Bullying is a topic that has gained quite a lot of press in the last few years. Or rather, it gained some attention for a while when some celebrities started touting it as their cause du jour a few years back, and tapered off once they found other things to champion, like dumping buckets of ice water on themselves. For me though, bullying is a subject that will always be something I have rather strong feelings about.
You see, for much of my youth I was a target for bullies. I've worn glasses since kindergarten, which automatically made me stand out to those who enjoyed picking on others. Add to that a higher than average intelligence, love of reading, and a level of social awkwardness and shyness that made it nearly impossible for me to talk to others and I basically had a kick me sign tattooed on my back throughout my school years. Granted, most of the bullying I was subjected to was limited to verbal taunting and insulting as opposed to the more physical forms like swirlies and being shoved up against lockers or being given wedgies. But trust me, it was enough.
The reason I bring this up is primarily because I strongly disagree with the fact that people seem to think bullying is something that can be done away with, and with the means by which those cause-heads in Hollywood and the various bodies of government want to deal with bullying. Of course, this being my blog, I'm going to explain to you why I feel this way.
To my first point, that people think bullying can be eradicated. This is bullshit. Bullying is, sadly, a part of human nature. There will always be those who feel the need to show that they are the strongest by picking on those who are weaker (or appear so) than they are. It's a low risk way of asserting dominance in a way that others can see. Granted, this is cowardly to say the least, but nonetheless is still effective. Otherwise, it wouldn't continue to be a problem. Regardless of how you go about it, be it peer pressure, legislation, or whatever other gimmick you might think of, bullying will always exist. Once people get this through their heads, maybe then they'll be able to actually work on dealing with the problem effectively.
My second point is that the means by which society has lately decided to deal with bullying is ineffective at the very least, and at its worst will teach the victims of bullying habits that will hinder them for most of the rest of their lives. Being the victim of bullying for much of my life, I've seen and heard many different ways of dealing with bullies... most of which WILL NOT WORK. Let's go over a few of them, shall we?
1) Ignore them, and they'll get bored and leave you alone: I can tell you from first hand experience that this doesn't work. While there may be some who might get bored and move on to a more responsive victim, there are still more who see this head in the sand tactic as the sign of an easy mark. After all, you aren't going to fight back, so they can keep doing what they're doing with impunity. And you'll damn sure never say anything to anyone, for fear that you'll draw the bullies wrath down upon you once he or she has been talked to. Because I'll tell you right now, that's all that ever happens to them. They get talked to. Warned. Put in detention for a little while. But at the end of it, they're still there, and they know who got them in trouble. So to avoid all that, you don't bother looking for help. You just keep quiet and hope they'll go away, which they never do. Hell... sometimes they even bring more friends to play with the easy target. Ignoring the problem only makes it worse.
2) Show them sympathy because obviously they have serious issues at home that must be leading them to be bullies: Okay. This is not an after school special or some sappy tween movie where you can simply be nice to the bully, and eventually win them over to your side because you're such a kind-hearted person. This is real life. Trying to be sensitive and sympathetic with a bully will only piss them off and make the situation worse. They don't want your sympathy. They want to dominate you in the most demeaning way possible to prove they're strong. Even assuming there are issues at home like abuse or bullying by a family member or parent that's resulting in their being a bully at school, your going up to them and trying to use sympathetic understanding when it wasn't invited is probably only going to result in them calling you weak, and pummeling you to prove the point. I'm not saying these particular bullies don't need help. They do. But unless they sought you out specifically to talk about that stuff, trying to be a shoulder to cry on will only make the situation worse.
3) Give them what they want, and they'll go away:No! No! No! No! You know what this teaches bullies? That they can get anything they want from you, and they'll take more, and more, and more. You know what this teaches victims? To simply roll over and give in whenever someone applies even the least little bit of force. To do otherwise would be to invite the bullies to hurt you. And you know what? They might still hurt you at first. But eventually, they'll realize they can't squeeze blood from a stone, and they'll go away. Never! Ever! Ever!! teach a victim of bullying to simply give the bully what they want.
4) Peer pressure/others standing up to the bullies for the victim: While I applaud the fact that there are so many people out there who, at least on paper, are willing to stand up for those who are being bullied, this is perhaps the worst way to deal with bullies that I can think of. First off, as far as the public outpouring of support for anti-bullying programs are concerned... those didn't last more than a few years. They got big press when a few stars and music groups went public, but these days, it gets almost no attention. Secondly, even if you're some big hero at school, and choose to stand up against the bullies when you see them picking on some shy kid, you can't be there every moment of the day. And as with a bullying victim getting the bully in trouble by telling on them, once the hero of the day walks off, the bully will just be more pissed than before, and take it out on their original target somewhere else. I'm not saying people shouldn't try to stop bullying when they see it happening. But that can only be a temporary solution, and to think of it otherwise, to tell the victims of bullying that there will always be someone there to take care of these bullies is only going to make it harder on them when they're in a situation where nobody is around to save them.
Now that I've gone over the socially accepted and acceptable means for dealing with bullies (that don't work), here's how I suggest we deal with bullies.
Teach people how to stand up for themselves.
I'm not talking about taking all these victims and teaching them how to hand out a physical beat down. There are some of us who simply are not geared that way. What I mean, is teach them to use their natural talents, their strengths, to confidently stand up to the bullies and tell them to fuck off. Sure, it'll probably result in some rough times as the bully tries even harder to assert their dominance. But if you can just teach people to stand tall, to dust themselves off and show the bullies that they're going to continue on with their lives regardless of what is done to them, that will do what none of those other methods can... give them confidence. If instead of learning to hide or rely on others, people are taught to rely on themselves, to stand up to those who would make them into victims, this world in general will improve dramatically.
Obviously, that isn't a perfect solution. There will always those who won't care if you spit in their eye and walk away. There will always be those who will just try harder to beat you down if you stand up to them. But if you teach people to stand up for themselves, to believe that no one has the right to treat them as anything less than a human being, they'll have a better life. They may take a few lumps along the way, but eventually, bullies will realize that this person is not one to be trifled with. This person will not cower in the corner and let others do what they want. This person will not give in at the tiniest hint of pain. This person will not rely on others to fight their battles for them. This person is strong and confident.
This person will not be bullied.
Saturday, September 27, 2014
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Ideas, Ideas
I'm not sure how many of you are terribly interested in hearing about my plans for uber-geekery that can also be described as creating a household within the S.C.A. As such, this may just end up being my way of organizing my thoughts.
This week, I've put a lot of thought into how I want to set this up. I've come up with a few goals, and the beginning of what I'm calling the "Charter". Essentially just a fancy name for a code of conduct and behavior. More importantly, I've got a name. All households need a name, and I've already picked the one for mine. The North Seas Trading Company. The reason I picked it is twofold, though to be honest the second reason was purely incidental. The first is that my persona, one Ruadhan macLochloinn, is a Scotsman and as a merchant ship commander would do most of his business in the North Sea area. The second is that the area we live in, the Barony of Thor's Mountain, is very obviously tied to Norse culture. In this way I make a connection between the house and the barony.
As I've stated, I do have some goals already penned for the household. Primarily, it's about having fun. More specifically though, it's about bringing people together who share an interest/love of the nautical cultures of the period. It's about bringing to life the personas that all of us in the society work so hard to put together. At least I would think the nautical aspect is a natural match for the people of the area, given the Norse penchant for exploration and sailing. The other might be a bit more difficult as it would call for those involved in the house to actually act out their personas as opposed to simply stating what that persona is and then behaving as normal.
The Charter is still very much in the works. I have a few things jotted down that I would like to hope are common sense. Mostly about respecting others, helping those that need it, and keeping mundane issues in the mundane world. Generally speaking, I see the S.C.A. as a world unto itself, and want to try as much as possible to keep the separation between mundane and Scadian in place. So the Charter will be written in a manner consistent with the period, and not simply as a set of mundane world rules brought over into the period.
Then there's the matter of structure. I know that some houses are uber-structured, while others resemble not much more than an amorphous entity where friends can have fun together. Both are fine, though I personally want to have at least a little structure to help when the household gets together for larger events. The way I envision doing this is fairly simple. I've looked at the way ships were manned back in the late 1500's and intend to model the house's staffing after it. Ships of the day didn't have a rigid military ranking system. Instead, they had positional titles and responsibility. The ship's master and commander was equivalent to a modern day ship's captain. As head of the household, I would serve in that capacity, though I would use the title of "Flag" since the idea is to be head of an entire trading company. As such, I would certainly expect others to join as masters of their own ships. Other positions include the cooper who would have been responsible for the upkeep of stores barrels. I see this as analogous to a logistics person or quartermaster. The carpenter of the day would have been responsible for repairs to the ship, though I would probably shift the focus to more of an A&S focus... perhaps coordinating the A&S efforts of our various members. A ship's pilot would be responsible for navigation, though I'm not sure how I would use it in terms of the household. There was also a barber who would work as doctor/dentist/surgeon and in general keep an eye on the crew's well being. Again, I'm not sure how to parley that into a position for the household, but I'm sure I have time to figure it out. Cooks weren't specifically a position so much as they were sailors who were physically incapable of doing much else. I'm not going to use that as a criteria however. Instead, it would be someone who was genuinely interested in the food of the period, and cooking/coordinating meals for the household.
All of the positions I come up with, whether they were listed above or something else I come up with will be purely voluntary. I would only want someone to hold a position if it was something they were interested in. You see, beyond simply holding down a position and fulfilling the associated duties, I would want those in a specific position to become very familiar with all aspects of the actual position as it was performed in the past. For those who don't want to hold a position of responsibility, there will be a kind of informal rank system. Essentially, everyone who joins would start out as a simple sailor. Those who show a willingness to go above and beyond being just a sailor, who exemplify the values I'd like to see in members of the household, would be able to achieve a promotion of status within the household, with names like Bosun or perhaps Gunner, depending on how they distinguished themselves. The ideas are there, but it's still rough. In time I hope to come up with something a bit more definitive, but I'm in no hurry.
I've also come up with a rather interesting way to induct new members, should they choose to accept induction in this way. It's something in keeping with both the period, and the theme of the household. However, as I'd like to keep at least some air of mystery in place, this is one idea that I want to divulge only to those who actually join the household... whenever it is that I manage to start it up.
One more thing I'd like to mention before I wrap this post up, is that I would very much like to put some of the house's efforts into greeting new people and visitors at events. I'd like to have a hospitality tent set up so that people have a place to go for munchies, fellowship, and perhaps to ask those questions that are burning at the back of their brains. Someplace where new people feel welcome and not overwhelmed by all the garb and whatnot. I'm honestly hoping that, by being in character full time during events, we would be able to pique the interest of others with our stories and our living personas.
So far, it seems to be coming together. Given time, who knows. It might turn out to be something fun.
This week, I've put a lot of thought into how I want to set this up. I've come up with a few goals, and the beginning of what I'm calling the "Charter". Essentially just a fancy name for a code of conduct and behavior. More importantly, I've got a name. All households need a name, and I've already picked the one for mine. The North Seas Trading Company. The reason I picked it is twofold, though to be honest the second reason was purely incidental. The first is that my persona, one Ruadhan macLochloinn, is a Scotsman and as a merchant ship commander would do most of his business in the North Sea area. The second is that the area we live in, the Barony of Thor's Mountain, is very obviously tied to Norse culture. In this way I make a connection between the house and the barony.
As I've stated, I do have some goals already penned for the household. Primarily, it's about having fun. More specifically though, it's about bringing people together who share an interest/love of the nautical cultures of the period. It's about bringing to life the personas that all of us in the society work so hard to put together. At least I would think the nautical aspect is a natural match for the people of the area, given the Norse penchant for exploration and sailing. The other might be a bit more difficult as it would call for those involved in the house to actually act out their personas as opposed to simply stating what that persona is and then behaving as normal.
The Charter is still very much in the works. I have a few things jotted down that I would like to hope are common sense. Mostly about respecting others, helping those that need it, and keeping mundane issues in the mundane world. Generally speaking, I see the S.C.A. as a world unto itself, and want to try as much as possible to keep the separation between mundane and Scadian in place. So the Charter will be written in a manner consistent with the period, and not simply as a set of mundane world rules brought over into the period.
Then there's the matter of structure. I know that some houses are uber-structured, while others resemble not much more than an amorphous entity where friends can have fun together. Both are fine, though I personally want to have at least a little structure to help when the household gets together for larger events. The way I envision doing this is fairly simple. I've looked at the way ships were manned back in the late 1500's and intend to model the house's staffing after it. Ships of the day didn't have a rigid military ranking system. Instead, they had positional titles and responsibility. The ship's master and commander was equivalent to a modern day ship's captain. As head of the household, I would serve in that capacity, though I would use the title of "Flag" since the idea is to be head of an entire trading company. As such, I would certainly expect others to join as masters of their own ships. Other positions include the cooper who would have been responsible for the upkeep of stores barrels. I see this as analogous to a logistics person or quartermaster. The carpenter of the day would have been responsible for repairs to the ship, though I would probably shift the focus to more of an A&S focus... perhaps coordinating the A&S efforts of our various members. A ship's pilot would be responsible for navigation, though I'm not sure how I would use it in terms of the household. There was also a barber who would work as doctor/dentist/surgeon and in general keep an eye on the crew's well being. Again, I'm not sure how to parley that into a position for the household, but I'm sure I have time to figure it out. Cooks weren't specifically a position so much as they were sailors who were physically incapable of doing much else. I'm not going to use that as a criteria however. Instead, it would be someone who was genuinely interested in the food of the period, and cooking/coordinating meals for the household.
All of the positions I come up with, whether they were listed above or something else I come up with will be purely voluntary. I would only want someone to hold a position if it was something they were interested in. You see, beyond simply holding down a position and fulfilling the associated duties, I would want those in a specific position to become very familiar with all aspects of the actual position as it was performed in the past. For those who don't want to hold a position of responsibility, there will be a kind of informal rank system. Essentially, everyone who joins would start out as a simple sailor. Those who show a willingness to go above and beyond being just a sailor, who exemplify the values I'd like to see in members of the household, would be able to achieve a promotion of status within the household, with names like Bosun or perhaps Gunner, depending on how they distinguished themselves. The ideas are there, but it's still rough. In time I hope to come up with something a bit more definitive, but I'm in no hurry.
I've also come up with a rather interesting way to induct new members, should they choose to accept induction in this way. It's something in keeping with both the period, and the theme of the household. However, as I'd like to keep at least some air of mystery in place, this is one idea that I want to divulge only to those who actually join the household... whenever it is that I manage to start it up.
One more thing I'd like to mention before I wrap this post up, is that I would very much like to put some of the house's efforts into greeting new people and visitors at events. I'd like to have a hospitality tent set up so that people have a place to go for munchies, fellowship, and perhaps to ask those questions that are burning at the back of their brains. Someplace where new people feel welcome and not overwhelmed by all the garb and whatnot. I'm honestly hoping that, by being in character full time during events, we would be able to pique the interest of others with our stories and our living personas.
So far, it seems to be coming together. Given time, who knows. It might turn out to be something fun.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Plans and Ambitions
For those of you who don't know, I belong to a group known as the Society for Creative Anachronisms or S.C.A. (look it up). For those of you who do know, and perhaps even know me within the society, I have plans. Not for world domination or even just the subjugation of a local populace, but I do have plans. For some reason, I've decided to divulge them here today.
First, and the plan I'm closest to bringing to fruition is to become authorized to compete in rapier competitions. I have all of my gear save the mask and gorget, but I'm hoping to have all that in the near-ish future. With luck, I'll be authorized before the end of Silver Star.
Second, I am currently working on getting my mead production into full swing. I've already made a couple of batches that have gone over well, but I'd like to pick up a few more things to up my production level. Essentially, I'd like to be able to have a steady flow of mead for all the year's events. Again, I'm close to getting to that point.
Third, I would like to eventually become a warranted rapier marshall for Meridies. Hopefully by doing this, I can help to bring rapier up to the frozen northern wastes where I live and not have to drive all the way to Knoxville for practices. Of course, this would also help others in similar situations
Finally, and by far my longest term and most ambitious plan is to start my own household. I've already started jotting down notes about what I want, what the household will be about, and how it will be run. I don't plan on starting it any time in the near future though. I want to take my time, get established in the society, and have fun in general before I tie myself down with the duties of running a household. But if it all comes together the way I'd like, I think it'll be worth the wait.
First, and the plan I'm closest to bringing to fruition is to become authorized to compete in rapier competitions. I have all of my gear save the mask and gorget, but I'm hoping to have all that in the near-ish future. With luck, I'll be authorized before the end of Silver Star.
Second, I am currently working on getting my mead production into full swing. I've already made a couple of batches that have gone over well, but I'd like to pick up a few more things to up my production level. Essentially, I'd like to be able to have a steady flow of mead for all the year's events. Again, I'm close to getting to that point.
Third, I would like to eventually become a warranted rapier marshall for Meridies. Hopefully by doing this, I can help to bring rapier up to the frozen northern wastes where I live and not have to drive all the way to Knoxville for practices. Of course, this would also help others in similar situations
Finally, and by far my longest term and most ambitious plan is to start my own household. I've already started jotting down notes about what I want, what the household will be about, and how it will be run. I don't plan on starting it any time in the near future though. I want to take my time, get established in the society, and have fun in general before I tie myself down with the duties of running a household. But if it all comes together the way I'd like, I think it'll be worth the wait.
Friday, February 8, 2013
The Second Amendment
Seeing as how gun control has become a rather popular issue over the last few months, I thought I'd throw out my two cents. As always, keep in mind that this is just my opinion, the way my mind has wandered while pondering the subject at hand, and is not even close to a doctoral thesis.
So... The Second Amendment.
As I recall, the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, or at least the part that everyone is concerned with, states that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Let's start with that shall we? The sentence itself is simple and to the point. It grants anyone who is a citizen of this nation the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say only hunters can have weapons. It doesn't say the only weapons that can be kept are hunting rifles, archery sets, or swords. It says specifically "arms". Neither does it delineate the maximum number of rounds a person may have available to them while bearing said arms. Seems clear enough to me. Which is what leads me to the next part of this entry.
Many people today are trying to limit the "arms" that we as citizens can keep and bear to those used in either hunting or sports. For justification, they try to say that the only reason the second amendment exists was to ensure that those who hunted for a living could continue to do so. Those who believe such are sorely mistaken. The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to ensure that, no matter what, the government would never have the power to turn the populace into a nation of slaves under tyrannical rule. Why else would they specifically guarantee the right to free speech, a free press, and the right to peaceably assemble? The second amendment was essentially put into place to ensure that we as individuals could defend ourselves should the government ever take it upon itself to use armed soldiers to force its will upon us. After all, who in their right mind would ever attack a place in which everyone could and did carry some kind of weapon. In fact, a rather prominent Japanese Admiral during WWII once said, and I'm paraphrasing, that to invade mainland America would be suicide, as there would be a gun behind every blade of grass. So it stands to reason that the same would be true if the Federal government decided to try anything. Hence the reason the second amendment was put into the Bill of Rights in the first place.
Another argument that a lot of anti-gun types are trying to use in order to circumvent the second amendment, is that the men who wrote the second amendment, never envisioned the kinds of weapons available to the average citizen today. That if they had, they would never have left the amendment as open ended as it is. I believe that they made the second amendment so vague, saying only "arms", and not specifying specifically which arms they meant, was precisely because they had no idea what kinds of weapons would be developed in the future. The men who wrote the Bill of Rights were smart men. They were students of history. They knew how weapons had evolved over the centuries from swords, to bows and arrows, to crossbows, to cannon, and on to rifles and pistols. They knew that weapons would continue to evolve in ways they could never imagine. With that said, how could they possibly limit the second amendment to a specific type of weapon or weapons when they would most certainly be rendered obsolete over time. More to the point, they knew that, as weapons evolved, the government would make sure their troops had the most advanced, top of the line equipment. After all, how could they hope to stand against foreign foes if they didn't keep up with advancements in weapons technology. Imagine if our soldiers had gone into WWII with nothing more than muskets. And since the second amendment was meant to give the populace the means by which to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, would it make sense to limit the citizens to those same muskets while the government was carrying M-16's? This, in my opinion, is why they were intentionally vague about the arms we as citizens were given the right to keep.
With all of that, how can anyone in government, or even as a citizen of this nation be able to sit back and say that it's alright if the government takes away our right as citizens to protect ourselves by whatever means necessary? How can they allow anyone to say that we should only be allowed firearms that meet a certain description, and can only have so many shots at a time? What if the government became so corrupt that they sent troops to your door to take you in, or even kill you, simply because you spoke your mind? Shouldn't you be able to stand your ground for as long as possible in defiance of tyranny? Shouldn't you be able to join together with your fellow citizens to overthrow those who would seek to turn us into naught more than slaves to a central ruling body, using force to overcome the wall of soldiers they would use to protect themselves? Shouldn't we be able to protect what is ours by right, when the government seeks to take it by force?
How can we possibly do all that, if the government reduces us to bearing slings and arrows, while they carry guns and bombs?
The second amendment was written for our protection. If we forget that and allow it to be stripped away little by little, our once great nation will not survive.
So... The Second Amendment.
As I recall, the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, or at least the part that everyone is concerned with, states that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Let's start with that shall we? The sentence itself is simple and to the point. It grants anyone who is a citizen of this nation the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say only hunters can have weapons. It doesn't say the only weapons that can be kept are hunting rifles, archery sets, or swords. It says specifically "arms". Neither does it delineate the maximum number of rounds a person may have available to them while bearing said arms. Seems clear enough to me. Which is what leads me to the next part of this entry.
Many people today are trying to limit the "arms" that we as citizens can keep and bear to those used in either hunting or sports. For justification, they try to say that the only reason the second amendment exists was to ensure that those who hunted for a living could continue to do so. Those who believe such are sorely mistaken. The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to ensure that, no matter what, the government would never have the power to turn the populace into a nation of slaves under tyrannical rule. Why else would they specifically guarantee the right to free speech, a free press, and the right to peaceably assemble? The second amendment was essentially put into place to ensure that we as individuals could defend ourselves should the government ever take it upon itself to use armed soldiers to force its will upon us. After all, who in their right mind would ever attack a place in which everyone could and did carry some kind of weapon. In fact, a rather prominent Japanese Admiral during WWII once said, and I'm paraphrasing, that to invade mainland America would be suicide, as there would be a gun behind every blade of grass. So it stands to reason that the same would be true if the Federal government decided to try anything. Hence the reason the second amendment was put into the Bill of Rights in the first place.
Another argument that a lot of anti-gun types are trying to use in order to circumvent the second amendment, is that the men who wrote the second amendment, never envisioned the kinds of weapons available to the average citizen today. That if they had, they would never have left the amendment as open ended as it is. I believe that they made the second amendment so vague, saying only "arms", and not specifying specifically which arms they meant, was precisely because they had no idea what kinds of weapons would be developed in the future. The men who wrote the Bill of Rights were smart men. They were students of history. They knew how weapons had evolved over the centuries from swords, to bows and arrows, to crossbows, to cannon, and on to rifles and pistols. They knew that weapons would continue to evolve in ways they could never imagine. With that said, how could they possibly limit the second amendment to a specific type of weapon or weapons when they would most certainly be rendered obsolete over time. More to the point, they knew that, as weapons evolved, the government would make sure their troops had the most advanced, top of the line equipment. After all, how could they hope to stand against foreign foes if they didn't keep up with advancements in weapons technology. Imagine if our soldiers had gone into WWII with nothing more than muskets. And since the second amendment was meant to give the populace the means by which to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, would it make sense to limit the citizens to those same muskets while the government was carrying M-16's? This, in my opinion, is why they were intentionally vague about the arms we as citizens were given the right to keep.
With all of that, how can anyone in government, or even as a citizen of this nation be able to sit back and say that it's alright if the government takes away our right as citizens to protect ourselves by whatever means necessary? How can they allow anyone to say that we should only be allowed firearms that meet a certain description, and can only have so many shots at a time? What if the government became so corrupt that they sent troops to your door to take you in, or even kill you, simply because you spoke your mind? Shouldn't you be able to stand your ground for as long as possible in defiance of tyranny? Shouldn't you be able to join together with your fellow citizens to overthrow those who would seek to turn us into naught more than slaves to a central ruling body, using force to overcome the wall of soldiers they would use to protect themselves? Shouldn't we be able to protect what is ours by right, when the government seeks to take it by force?
How can we possibly do all that, if the government reduces us to bearing slings and arrows, while they carry guns and bombs?
The second amendment was written for our protection. If we forget that and allow it to be stripped away little by little, our once great nation will not survive.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Revolution
While much of the public has been voting for the last couple of months, tomorrow is the long recognized voting day. The day that the decision is made as to whether or not the incumbent will stay, or the challenger will be victorious in many different races, with the race for president being the biggest. Unfortunately, no matter who takes the office this time around, nothing will change.
Most of you who will go out and vote tomorrow, or who have voted already, have chosen either in thought or in fact one of the two widely publicized candidates that everyone knows about. This is your right as guaranteed by the Constitution, just as it is my right to choose to vote for someone I believe might actually make a difference, as opposed to members of the two parties who are more interested in maintaining the status quo than they are about actually serving the people as they were meant to. Sadly, while those who choose to aid in the continution of this nations downfall will only be blasted based on the fact that they voted for those "damn republicans" or "damn democrats", I will be condemned for the death of the republic for upholding my own set of ideals, and choosing not to simply vote for the lesser of two evils and whoever is most likely to win.
I choose to take a step off the beaten path. I choose not to vote for either evil, but for a chance at helping this nation survive. Do I expect my candidate to win? Sadly, no. Because my candidate of choice had neither the backing of major corporations, nor the backing of the government as is the case with the two major candidates. He stood no chance against the massive media coverage the other parties could bring to bear. I choose to take a stand against a system that has become stagnant and corrupt regardless of the criticism I may receive as a result.
Will I look at those who chose the mainstream candidates with disdain or hatred because they failed to see things my way? No. I will accept the disdain they seek to pile on my shoulders with pride and the strength that comes from knowing I did not shame myself by choosing a leader simply for their chances of being elected or because all that matters is getting the incumbent out of the white house. I chose a leader who would have actually made the changes necessary to save our nation and bring it back to the greatness it knew at its founding.
I will also seek to share my views, my knowledge with those open enough to look for answers outside of the two party prison we have been brainwashed into believing is the only option we have available to us. I will teach, without derision, condescension, or anger. I will be patient, understanding, and willing to allow others to do what they deem best, because they are free to do so. I will answer anger with reason, mockery with pride, and force with silent resistance.
Berate me for standing up as a solitary voice in the sea of madness that is our political system, and I will simply pity you for your inability to look past fear and ignorance to see the path that must be taken to ensure our survival as a nation.
We need a revolution. Not of guns and blood, but of ideas and realizations. We need to wake up to the knowledge that to continue down this path is to set a match to our beloved constitution and watch as our freedoms become nothing more than ashes blown about on the winds of history.
I, for one, will not let that happen.
Most of you who will go out and vote tomorrow, or who have voted already, have chosen either in thought or in fact one of the two widely publicized candidates that everyone knows about. This is your right as guaranteed by the Constitution, just as it is my right to choose to vote for someone I believe might actually make a difference, as opposed to members of the two parties who are more interested in maintaining the status quo than they are about actually serving the people as they were meant to. Sadly, while those who choose to aid in the continution of this nations downfall will only be blasted based on the fact that they voted for those "damn republicans" or "damn democrats", I will be condemned for the death of the republic for upholding my own set of ideals, and choosing not to simply vote for the lesser of two evils and whoever is most likely to win.
I choose to take a step off the beaten path. I choose not to vote for either evil, but for a chance at helping this nation survive. Do I expect my candidate to win? Sadly, no. Because my candidate of choice had neither the backing of major corporations, nor the backing of the government as is the case with the two major candidates. He stood no chance against the massive media coverage the other parties could bring to bear. I choose to take a stand against a system that has become stagnant and corrupt regardless of the criticism I may receive as a result.
Will I look at those who chose the mainstream candidates with disdain or hatred because they failed to see things my way? No. I will accept the disdain they seek to pile on my shoulders with pride and the strength that comes from knowing I did not shame myself by choosing a leader simply for their chances of being elected or because all that matters is getting the incumbent out of the white house. I chose a leader who would have actually made the changes necessary to save our nation and bring it back to the greatness it knew at its founding.
I will also seek to share my views, my knowledge with those open enough to look for answers outside of the two party prison we have been brainwashed into believing is the only option we have available to us. I will teach, without derision, condescension, or anger. I will be patient, understanding, and willing to allow others to do what they deem best, because they are free to do so. I will answer anger with reason, mockery with pride, and force with silent resistance.
Berate me for standing up as a solitary voice in the sea of madness that is our political system, and I will simply pity you for your inability to look past fear and ignorance to see the path that must be taken to ensure our survival as a nation.
We need a revolution. Not of guns and blood, but of ideas and realizations. We need to wake up to the knowledge that to continue down this path is to set a match to our beloved constitution and watch as our freedoms become nothing more than ashes blown about on the winds of history.
I, for one, will not let that happen.
Friday, September 21, 2012
The Logic Behind My Vote
About a month and a half from now, millions of people will be lining up to cast their vote for the next President of the United States. Many will vote Republican, and many will vote Democrat. I will be voting for neither of them. That isn't to say that I won't be voting at all. It simply means that I will be voting for someone else completely. I will be voting for the Libertarian candidate for President, and this is why.
Over the last few years, I've begun to pay more attention to the ideas and policies being pushed for by the two reigning parties. What I've heard has convinced me that neither one takes their oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States of America" seriously. They both have ideas of how to run the country which directly contradict the Constitution and the spirit with which it was concieved. I will admit that the Constitution was designed to be able to grow with the times, but only so long as that growth remained within the framework established by its creators. In essence, as long as the Constitution grows in a way which ensures the continuation of freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility for all citizens, the country would remain healthy. But those principles are not what the Republicans and Democrats have in mind.
The Democrats are all about freedom where personal ideals are concerned. What they aren't all about is the idea that what a person earns from whatever job they may have belongs solely to the earner. They seem to be convinced that if a person earns above a certain amount, that they must be required by law to share a portion of that income with those who, for whatever reason, are making significantly less. As if it's the responsibility of those who have actually done well financially to support those who haven't, even if those who haven't aren't even trying to do so. I firmly believe that if you want to do well in this life, it's your responsibility to take the steps necessary to make it happen. It is not the responsibility of those who have worked hard for the majority of their life in order to provide themselves with a good life to fund the lives of those who can't or won't. I appreciate that there are some who are having a hard time through no fault of their own, and some limited assistance is welcome. But when all you do is reinforce the idea that a person need only ask the government, and thus the taxpayer, for support and not have to support yourself, you are only harming society as a whole. And when the government forces those who have worked so hard to be successful to foot the bill for that unlimited support, you encourage the idea that there's no point in even trying to be successful, since the government will simply take that success and give it to those who haven't earned it.
That is why I refuse to support and vote for the Democrats.
The Republicans are just as bad, though in a completely different vein. Where the Democrats seek to control what we as people can do with our money, and how successful we can be, the Republicans seek to control how we live our personal lives. They base their decisions, their legislation on religious ideals which are not necessarily shared by all citizens. They want to bring back "traditional American values", which to them means living life per the Christian bible. Now, I know I'm not Christian, and neither are many of my friends. I also know that there are many more people throughout this nation who are not Christian, and who follow a wide variety of faiths, philosophies, and spiritual paths. So how does it make sense that the Government be allowed to dictate how people live their lives based on only one point of view. This nation was founded on the basis of tolerance, and allowing its citizens to choose how they live, so long as it doesn't harm the livelihood of others. That does not mean harming the "sensibilities" of others. If that were the case, the first amendment would have been written about something else entirely. Instead, it promises that all citizens had the write to say, believe and practice what they wanted, not what the government sanctions. Yet look at some of the legislations that have been brought up lately. Laws forbidding citizens from have state sanctioned marriages because they offend religious sensibilities. Laws attempting to forbid a woman from having certain medical procedures based on religious precepts that, per these religious conservatives own texts, are no longer valid.
All I ask is that whatever government may be in power, you allow me to live my life in the manner I choose, and to make the decisions I feel are right for me and mine so long as I am willing to live with the consequences of those decisions. But as I've already shown, that is not what either of the two reigning parties are interested in. Their only interest is in molding this nation to fit their concept of proper society. On the one hand, you have a group which would allow personal freedoms as long as they can dictate everyone's financial decisions. On the other, you have those that would allow you to do what you want with your money, only as long as you live your personal life according to the strictures of their personal beliefs. Neither of these are acceptable to me, and I will not simply fall prey to the "lesser of two evils" voting practice. In my eyes, neither is a lesser evil than the other. So I refuse to support either.
All of this is why, come voting day, I will be casting my vote for the libertarian candidate. And for any who would like more information on the party and its candidate, I highly recommend going to www.lp.org and doing a little reading.
Over the last few years, I've begun to pay more attention to the ideas and policies being pushed for by the two reigning parties. What I've heard has convinced me that neither one takes their oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States of America" seriously. They both have ideas of how to run the country which directly contradict the Constitution and the spirit with which it was concieved. I will admit that the Constitution was designed to be able to grow with the times, but only so long as that growth remained within the framework established by its creators. In essence, as long as the Constitution grows in a way which ensures the continuation of freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility for all citizens, the country would remain healthy. But those principles are not what the Republicans and Democrats have in mind.
The Democrats are all about freedom where personal ideals are concerned. What they aren't all about is the idea that what a person earns from whatever job they may have belongs solely to the earner. They seem to be convinced that if a person earns above a certain amount, that they must be required by law to share a portion of that income with those who, for whatever reason, are making significantly less. As if it's the responsibility of those who have actually done well financially to support those who haven't, even if those who haven't aren't even trying to do so. I firmly believe that if you want to do well in this life, it's your responsibility to take the steps necessary to make it happen. It is not the responsibility of those who have worked hard for the majority of their life in order to provide themselves with a good life to fund the lives of those who can't or won't. I appreciate that there are some who are having a hard time through no fault of their own, and some limited assistance is welcome. But when all you do is reinforce the idea that a person need only ask the government, and thus the taxpayer, for support and not have to support yourself, you are only harming society as a whole. And when the government forces those who have worked so hard to be successful to foot the bill for that unlimited support, you encourage the idea that there's no point in even trying to be successful, since the government will simply take that success and give it to those who haven't earned it.
That is why I refuse to support and vote for the Democrats.
The Republicans are just as bad, though in a completely different vein. Where the Democrats seek to control what we as people can do with our money, and how successful we can be, the Republicans seek to control how we live our personal lives. They base their decisions, their legislation on religious ideals which are not necessarily shared by all citizens. They want to bring back "traditional American values", which to them means living life per the Christian bible. Now, I know I'm not Christian, and neither are many of my friends. I also know that there are many more people throughout this nation who are not Christian, and who follow a wide variety of faiths, philosophies, and spiritual paths. So how does it make sense that the Government be allowed to dictate how people live their lives based on only one point of view. This nation was founded on the basis of tolerance, and allowing its citizens to choose how they live, so long as it doesn't harm the livelihood of others. That does not mean harming the "sensibilities" of others. If that were the case, the first amendment would have been written about something else entirely. Instead, it promises that all citizens had the write to say, believe and practice what they wanted, not what the government sanctions. Yet look at some of the legislations that have been brought up lately. Laws forbidding citizens from have state sanctioned marriages because they offend religious sensibilities. Laws attempting to forbid a woman from having certain medical procedures based on religious precepts that, per these religious conservatives own texts, are no longer valid.
All I ask is that whatever government may be in power, you allow me to live my life in the manner I choose, and to make the decisions I feel are right for me and mine so long as I am willing to live with the consequences of those decisions. But as I've already shown, that is not what either of the two reigning parties are interested in. Their only interest is in molding this nation to fit their concept of proper society. On the one hand, you have a group which would allow personal freedoms as long as they can dictate everyone's financial decisions. On the other, you have those that would allow you to do what you want with your money, only as long as you live your personal life according to the strictures of their personal beliefs. Neither of these are acceptable to me, and I will not simply fall prey to the "lesser of two evils" voting practice. In my eyes, neither is a lesser evil than the other. So I refuse to support either.
All of this is why, come voting day, I will be casting my vote for the libertarian candidate. And for any who would like more information on the party and its candidate, I highly recommend going to www.lp.org and doing a little reading.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Call of the Wild
When I was a kid, I had the good fortune to live right smack dab in the middle of western Washington. To the west, you had the Pacific Ocean, the Olympic Mountains, and the Puget Sound. To the east, you had the Cascade Mountains. In between were thousands of acres of forests, lakes, and rivers. And no matter where you went, you could always see Mt. Rainier rising far above the clouds. I can honestly say I was blessed to live in a place where natural beauty was so abundant. For the last few years before my parents moved us to Alabama, I was even lucky enough to live in a gated community high in the foothills of the Cascades, where the primary rules of the community was to interfere with nature as little as possible. It surrounded three beautiful lakes with miles of trails that I would walk or ride whenever the mood hit me.
Since then, I've gotten farther and farther from that place, both physically, and in my heart. I've moved all around the country, either as a result of my time in the Navy, or simply because it was where the gods felt I was needed at the time. This is the first place I've lived since I left Washington that I've felt like I was close to nature, nestled at the foot of the Cumberland Mountains as we are. Yet lately, I've felt as if I need to get closer. I can see the mountains rising up only a few blocks from here. I pass over Big Creek every time I drive to town, or watch it wind beside the road as I head out to the in-laws' place. But it just isn't enough.
The last few months I've wanted more and more to be in those mountains. To feel them rising up beneath me as I make my way along some trail or another, trees rising up on all sides to shade me on the way. I've looked up a number of places to go hiking in the area, and even found a trailhead only a minute or two away from here. Ideally, I would pack up a tent and supplies for a couple of days, and just walk. Camp on the trail overnight, and keep going. Sadly, I have neither the time, nor the proper equipment for a hike like that. So at the very least, I want to grab a day pack and see how far I can go. Maybe it will only be a couple of miles. Maybe I'll make the entire La Follette/Jacksboro/Careyville leg of the Cumberland Trail (it's about 11 miles long) in a day.
All I know is that I can feel the mountains, the trees, the rivers and creeks calling out to me. I need to be out there amongst them. And I will be. Soon.
Since then, I've gotten farther and farther from that place, both physically, and in my heart. I've moved all around the country, either as a result of my time in the Navy, or simply because it was where the gods felt I was needed at the time. This is the first place I've lived since I left Washington that I've felt like I was close to nature, nestled at the foot of the Cumberland Mountains as we are. Yet lately, I've felt as if I need to get closer. I can see the mountains rising up only a few blocks from here. I pass over Big Creek every time I drive to town, or watch it wind beside the road as I head out to the in-laws' place. But it just isn't enough.
The last few months I've wanted more and more to be in those mountains. To feel them rising up beneath me as I make my way along some trail or another, trees rising up on all sides to shade me on the way. I've looked up a number of places to go hiking in the area, and even found a trailhead only a minute or two away from here. Ideally, I would pack up a tent and supplies for a couple of days, and just walk. Camp on the trail overnight, and keep going. Sadly, I have neither the time, nor the proper equipment for a hike like that. So at the very least, I want to grab a day pack and see how far I can go. Maybe it will only be a couple of miles. Maybe I'll make the entire La Follette/Jacksboro/Careyville leg of the Cumberland Trail (it's about 11 miles long) in a day.
All I know is that I can feel the mountains, the trees, the rivers and creeks calling out to me. I need to be out there amongst them. And I will be. Soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)