Sunday, May 28, 2006
George Washington, another respected man, never had his own children. His wife, Martha, and he chose their lifestyles and lived NOT for themselves but for their country, the United States of America.
Buddha, whose most famous reincarnation body known as Sidhartha, had given up his family in order to promote his teachings.
Only three examples, but I could list plenty more. Throughout history, men have either been single or have lessened their family ties in order to fight for a more important cause. You can not devote yourself to one thing while holding your values for other things high. There has to be a give and take. For this reason, the Catholic Church has celibate clergy, so that they may devote themselves to preaching the word of Lord.
I am not claiming that influential men can not have families, as many men have had families, but as they grow older with age & their children become self-stable; they find themselves devoting themselves to causes.
With this thought, why do Americans vote for married men who are close to their families? I understand we like to vote to those who are similar to us so they may have or value our opinions, but they are not devoted towards any causes.
I will not try to speak poorly upon any elected official, but they are given too much time for family. They had chosen to run; we did not force them to take office. As an elected official, they have to sacrifice their needs for the better gain for our country. They should have reduce their vacation time; if they want to spend time with family, they should serve the time left in their term and not run for reelection. I want changes, I want a level of output that leads to the U.S.'s future success. If policitians are not ready to sacrifice a year or two from their family life in order to serve for us in a government position, then I do not see a reason why we should sacrifice our vote to put them into office. In fact, let us reduce their pay while we are at it. This is not a job opening for those who want to earn pay. This is a moral position that people choose to fill in order to help improve the American Society. We need men of good moral character, like the Marines, we are looking for "A Few Good Men".
Saturday, May 27, 2006
The claims: Education can provide a way for rationability to end wars bringing about peace.
Facts: Religion has taught and preached upon peace for over 2000 years. Peace has still not been reached, some wars in history were created by religions. Most times of peace in history occurred because of military action. With time, as military might lessens, peace is lost and a new war rises. Let us remember the Articles of Confederation and their downfall, no taxes which disabled the ability to have a military. Shay's Rebellion rose in protest of high inflation upon poor farmers, and the national government was unable to suppress the rebellion. Under the Constitution, a military was created. Another rebellion rose disrupting the peace that was expected to follow the newly founded country, the Whisky Rebellion, which was quickly put down as President George Washington surpressed it with his military. Peace followed, until the Spanish American War.
Don't agree? Why are women usual attacked? Women are seen as vulnerable. Thus, they begin to take self defense classes, carry pepperspray, or they ask for increase in a police force to reduce any attacks upon women. Education does not end the attacks, but the increase of might does. Having a military does not mean that you must attack but mainly is used as a defense. Peace and military go hand in hand.
The best movie for this perhaps would be, Hero. The movie takes place in China which was broken up into different rivaling kingdoms. The Emperor of the largest kingdom had began attacking the neighboring kingdoms thus increasing his kingdom's size. His vision, uniting China under ONE kingdom, thus ending all rivalry and producing Peace across the land. The Emperor's life was spared by an assassin because the assassin had realized of the benefit this one war would generate in uniting all China forming what he called, Our Land. The war produced Peace. There is no Peace without War.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
What is it about Gay Marriage that we are afraid of? Does gay marriage hinder me in anyway? Does the economy drop due to marriage? Will the United States lose face in the rest of the world by allowing gay and lesbian marriage?
Now I am not gay nor do I support the lifestyle, but I do support people's rights. If they choose to be gay/lesbian then it is their choice. If they choose to unite together, I do not see any reason why my views should hinder any such union. Of course, marriage is a religious term of uniting a man and a woman and should be recognized. Therefore a civil union recognized by the government should be called by a different name.
Will this satisfy the gay/lesbian community? Perhaps not, but their views can not override church morality who view gay/lesbian lifestyles as the wrong way of life. As I am for people's rights, I will not deny others rights to help another. This would only create a shift in the ruling creating a win/loss situation. Therefore, the only win/win situation would be to allow civil union, but it cannot be held in a religious building that believes the lifestyle immoral.
I say, why not let them unite? It does not harm me, but perhaps I can gain something from it.
In the past, interracial relationships were frowned upon by most of the United States, but let us remember a movie that helped define that time, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. In the movie, interracial relationships were not accepted in the beginning, but in the end, with a change of heart, they turn to accept the interracial relationship. Is Brokeback Mountain to become the movie that defines this moment? I hope not as I read the short story and did not read a love story but an affair full of lust. Allow the civil unions, hopefully it will end the silly affairs of lust, or at least save us from another Brokeback Mountain
The Associated Press
Thursday, May 25, 2006; 12:18 PM
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
As more blogs are beginning to discuss immigration (the new topic of the day)
I shall try to begin writing on something new, chocolate milk. Perhaps not chocolate milk, but Ghosts.
Lately, I have been addicted to the tv at 9 p.m. on Wed night. No not for American Idol (I could really care less about American Idol), but Ghost Hunters on the Sci Fi channel. What is so intriguing about this show is displayed across the title. Ghost Hunters.
They are "plumbers by day; ghost hunters by night". I sit watching intensely for the ghost hunters to find a ghost. Most of the time they leave the buildings they were inspecting with a sense of sadness as they disprove another haunting. Finding paint thinner, plumbing, mold, bad electrical circuits, and dead mice to be the causes to some of the hauntings. Most of the supposed hauntings are disproved although there are the few times we receive the glimpse of the spirits who do not wish in leaving. There voices caught upon voice recorders and their images recorded on thermal or regular video.
The show is enchanting since it is the beginning to an answer of the question, Is there an afterlife? Now what happens when the ghosts they find turn to be malicious (none have been malicious so far)? Do the ghost hunters invent a device to catch ghosts as in Ghostbusters, an old cartoon/ hollywood movie? Or would the ghost hunters call in Catholic Priests to perform exorcisms and blessings? In any case, I am hooked. The question is asked and I want answers. Give me a plasmapack, I am ready; Lets go Ghost Hunting.
Monday, May 22, 2006
I thought today's blog should be short, but then I open the Washington Post website to find an article upon the theft from a Veteran Affairs' employee's home. Is this the repayment the veterans receive from the country that most veterans so dearly love? I will not say that the government nor the Department of Veteran Affairs is at fault. I will not comment on the employee who had violated the rights of the veterans by taking his sensitive material home.
What I wish to comment on is for those who stole it to take into note their own freedom. Their rights that have been giving to them by those who served. Honor the veterans. Do not take their social security numbers or any other data and use it against them.
There is no constraints upon the thieves, but the veterans can only hope that the thieves have a moral constraint to care about those who served. Perhaps the thieves do no know what sensitive material they hold, but hopefully the moral constraints when they learn keep them from selling the material to those who would take advantage of such a situation.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Immigration. Today, I had the privilege of meeting a man who believed immigrants are ruining America. He mainly blamed the Hispanics and Muslims for our nations troubles, but I think his focus was on all immigrants nonwhite. Interesting gentleman, if he was a gentleman. He wore a red, white, and blue suit and his wife wore an I VOTED sticker. Its Saturday, May 20. I was not aware we had any primaries on a Saturday.
I find it interesting that he has such feelings towards immigration, towards immigrants. Many of people had approached him and spoke to him upon the fact that this country was first colonized by the Indians and then followed by the Caucasian Europeans. To think now, there are people who believe that the only race that matters for this country are the "whites"
You can consider these men like cockroaches. "Where there is one; there is more" He is most likely not the only one who believes in such nonsense, but what is more of interest is this idea to make a law declaring English as the primary language.
What a waste of time in Congress spent on defining what should be our primary language. What benefit do we receive from this time spent? Could they not have been working on a more important conflict??
In time, all things change. We have laws that are useless now; some even hinder us. Old laws that should have been replaced, but as it takes so much time to change the law, they remain. The language of the land changes overtime naturally. How are we to force this change to stop? If it is meant to be it is meant to be; it should not be interfered with. I doubt that English would be replaced by any other language anytime soon, but why is it society fears change? Is change not a good thing? Do we not grow up and learn new material?
Society is about change. Anything homogeneous usually does not last for long. Having one race in a society is like having only one type of cereal.
Don't like metaphor of cereal for people? Well its not the first time it has been said, since I have heard it many of times. Mostly when a man is going to settle down, his friends feel inclined to warn him, "Do you think you can wake up every morning and have the same type of cereal? I think in life you need a variety pack; a new one each morning." A "variety pack" heterogeneous good that lets the consumer have choice. Should society not have that same heterogeneousness good? Should society not have the right to a choice, or should we have the choice taken away? Well than while we are taking choices away, you can no longer have a choice in who you marry, it shall be decided for you.
Society has choices; society does not deny the rights of its people, society strives upon freedom. Today, inter-racial relationships are everywhere in the United States. The races have intertwined denying the chance of a homogeneous race to ever control the United States. A mix of all races, once called the "Melting Pot" because of the amount of interaction with people of all races. The United States should not have a law declaring English as its primary language. The United States should encourage all languages, should encourage interaction. Productivity in society will decide which language is primary. For now it is English. In the future, it may still be English, but forever it may not be English.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Drivers everywhere appear to have a heavy foot. A foot which they feel entitles them to drive 85 in a 55, and then grow feverish as an officer on patrol pulls them over to protect the other drivers on the road.
Let me note that even I speed, but what is the difference between my driving, as I haven't been pulled in years, and others? I take into account that I live in Northern Virginia which takes a large affect as most people in Northern Virginia speed. My driving habits have not changed, but when I lived in eastern North Carolina I received many of speeding tickets.
The differences between the two?
· Speeding through small towns and back roads is asking to be pulled over. It endangers citizens in small communities, and the back roads are not meant to support speeding traffic, only what they consider local traffic
· On major highways everywhere speeding is not frowned upon. In fact, many states have begun to pull over people for driving too slow, as they now begin to endanger citizens
In Northern Virginia, everyone speeds on the highway, only a select few are pulled over. Police Officers have the ability to pull each over, but lets have it, speed limits on highways are too low. Vehicles today are fast, more fuel efficient, and everyone has drives them in that manner. The speed limit laws are now out of date as they restrict citizens of their rights. These laws, in order to be more accurate, should be changed throughout time, as regulations do become out of date.
Do police officers pull over everyone they can? Of course not, mainly those who endanger other drivers or communities well beings.
Should we be upset with the police officers for enforcing the laws that we had placed to protect ourselves? Of course not! If we wish to drive fast, then “vote with your feet” and move to an area where going over the speed limit is not as frowned upon, or you can stay, let your voice be heard and change the regulations upon driving.
But let us not shower everyone with hatred towards police officers for enforcing rules that are placed to protect our best interests. Different areas have different laws, move or change the law. The choices are ours, but if you only like to complain you will lose any support for changing any laws from me…
Thursday, May 11, 2006
The NSA has been accussed by USA TODAY for secretly forming a database of those who call overseas. President Bush urges, we, the "good, law abiding" citizens have nothing to fear as they are only after those who are connected to terrorist networks as Al Qaeda.
And who shall decide upon the qualifications of what is to be called a terrorist?
Who decides what qualifies as a connection with a terrorist network?
Furthermore, how do we know that the governement is not in connection with the terrorist networks?
The U.S. Government has helped many terrorist networks but labelled them as something else, and yet want to take the choice away from the U.S. citizen of who he can help or cannot. Certainly we have to think upon our safety, but when is it too much?
- An immigrant calling home to check on his mother may be labelled as connected with a terrorist just for the known fact a terrorist is in the area.
- Those in media may be considered in connection with terrorist because they had interviewed them. Its not the first time a reporter has received the chance to interview an enemy. Think of Saddam Hussein's interview before the war...
- Political opponents, they may have no connection rather than heading overseas to shake hands with the military to secure the vote, and they could be considered as assisting terrorists.
How far should we let the government go to insure safety. If it means a loss of so much freedom... The civil rights leaders had said it best, as they would have rather died free then live a slave. As quoted from Martin Luther King Jr.'s tomb in Atlanta, Ga. "I'm Free. I'm Free. Thank you Lord. I am finally Free."
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
I think these are truely the lies. The heart lies. How else can we not tell the difference between lust and love? One person told me it was because you need to be in harmony for your heart to make the right decisions. How interesting, harmony. Yet how do you achieve this harmony? Through the mind, or through the heart? And even the heart has rules. People always have their own rules. Some won't sleep with someone who has an HIV, others refuse to vote democrat or republican.
Religions, they each have disciplines in order to overcome our "animal desires." Lent is 40 days spent giving up something we are dear to, just to prove that we can resist temptation. To control our urges. Muslims have their own time of fasting in which they eat before the sun rises and later in the evening after the sun sets. In each case, it is to control these instincts, to prove why people are rational beings above animal creations. Humans are rational. We make a decision based off what is best for us. The idea that we should follow our heart is insane. The heart lies. The heart tells you to cheat just because the girl is beautiful while the mind the conscious tells you that you shouldn't.
To think people keep telling me that I should just follow my heart. I'll follow something but its certainly not my heart. Why is it the battered wife stays with her battering husband? The mind that tells her to leave or is it the heart that says, "BUT HE LOVES YOU"
I write this not to denote anything about the heart, for the heart brings faith, brings love, brings passion, but to tame the idea that the heart should rule without any rationality.We do not choose wives based upon our urges, at least I do not. I am too picky. For a one night stand, I would be picky, therefore for a wife the standards to meet would be higher. Yet when you finally find someone who meets the standards set you still can not marry them unless the heart accepts them. Without love, without the passion, the faithfulness that makes you do anything for them, the marriage is pointless. Therefore follow your heart, but do not let it cloud your judgement, remember to always be rational as well.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Monday, May 01, 2006
Is this really for the people? What will they see from this other than complete control to a man who thinks he is doing what is right for his people. The partially privatized industries have lost all right to what they have spent their money on. What is it these socialistic Presidents want? Money
They believe that they can control foreign investors and corporations with their bullying. Sadness is that their bullying will only cause an uproar in foreign investment. The foreign companies will pull out and the socialistic country will be forced to take of itself, but without the foreign companies who is going to bring in the technology, the high skilled laborers to further expand the technological identities to improve the companies status? If anything this is sure doom for Bolivia. They look forward with greed and will find that they are further decreasing their chances of becoming a world power, even with a vast supply of resources.