to not only question everything yourself, but to teach your students to do the same. After all it is only through asking the questions that we get the answers.

References

Meier, A., & Musick, K. (June 29, 2012, ). Is the family dinner overated. New York Times Sunday Review, pp. Opinion Page. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/is-the-family-dinner-overrated.html?_r=3

Robinson, K. (2010). Changing education paradigms. Retrieved August 30, 2011, from http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html

Strauss, V. (07/09/2012, ). Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. really. - the answer sheet - the washington post Washington Post, Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, (Summer 2007), 07/12/2012.

Indivisible

     A question was raised about what it would take to make America great again. I am sure that there are a million and more great, brilliant ideas out there that would really make a difference, but there is one that I believe is core to them all. It is a simple thing, but oh so difficult. But before I give my idea, let me back up and talk about some of the things that made our country great. Ideas and ideals, and being willing to work towards those ideas and ideals. Many may wonder what the difference is between an idea and an ideal. An idea is a concrete plan of action. For example, John had the idea for a company that sold product X to consumers. He worked to develop a market plan for X, capitol to produce X, an ability to deliver X, and finally had a business selling X. This is an idea. An ideal is something like fair representation for taxation, which is one of the things that started our country on its path to independence, despite many in government forgetting that very important fact.

     Another thing that was essential in the minds of our forefathers as they crafted the beginnings of our government was that the majority would rule with no favor to minority special interest groups. Still, many of things that are done today are pushed by special interest lobbyists. There has been legislation put forth to eliminate or at least limit these lobbyists that are against the very principles put forth by our forefathers but these regulations will never pass because none of Congress is going to cut off a lucrative revenue stream. This is just a fact that we as Americans are going to have to live with.

     These are important factors to remember as I discuss my idea, even though my idea does not directly address these issues. No, my idea is for Congress to get back to doing their jobs instead of playing games. I can hear the uproar now, as many of them mistakenly think that they are doing their jobs now. The fact is that they have not done their jobs in quite some time. It has become a game of scoring points for their party, not for scoring the good of the American people, or for America in general. It has often resorted to schoolyard tactics to win at all costs, even when that win is the same as cutting one’s nose off to spite one’s face. But they do not feel the effects of it. They do not truly hurt for money or privilege. They will wail to the moon and to all that can hear that they are suffering just like the rest of America, but are they really? Are they really sitting there counting coupons and scraping together change to just get by, often having to choose whether they are going to eat or pay a bill? Have their phone cut off or see the doctor when they desperately need to? Are they limited on their choice of where they can work because many of the jobs that they could take and are qualified for would cost too much in gas, or to move, and as a result have to either go unemployed or underemployed? Do they have to accept blatant disregard of policy and law by others that negatively affect them, just because they do not have the money to pursue proper legal action? No to all of these. They are in a protected bubble and making things worse for the people they are supposed to represent so that they can play games and pander to lobbyists and the party line as if they were trying to score points for the House Cup. There is no house cup, only the destruction of America’s greatness and well-being. There should be some recourse that could be taken for these that have abused the American trust. There should be some form of accountability instead of just hiding behind the parties’ skirts (and both parties are guilty).

     My proposal would be a long-term plan and has many parts. It would have to start at the school level. The reason for this is that way too many schools are set up to be factories to produce unthinking laborers instead of thinking, productive citizens. Standards are all well and good, and we should have them, but you do not improve standards by drilling down to just the core and think that will improve education, because it won’t. We need a well-rounded education that has not only a good foundation in the core, but a diverse access to the arts and to physical education. If it is required that every student take at least a few credits in one of the arts and a few credits in physical education, then there would be an increase in scores. The reason is that these subjects help expand the way the student thinks and their ability to process information. I also believe that it should be required that every student take at least one class on forensics, or otherwise known as debate. There are many reasons for this.  First, it teaches the student how to research, which will help in all other classes. Second, it helps students to look at information and judge the veracity of that information. In short it teaches the student how to think. I know that this is scary, especially to some companies out there, but if we want to return to greatness this is essential.

     The next thing on the list is to make congress truly transparent. This means that not only should there be a report of the vote on things on the floor recorded, but each member of congress should have a report, not only available but readily published publicly, of when they attended congress on the floor to hear debates, which debates they were not present for and why, what they voted and when, what arguments they presented on the floor, and basically any and all actions that they took, or avoided, while serving. These should be publically posted to be seen at any time, and after each session of congress they should have a “State of the District” address that they would make via internet/town hall meeting where they addressed their action for that session and answer questions from their constituents submitted during session, and those from live audience.

     It should also be made clear not only to the congress member, but to the American people that at any time if the people in their district felt that their views were not being accurately represented, then the people could start a petition for recall for lack of confidence. If the majority of voters in the district signed then there would be a automatic recall.

     The other thing would be to limit the amount of money that could be spent on campaigns. This is going to be one that some will think is foolish, after all, a large amount of money is being spent upon campaigns each election, but how much of that money actually goes to helping the true economy versus damage done to America’s image abroad, and more importantly, at home? Not only would I cap how much could be spent, I would set that cap really low. Instead of all of these campaign contributions going to advertising lies and schoolyard gamesmanship, how about instead all money that is raised goes into a communal government fund that is used for that upcoming years federal budget? Campaign contributions would go down dramatically, but there would be some aid to the recovery of the nation’s finances. Despite what some politicians who have never had to scrape to get by believe, every penny counts. 

My Early Education

As a young child I was absolutely in love with learning. Before I ever started school, I wanted to be prepared. I read on a second grade level before kindergarten, knew how to do basic math and was learning my multiplication tables through pestering everyone around me to teach me things that I knew were associated with school. My parents, instead of answering my questions told me to not bother them, but to look it up, pointing me toward the dictionary for reading and the math books that they bought me to keep me quiet, for math.

So when I entered kindergarten, I was very disappointed that there was almost no learning done; instead we were set to play projects. We built forts with the building blocks. We did crafts much like those done in vacation bible school. We learned games. There was some attempt to teach the alphabet.

Then came first grade. Here we actually got to learn. Not only that, but we could do so at our own pace. For those of us who were faster than the rest of the class, we were allowed to advance and actually begin the coursework for second grade. In this advanced group were three girls, myself, and my best friend Jerry. Jerry worked at it more because I wanted him to advance with me, and the fact that the cute girls were in the advanced group. Jerry and I both had an early attraction to girls. If we had continued living in that school district, I would have advanced past the second grade and straight into the third. But we moved.

I remember when I first moved into the community where I now live. It was less than a quarter the size of the place in which I had lived my entire young life up until that point. The new school system that I found myself in did not support grade advancement. (Of course, they would happily hold back young boys as many years as they liked to have them big and powerful when they got to high school football.)

So I started second grade, happily looking forward to more learning. What I got was the worst school experience of my life. I had become accustomed to working at my own accelerated pace, and doing independent reading. Yet in my new class if I finished work before the rest of the class I received a paddling. I was told that I was disrupting the class. At first, when I finished my work I would ask for more. I got paddled. So then when I finished, I would try to get something to read. I was paddled. Then I bought my own material to read. I was paddled. Next when I finished I would try to sit quietly. I was paddled. I tried, when I was finished, putting my head down. I was paddled. I even tried writing after I was finished. I was paddled. I was paddled every day, four to eight times a day, the entire school year. My mother spoke to the principal about it and was told that there wasn’t anything that she could do and that the teacher was within her rights.

I had other kids in the class see how the teacher treated me, and felt that it was okay for them to treat me poorly as well. That was fine by the teacher. No one ever got into trouble, unless I tried to stand up for myself, or fought back. Then I got paddled. One time the teacher left the room and left a student as class monitor. He felt that he could come over and hit on me. I ducked my head under my elbow and his pencil broke on my elbow. I got paddled.

I have always been large for my age. At my new school, and with the apparent disregard that my teacher had for me, many of the boys saw me as a target to make their reputation on. I had been taught all of my life not to fight. Yet every day on the playground one bully or another decided that I was going to fight them. I never fought back, but I also never went down. I took punches, kicks, chokeholds, sticks, rocks, and once even a brick, but I never fought back, and I never went down. Yet each day after recess it would be reported to the teacher, or the teacher would have watched, and I received a paddling.

At the beginning of the school year I had been accepted by the kids in my school, especially due to my joining the games of football. They all wanted me at first because no one could tackle me. But it was not long at all before I was no longer accepted on anyone’s team and I was shunned by all the other kids. I had become the outsider. The boy that was in constant trouble. The boy that was paddled in the hall several times a day. No one wanted to be associated with that.

The End

It is something that everyone, no matter how blissfully happy or seemingly perfect their life is has thought about, if only for a fleeting second. However, many will deny that the thought has ever crossed their mind. They are lying. What am I talking about? Suicide. Just because the thought has crossed a person’s mind, does not mean that they have seriously considered it, but to say it has never crossed their mind is disingenuous at best, and a flat out lie to cover their serious consideration of it at the worst. There is an imagined stigma attached in many of our minds to admitting that we have thought about it, no matter how briefly. We think that if we admit to the thoughts that we will either be considered unstable, unfit, or will be somehow locked away until we are proven to not be a “danger to ourselves.” This is dangerous.

If we find ourselves unable to discuss it when these thoughts come across, then it can lead to feelings of further isolation and misunderstanding, which can lead to further thoughts of suicide that slowly get more serious, and may eventually lead to action.

Sometimes it may be believed that it can only be discussed with a licensed professional. Some do not feel comfortable with that for many reasons, and others are either unable to access those professionals for whatever reason. If a person is seriously considering suicide, then yes they do need to speak to a professional, but we as the general public need to discuss it more openly and realistically. Keeping the thoughts secret, and somehow “dirty” or “evil” only adds accelerant to the flames.

Everyone is going to have difficult times in their life. Sometimes we try to open up and find some support from those around us about some of the issues, but rarely about suicide. All too often platitudes are offered. Platitudes are good in some cases, and it is easier to try to find a platitude than to discuss a sensitive topic. Often just the act of listening and being supportive means more than anything that could be said. In fact it is often the case that the platitudes are more harmful than just ignoring the person. Here follows a list of some of the worst platitudes that are very common place.

Others have it worse.

That which does not kill you only makes you stronger.

Things will get better.

Smile. Or – Turn that frown upside down.

You’re storing treasure in heaven.

It isn’t that bad.

When life hands you lemons, make lemonade.

There's always tomorrow.

 It could be worse! Someday you'll look back on this and laugh.

Let go and let god handle it.

Time heals all wounds.

Don’t worry, be happy.

Any day this side of the dirt is a good day.

Count your blessings.

This too shall pass.

If it was meant to be, it will be.

God will only give you as much as you can handle.

Instead of offering a platitude, which is the equivalent of giving a empty gift card as a gift, sometimes it is better to just shut up, listen, and most importantly, be there.

Is it really what you think?

One of the common elements of different cultures, people, and ages is the search for something greater than ourselves, or at least answers to life. Some do this through a scientific explanation, but more search for something a bit more incorporeal. This is a natural response. It has led to the foundation and creation of many different religions. There is nothing wrong with this. However, it is also natural for some in the population to seek ways to exploit others and rise to a position of power. Again, this is normal and natural.

Where the problem comes from is the danger they present when they are either taken to extremes, or the lust for power exploits those outside of the religion. It is easy to look at the extremists of terrorists groups like Al-Qaeda, but they are not the ones that I am most afraid of; I more fear the more insidious, “well-meaning” christians and catholics. They have incessantly preached a doctrine to eliminate thought, furthering the idea that the only path to heaven was blind unwavering faith. This way, they can say any ridiculous thing and it will be accepted by the mindless masses.

Let’s take a closer examination of some of these ridiculous positions. The condemnation of homosexuality: Many religions condemn homosexuality even when while practicing it behind closed doors. Officially they take a stand against it. But why? I may not understand the desire for one’s own gender, but I can understand the desire to be accepted and loved for who and what I am. All of these same religions that condemn homosexuality say out of the other side of their mouth how their god is all about love, forgiveness, and acceptance, at least as long as you are exactly like them. It can’t be both ways. Either the god you serve is about love, forgiveness, and acceptance, or it is against this or that including homosexuality. To say that it is somehow both is empirical proof that it is not real, but instead, it is a social club of exclusive membership without true foundation.

Another hot topic is the refusal of the right to use birth control. Saying that a.) sex is a sin and is only excused if done in the marriage bed for the purpose of reproducing, b.) that it is up to some god to decide how many children should be born, when, and by whom. Yet many of these same ones that are against contraceptives see nothing wrong with seeking help from fertility doctors so that they can whelp a litter. What of “god’s will” then? Aren't these same ones again speaking from different sides of their mouths? Back to point “a,” making sex into a sin allows for it to be a shameful act and a tool of manipulation and domination. This is a practice used by many religions for the male to dominate the female through the “humiliation” of sex. Is that really how sex should be viewed or used? To the point, should sex ever be “used” as opposed to being shared?

Again a rallying cry of many in religion is deeming early term abortion to be murder. There are times that they get so worked up about it that some have actually assassinated doctors who perform abortions. The official stance of the church in these situations is that they do not condone the action, but do see it as justified. In no way is it justified, it really is murder. I will not get into the merits of abortion or the arguments against it further, as that is not the point of this discussion. I bring it up only as a part of the pattern.

So on to the next piece of that pattern; these same churches often rush to justify many wars as being righteous and holy. Of course this is not the stand of every pastor or preacher, but it is the overriding majority of the powers that be. As a whole, churches of many of the major religions justify war as a means to either make their opponents repent and join their side of the “enlightened truth” or to die as an infidel dog. Either result is fine. The point is to be the only religion in the entire world and have every single person fully indoctrinated. The goal: World domination. It brings to mind the Warner Brothers’ cartoon “Pinky and the Brain:”

“What are we going to do tonight, Brain?”

“Same thing we do every night, Pinky, try to take over the world!”

What, you may ask yourself, do these things have in common? Numbers, that is what they have in common. Despite the words that are used to condemn homosexuality, the truth is it is because homosexual activity does not produce children. They condemn birth control and all abortion? Because it prevents the birth of more children. So what all does this have to do with war? If the “christian nation” does not keep up a steady flow of children, then eventually they may be out-produced by the muslims and other “heathens.” They need a larger and larger quantity of children because some will not survive to adulthood, some will actually learn and turn away, and some will just be deemed useless to the cause due to either mental or physical defect. One of the biggest challenges to their power over these new generations is knowledge.

The church has a long history of fighting education, true education. People are born with a natural desire to learn. Despite the desires of the church more and more were learning, and with that learning were turning from the church. So they decided to fight fire with fire. The church got into the education game as a means to control what was being taught and how people were being trained to “think.” Because they discovered that people like to think for themselves, (even if it is only the illusion that they are thinking for themselves). So over the decades, education has systematically been refined to cull thinking out of the majority. The majority is all that they could manage to control, because there will always be those who are able to see through the lies.

I don’t intend to invalidate anyone’s faith or speak to the legitimacy of any form of worship as it pertains to the individual’s belief in any god or gods. What I am speaking to is the fact that the most corrupt and power hungry organizations in the world are the churches. More evil is done in the name of religion than all other reasons combined.

Think on this for a moment. What if we all believed that there was no heaven or hell, there was no reincarnation, but that when we die, it’s all over. If this were what we all believed (with the same fervor now given to religious belief), how many would we be willing to send into war? How many would sign up for battle? How willing would our leaders be to extinguish lives if there were no afterlife to fall back on? Would we be more or less likely to seek the death penalty for those convicted of multiple murders?

While thinking on that, consider this. The majority of people are religious in some fashion or another and mindlessly think that to be atheist or agnostic means that one has no morals. Why? What atheist or agnostic ever called for a jihad? What atheist or agnostic ever practiced sacrifice? No, what is scary about atheists and agnostics is the fact that they are not under the mind control of the church, and are therefore dangerous as examples.

Drone

A popular thing to complain about is our education system. It is an easy target as it really does have a lot of issues that need to be fixed. However, to fix it we first need to understand exactly what needs fixing and why. The number one thing that needs to be fixed will allow other fixes to happen, but if it is not fixed will prevent any other fix from ever working at all.

What is this big fix? Non-educators need to shut up, step aside, and stay out of the policymaking/decision/evaluation picture.  Administration is filled with people with no teaching experience who, for whatever reason, feel that their $0.02 is invaluable and therefore must be heard. The thing is, teaching is a professional position that takes years of training, much like a doctor, and yet every nitwit who has gone though school believes that they know all there is to know about teaching (after all, they have been taught!) And heaven forbid these people have a child; this engenders the feeling that they have been touched by the hand of god and know everything there is to know about how to educate children. I’m sorry to break it to everyone so bluntly, but just because you can successfully fuck does not make you a successful educator, or even a successful parent. It would be the same as going to the doctor’s office with a fever, chills, aches, and congestion, and saying, “Doc, I know what you and the test results are saying, but I’m telling you that I don’t have the flu, it’s just hemorrhoids. I know because I have had a cold before.” This may sound harsh, but the fact is that interference from well-meaning but clueless individuals cause more harm to our educational system than most anything else.

More harm, that is, except for the politicians; politicians who have no idea of what is actually involved in classroom but know what their wealthy donors want. They want a ready and steady workforce that is just educated enough to do the job, but unburdened with the ability to think for themselves. To achieve this, they need a sufficient education system to impart the bare working skills and the impression that the student is able to freely think (thus keeping them happy), but without actually teaching true critical thought or skills to excel in the workplace. Businesses want to train specific skills and efficiency techniques once the workers have been hired and assessed. If the ability to think critically was actually taught, then the ways that businesses, government, and those of wealth and power work harder at keeping an unofficial slave culture alive rather than actually improving the country and its people would be apparent to all, rather than just a fortunate few.

Now, many may think that this is just bitter rhetoric, but it isn’t. Just take a look at the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). It is an absolutely fantastic slogan and the mouth-breathers sing its praises. However, if you actually know anything about effective education and look at NCLB critically, then you will see that it is another trap for the masses.

So what does the act say it offers versus what it actually offers? First, it purports to offer teacher, school, and student accountability. Great; there should be accountability from each of these. But what it actually offers is a biased system to punish those who fail to conform to a normality dictated by politicians as well as those who just fail. Does it offer any way to assist those who are just failing or to make them more likely to succeed? No. In fact, under NCLB guidelines, teachers who fail will be fired and schools that fail will be shut down, causing class sizes to become even greater than their already over-capacity status. No academic class should ever at any time be more than 20 students, yet it is not uncommon to have classes with 30 to 45 and sometimes even more per academic class. Is there any incentive for meeting the “standards” set by NCLB? Only that you don’t get fired.

Which brings us to the next failing of NCLB: Standards. The promoted purpose after accountability is to set standards. Again, this sounds reasonable enough to most. But then what needs to be examined is who determines the standards and what essential programs are going to be sacrificed in order to focus on these standards. There is a focus on core subjects; math, science, language arts. Without doubt, these are essential subjects, but they can’t be focused on solely at the expense of subjects like:

 PE, which helps keep the body healthy and therefore the mind, which is a proven fact.

Music, which helps with math and science.

Theater Arts, which help in language arts and science.

Art, which helps with science and math.

And the list goes on, but more than the aid that these subjects offer to the “core” is the help they offer to the student and the school. These subjects help provide an emotional connection and personal impact that helps motivate the student to learn and attend school. When these “auxiliary” programs are forced out, it cheats the student of being able to learn.

Then there are the standardized tests; tests that are supposed to be unbiased and fair. If you believe that then contact me, for I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska that I’ll sell you real cheap. If we were to discuss the problems with tests in general, not to mention the many added flaws inherent in standardized tests, then we would be looking at a post the size of War and Peace. But to name a few; cultural bias, regional bias, development bias, guessing instead of answering. First let’s look at cultural bias and regional bias, as they are very similar. It is a question of perspective. Each of us have been bought up in and influenced by the culture of our family, our neighborhood, our community, our city, our state, etc. Because of this there are things that Alice, raised in a rural homogenous farming community, and Joe, raised in a overpopulated, diverse urban area, are not going to view the same way.  This isn’t even counting racial, religious, or any number of other biases that could come into play. A test can’t take all of these factors into account and still be standardized. Next, let’s talk about developmental bias. Ashley is in fourth grade and is on a fourth grade level in language arts, but is still first grade level for math or science. There is nothing wrong with Ashley, she has no learning disabilities, she just is behind developmentally on math and science in her natural progression. This is natural, and there is nothing wrong with it, or with her. Yet she has to test at the end of the year at fifth grade level or she, her teacher, and school will have failed under NCLB. If at the end of the year she tests and is at fifth grade level in language arts, but at fourth grade level for math and science, then there is punishment pending, despite the fact that Ashley advanced two grade levels in those subjects, which is a great success in the real world of learning. Especially at earlier grades, students do not always progress at the same level on all subjects. It has nothing to do with there being a problem with their learning ability or the way they are being taught, it is just how they develop.  Finally, let’s discuss multiple guess, otherwise known as multiple choice. If a person knows how tests work and/or is a good guesser it is easy to look very good on multiple choice, true/false, and matching tests. Many schools are teaching how tests are set up to aid students to pass the test, instead of teaching actual material. Personally, I was taught in school how tests were prepared and set up, and I am an excellent guesser. I took a test one time that was a timed multiple choice test. It was broken into subjects. I found myself running out of time on my weakest subject, so I resorted to using my answers to spell random words or make patterns on the answer sheet. I ended up with my best score, an incredibly high one, on this section. These tests do not test knowledge, or measure learning. What they do is help categorize where you fit as a drone.

That is the true goal of NCLB (other than a political slogan); to create worker drones. Yes, an abundant number of people will fall through the cracks and be a “burden” on society. The politicians and their wealthy and powerful puppet masters don’t care about those ones, except as handy tools to divert those who are able to care about society from looking too closely at what is going on. Besides, those in power are also almost insisting that we over-breed so they have more fodder for the machine. They are aided in this by the political machine known as the church, but that is another post.

Business

It strikes me funny that so much is made of a politician being a “Great Business Man” as being a plus for them to run government, especially in a sense of the economy (as if it will somehow translate). It’s another case and point of people not really thinking, but just accepting.

Think for a minute. What makes a businessman successful? It’s not creating jobs. It’s not raising worker standard of living or happiness. It isn’t even necessarily being beneficial to the area economy. No, what makes a good businessman is most often quite the opposite. You see, the success of businessmen is measured by their profit margin. To increase profit margin, a business man will cut jobs, reduce wages, slash benefits, and basically make misery for the worker. They do this not because they have any animosity towards the worker, but because they can make a higher profit if they slash costs. Where can they cut costs? Labor! That is the most consistent area that costs can be adjusted.

This brings us to the other thing that makes a businessman successful: Spin. After all, with all the harm that they cause their workers, it would be understandable if they were unable to find workers, even in a tough economy. Yet a successful businessman can cut wages, benefits, and hours and make many believe that he is somehow doing them a favor (as if being “goatse-d” could ever be considered a favor). Successful businessmen love to see high unemployment rates and less-than-optimal economic times, because these conditions give them free reign to slash and burn at will. The workers will not complain or riot because they have no alternative, and the businessman can excuse it all as a result of tough times.

Perversely, people (especially in tough economic times) rally to the idea of a good businessman as the answer to governing the country. That should come as no surprise, however, considering that we are a nation that has had critical thought taught out of us. But that’s another post, and it’s coming soon.

Welcome to my blog. Here I will be sharing some of my thoughts and views of the world. You may ask yourself why you should care. Maybe you shouldn't, but then maybe you may find something in my musings that sparks with you.

Let me tell you something about me. I am in my 40's and have been married to my lovely wife for over 20 years and we are child-free by choice. I am finally, after putting it off to start providing for my family, finishing my degree to teach. I am going for a MA in Adult Education. I come from a long line of teachers. My great grandmother was a teacher, all of her children (7 girls) were teachers, and with the exception of my mother, all of their girls were teachers. I will be the first male teacher of the family. I wish to teach Theater Arts, Forensic Debate, Creative Writing, and/or Philosophy. I am looking to teach high school and college. I am also a wannabe writer. I am currently working on a series of fantasy novels.

 I do not fit with where I live. I think, and that is against the code. I try to get others to think. That is very much against the code. I live in a very rural, very homogeneous area. When I say that the area is homogeneous I do not mean that it is racially so, we are about evenly split with two races, and a bare recognition of a couple of others. What I mean is that most everyone believes the same way, acts the same way. I have tried to act and think their way, but it just goes against reason and my moral beliefs. I was raised in the Southern Baptist Church and was very religious most of my life. But I have come to realize that the church is just a scam. It is a political tool and nothing more. I am undecided as to whether I believe in a god anymore. It is hard to completely be done with that belief as I feel that it is a an essential part of each of us to yearn for something out there to have the answers and bear responsibility, but looking at the founding of and the utilization of organized religions it is clear that they were created as paths to political power. There are other rationals given, but the facts do not change that. This does not mean that god/allah/[insert deity name here] does not exist, but he/she is not to be found in churches.

I also have very strong political views. There is the standing joke about there being no such thing as a honest politician  or one that is not corrupt. Everyone accepts this as a truth, but no one wants to do things to change that. It is felt that they are powerless. They are only powerless because they accept instead of challenge. To challenge would require them to think, something that most people will never do, yet proclaim loudly to do. Then after they have actually had a thought it then requires that they take action. This does not mean run for office, file a lawsuit, or anything so dramatic. It can be as simple as writing your politician, starting or signing a petition or, most importantly, actually pay attention. Look at what is going on and know what has gone on before. As George Santayana stated, "Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

I was diagnosed as an adult with Asperger's syndrome. For me this was a relief, because it explained so much in my life. I never fit in or understood social situations. Often it seems that I say inappropriate things. Not that I am using bad language, or saying anything mean or ugly, just things that people do not want to hear or think impolite, but are really the things that need to be said.