Tears of the Sun
Dec. 12th, 2009 | 01:10 pm
location: Albuquerque, NM
mood: 
calm
music: None
Tears of the Sun
After a stormy election in Nigeria, a rebel group stages a coup and over throws the newly elected government. The entire presidential family is killed, with the exception of the son, who is of a tribal kingship bloodline. A team of Navy specialists headed by Lt. Waters (Bruce Willis) is given the mission of rescuing an American doctor from a missionary church while the new regime enacts a blanket of genocide. The tribal prince is hidden among refugees from the church, unbeknownst to Lt. Waters, and spurs the new regime to follow the extraction troupe to the Cameroon border.While many psychological aspects are explored, sociological ideals seem to be the center issue of this film. Military protocol and expected behaviors which are set into the psyche of the American soldier are questioned and defied. From the point of view which examines the rebels, genocide, racial superiority, and political upheaval are displayed. Religious devotion and institutional pressure are also evident near the beginning when the Navy Seals attempt to convince the clergy to leave the church.
Institutions strive to instill values in its members which will benefit the institution and spread the values which it preaches. Lt. Waters preaches that in order to do the military’s work, it is important “not to give a damn.” The idea is that the military instills the idea of robotic order following. Completing the mission is the objective, not having opinions about it. Lt. Waters deviates from this military norm when he is confronted with the order to leave the refugees and focus purely on the primary (doctor) and secondary (clergy) subjects of extraction. The doctor, Dr. Kendricks (Monica Bellucci), forces Willis’ character to examine his motivation and question the values his institution has put into him.
Related to the above questioning of institutional values is the preservation of other institutional values. While Lt. Waters is eventually willing to aid the refugees against the will of his higher ups, he must ask his squad whether they are willing to help. While he goes against one value, he upholds the value of meaning for the team. Teamwork is highly preached in the military, and Lt. Waters does not hesitate to ask his squad’s opinion, and even offer understanding and a way out for those who do not agree, implying no judgment.
The clergy are left behind. This brings into the scope the Christian (Catholic) ideology of service under any circumstance. While they are offered escape (even before deviation from the mission) they mostly refuse to leave their sanctuary, or the people who are too weak and sick to exodus with the rest of the squad. While omitted from the original film, a deleted scene shows one of the two nuns fighting with whether to stay or go. She is a young woman, afraid for her life. In the end, religious belief, as well as pressure from the older nun, makes the decision for her, and she stays behind with the other nun, and with the priest.
Racial tension is another well represented sociological concept, in the form of political upheaval and mass genocide. When the tribal king leading the Nigerian people decides to change the country into a democracy, his family is murdered by another ethnic group sharing the same boundaries. This group of course feels they should attain leadership, despite losing the election. Flared by political strife and generations of ethnic “bad blood,” they overthrow the government and begin to kill all those related to the former king/ president and their ethnic group. They do not stop there, however. This group of rebels proceeds to ensure their dominance by eliminating any group other than their own, including ethnicity and religion in that category.
Perhaps the most interesting, but also unsatisfying, observation of the film is the role of outside influence on domestic affairs. In the beginning of the film and indeed during many of the high points, it appears as though it is a negative thing for America to be involved in Nigerian business. Though somewhat with good intentions (missionary work, health provisions), involvement turns negative when many American lives are lost in a fight which is not about them on any level. By the end of the film, however, Americans are seen as good guys in the situation again. America has rescued the rightful political leader and given hope to a broken nation. It appears that while bad things are happening to the foreign force intervention is a negative thing; but while good things are happening, intervention is applauded. This is an important issue to raise and examine, but it is confusing in this film.
As a “war movie,” Tears of the Sun examines the institutions of military values as well as religious belief, specifically of the Catholic missionary faith. It goes on to showcase ethnic and racial clashes in the form of political action and warfare. The film even addresses (though it does not resolve) the issue of globalization and foreign interference. A lot of material is covered in a short amount of time. Tears of the Sun works well as a brief look at the many different sociological issues raised by foreign wars and political strife.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Prison/ Civilan Life
Dec. 12th, 2009 | 01:08 pm
location: Albuquerque, NM
mood: calm
music: None
Reforming Conformity: Transitioning from Prison Life to Civilian Life
About 650,000 people must transition from jail or prison into civilian society every year. Within three years of release, half of those released will be sent back due to a parole violation or a different crime (Urban Institute 2009). Many former prisoners have a difficult time adjusting to life outside of confinement. Reasons include altered psychological states, extended societal punishments, and stereotyped views. Prison and the “free world” are two very different places, and for those who have been in one for a long time have a difficult time adjusting to the other. Even when it is a “reentering” it is still a shock to the system.
Prisons are a highly controlled environment. Everything from physical necessities to socializing is closely scrutinized. A prisoner eats what is given to eat, socialized when it is time to socialize, and exercises when it is time to exercise. While there are programs which a prisoner may join and some sort of personal preference for entertainment (in the form of allotted television time and books) in some circumstances, these too are closely controlled by the administrators. Essentially, a prisoner is demoted to the rank of a child, under constant supervision of the parents. This greatly differs from the “free world” ideal in America that an adult can and should be completely self-sufficient. This is a main handicap for prisoners who are reentering the civilian world.
In addition to the difficulty of transitioning with helplessness, there are additional roadblocks which are met in the form of societal and legal rules. There are countless laws constricting ex-prisoners (especially for the felonious) including the restriction of voting rights, gun ownership, and even living room. Society frowns upon those who have been to jail or prison. This is very important, for it has been shown that community has an immense effect on ex-prisoners reintegration into society (Visher 2003). Jobs are very choosy about whom they hire, felonious or not. Individuals will react differently (usually negatively) to those who have been to prison.
In order to help make transitioning easier for ex-prisoners, many programs have been established. According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Reentry site, there are dozens of organizations across the country working at a national level to help prisoners adjust to “life on the outside.” On the state level there is an average of six to ten major organizations working to do the same (Office of Justice Programs 2008). These programs focus on giving counseling to ex-prisoners, as well as tangible resources ranging from physical therapy to housing to workforce training. While these programs have been shown to be beneficial, it is the community reactions and infringement of rights which still plague many ex-prisoners (Travis 2005).
Referred to as “invisible punishments,” taking away rights and benefits from ex-prisoners tend to “hit home” the most. Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, provides a comprehensive list of what sorts of rights and benefits are often taken from ex-cons: “public assistance, education loans, driving privileges, public housing, and food stamps” (2005). In addition, some are no longer allowed to vote, could be deported, may have parental rights terminated (and are less likely to gain custody of children in the event of a divorce), and may be required to register with the police for their rest of their lives (Travis 2005). These “invisible punishments” can be hard to take, especially since the societal view of jail and prison as that those are the places where crimes are paid for. Yet it is obvious that crime is a debt which must be paid even after the initial punishment.
Based on research by Jeremy Travis and Christy Visher family and community involvement with ex-prisoners is of the utmost importance. While they are in jail or in prison, contact with families is extremely limited. Depending on the crime, there can be alienation between the convict and the rest of the family (or the possible victim/s). Prison life often makes it difficult to adjust to family life after release (Visher 2003). The same research mentioned above concluded that ex-prisoners who can work their way back into traditional family roles, especially of support, have a much higher chance of not returning to the prisons or jails from whence they came. This is a route which must be further explored and expanded upon, and perhaps even extended into the societal conscience.
There are many ways in which society looks down on ex-convicts. Criminal, psycho, dangerous, mad, even evil are words all associated with ex-prisoners which color them in the eyes of the greater society. Discriminations like these are also transferred to the family system which must act as a support for those leaving the prison system in order to help ensure that there is no relapse. Federal and State laws also limit the chance of recovery for ex-prisoners through elaborate and plentiful “invisible punishments” which often make matters worse. A transition from prison life to civilian life is most often not possible in our society. This must be changed if the criminal justice system has any hopes of being effective.
Bibliography
1. Office of Justice Programs. (2008). Reentry. Retrieved from http://www.reentry.gov/.
2. Travis, Jeremy. 2005. But they all come back: facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.
3. Urban Institute. (2009). Prisoner Reentry. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/Pressroom/prisoner
4. Visher, C A, & Travis, J. (Annual 2003). Transitions from prison to community: understanding individual pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, p.89(25). Retrieved October 27, 2009, from General OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.d
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Utopian Religion
Dec. 12th, 2009 | 01:05 pm
location: Albuquerque, NM
mood: calm
music: None
Religion in the Perfect Society
In Utopia written by Thomas Moore, several criteria are outlines that create the perfect society. Among them, assigned work, governmental systems, and even treatment of the ill are addressed. The one that is the focus here is the way that religion affects society, and whether it makes it a true Utopia, or not. Moore argues that religion is an integral part of his society, expanding it to any true Utopia.
In the land of Utopia “the first principle is that every soul is immortal, and was created by a kind God, Who meant it to be happy.” (Moore 837) The second principle is that the citizens will receive a consequence in the afterlife, good or bad, depending on how they behaved in the current life. Moore states that these are accepted by the Utopians because if one did not, one would find him or herself in a trap. This trap consists of trying to decipher pleasure in a way that is acceptable.
It can be inferred that religion is deemed almost logically necessary for the successful existence of a perfect society. Moore could have assumed that most of his contemporary readers would agree, based on the religious feelings of the times. This is based on his references to God and the Savior Christ in his personal orations.
Communism, another form of Utopian society, addresses the idea of religion in seemingly the opposite manner. It tries to take the atheistic route, putting all faith in the equality of its people. The comparison can be made logically, because both Utopia and Communism are ideas that would work perfectly on paper, but are dashed due to human nature in practice and practicality. This stirs up the argument for or against religious inclusion in a perfect society even more. Neither the atheistic nor the religious plans for a utopia seem practically applicable.
Based on this idea, it could be argued that not only religion would have to be reworked, but also that a completely different system from these two would have to be imagined.
Having said that, it is my personal belief that a perfect society cannot exist. Lack of spirituality or religion would seem to put even more of a focus on selfish behavior, thus thrashing the idea of humanistic togetherness and unity. Inclusion of religion would drain the selfish behavior of human beings, but it would also pit them against one another, for the beliefs are so strongly worshipped, that any different form of spirituality must be an affront to one’s own.
Tracing Moores steps, and simply imagining a world that could not exist (basing this off of the possible Latin translation of “Utopia” as “no place”) I would think that a perfect society would have no religion. I strongly agree with the agricultural and community aspect presented in Utopia. To this, I would introduce a form of animism, or naturalism. By this, I mean to say that I would introduce an enhanced respect for nature, and what it provides.
Eliminating theism and atheism both would be crucial. Thoughts and notion involving a deity would throw a wrench into the machine, so to speak. This would raise questions among the inhabitants, it would raise possibilities, and it would raise strong feelings either for or against. Regardless of where these feelings are placed, they are strong enough to produce action, action that is usually negative for some other party.
Religion has the power to sway the world. Belief systems encourage men to do what other men could not. If one could control the spirituality of his fellow man, he could mold whatever society he wishes to until another brand of spirituality developed from whatever origins. It is the unpredictability of man that destroys all hope for a perfect society.
Moore attempts to use logic and reason to justify Utopia’s religious choice. Unfortunately, logic and reason rarely prevail in the minds of people, as much as they will deny this. Only empty assumptions can be drawn from whether or not Moore truly believed that his system could work. It is argued even what the meaning of Utopia is, in reference to the seriousness of Moores writing.
Religion in the perfect society is one of the most important issues in whether or not it is truly perfect, and how it is run, and whether it can even exist. Moore supports religion in Utopia as a logical necessity. I find it would be easier to imagine a perfect society without religion, as it would get in the way and skew the perfection with human nature. All in all, it seems that just the idea of religion, even the idea of it not existing, would negate any possible existence of a perfect world.
Bibliography
Moore, Thomas. “Utopia.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Barnet, Sylvan. Bedau, Hugo. Boston, New York. Bedford/ St. Martin’s. 2008. 834-846.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Funny
Dec. 12th, 2009 | 01:01 pm
location: Albuquerque, NM
mood: calm
music: None
Mankind’s Depth is “Funny”
Anna Kamienska writes a short poem entitled “Funny”, in which a bird asks a person what it is like to be human. The person describing what a human being feels, and what a person is, goes into poetic and paradoxical detail. The bird replies with a simple “that’s funny,” and flies off into the sky. It could be argued that the point that Kamienska is trying to get across is that mankind is trying to be unnaturally, and needlessly, complicated. The burden of complexity is weighing down the human race for no good reason, and is truly a joke.The fact that the description of what it feels like to be human is given in nothing but paradoxes, such as “eating bread while filling up on hunger,” points to the nonsensical nature of man. The speaker also chooses to answer the question in a rather cryptic and overly metaphorical way. It is understood that it is a poem and therefore meant to include colorful language, however, the specific types of literary devices used here (paradox, metaphor, simile) and in the way they are used exhibit unnecessary complexity and ,it could even be argued, that it shows ego.
I suggest that the bird represents the natural world, a more pure world. Nature cannot seem to comprehend why mankind has turned into such a complex creature and writes it off as a joke. In the true simplicity of the natural world, to find the answer the bird simply asks “what’s it like to be a human?” Rather than get overwhelmed by the rather confusing explanation offered by the person, the bird seems to comprehend what was said, interpret it, and label it as something “funny.” The fact that the bird says this shows that it does not take the person completely seriously, and that it could consider the answer not particularly worth giving much thought to.
At the end of the poem, after the bird has been given an explanation as to what it is like to be human, the bird “flew effortlessly up into the air.” In another translation the bird flies “lightly” into the air. The fact that the bird’s role in this poem was so small yet so significant shows that it is simplicity that is important. The person expresses a long-winded (given the length of the poem) speech which contradicts itself at every turn and is simply called funny by the end of it. Nature, the bird, flies away with no qualms, problems or hindrances while the human being is weighed down by the issues of self imposed complexity.
As the world becomes more and more modern, it appears as though the need for self-preservation and survival goes down, because it is almost guaranteed. The fact that necessities seem to be handed to people, has given them time to focus on their own ego, rather than finding food or a place to sleep for the night without being something’s prey. Unfortunately, this has led to another hardship that is seemingly unnecessary. Although mankind has always needed social interaction to be healthy, that is not particularly what has become increased, but rather the luxuries that come with it.
Much in the same fashion that grand success helped bring down the Roman Empire (and it could be argued is bringing down America), grand success is bringing down the human race in a form of self-destruction. The bird may not be taking that particular stance with his simple, “funny,” response, but there is a definite difference between man and nature created that could reflect this.
Mankind has over-complicated life to such a degree that it’s former contemporaries in the natural world no longer understand or connect with it. A person’s life has become a self-imposed joke fraught with needless complexities and contradictions. Meanwhile, the natural world still enjoys a mostly simple and yet fulfilling life. It is little wonder why the bird would consider it “funny.”
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Nudism - written 2007
Dec. 12th, 2009 | 12:58 pm
location: Albuquerque, NM
mood: 
busy
music: None
On Nudism
First and foremost, it is important that I mention that I am not a nudist myself. Like most of this society, I have been raised to think of the naked human body in a certain fashion, either in a medical or sexual manner. For reference, although I was born in Germany, I was brought up in the United States.
A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I were sitting in Denny’s conversing. She got me excited with a proposal from a couple she knows. They invited us to a private camp near Taos for a small winter vacation. The couple said it would be free since we were invited by them. Amongst the attractions was a small golf course, heated spas, swimming facilities, a volleyball court, cottages for living quarters, and many more items of interest. I wanted to immediately agree, but before I could say anything, she mentioned a “catch”: it was a nudist camp.
I consider myself pretty open to ideas (not that I will adopt them, but I will take them in and respect them); however, something troubled my mind still. I was not nervous about being bashful or worried about what other people would think, but my mind immediately went to the sexual aspect. I could not refrain from thinking about being embarrassed by any “natural reactions” I may have in that type of environment. The fact that it was a family camp did not help, as I am certain most parents would not appreciate this sort of a behavior around their children.
People here in America are very conservative about their bodies; that is to say, their human bodies, not their sexuality, which is quite apparent when we look at anything in the press nowadays. The obvious comparison is that in a good deal of European countries, at least, breasts are not considered offensive. Walking in the park, going to a pool, breast feeding, all topless, are not considered a taboo there. Here, the human body, particularly the female, is made perverted.
Media is a huge influence on how we view sexuality and nudism. How do I compose myself while playing volleyball when I have been shown video games like “Dead or Alive: Beach Volleyball”, which was heralded for its physics engine (the physics were all in the female characters breasts, thus aptly naming the new type of physics, “breast physics”. A popular show on Comedy Central, “The Man Show”, ends every episode with “girls jumping on trampolines!” which showcases true-to-life “breast physics”. How do I compose myself at the pool or in the heated spa when the phrase “wet glistening naked body” shows up so very often in sexual literature and narratives for R-rated movies?
The reason this interests me is because I feel as though I am missing out on an exciting experience. I have not been to a retreat like this before, and I relish the opportunity to meet new people, especially as interesting and kind as the couple that invited us. This handicap, however, may keep me from experiencing this. I doubt that picturing the fellow campers in their underwear would help much.
In our home, it is not uncommon for us to show no shame in our bodies, but there is a big difference between spouses and a retreat full of families. My wife has helped me get over my bashfulness, and I do not want to pressure her to also relieve me of my preconceived sexual conception of the body. It is perhaps time for us as a society to stop showing nudity in only one or two lights, and let it be what it is: something as natural as the nose on our faces, not an object to be ashamed of.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Conservation
Dec. 12th, 2009 | 12:52 pm
location: Albuquerque, NM
mood: busy
music: None
Natural Resources
The conservationism movement began in the early twentieth century, and it was at this time that many different aspects of the idea began to take shape. President Theodore Roosevelt introduced the idea of “wise use.” Gifford Pinchot introduced Conservation as we know it today; and John Muir fought for nature, for nature’s sake. All of these are today seen as parts of one whole, but at the time all of these ideas were separate, and later bound together.“Wise use” is the idea that people will use resources regardless, but that they must be smart about how they use them. Roosevelt divided the resources into two groups: renewable and non-renewable. To use the renewable resources wisely, people must take care to avoid soil erosion, to not over-fell trees in forests, to not wear down and out the soil they have by planting the same crop year after year until their soil is depleted. In order to use the non-renewable resources wisely (non-renewable being resources that people are guaranteed to run out of, such as mined minerals) is to use them in moderation, and not waste what people come across. If a gold miner comes across coal, he should not dispose of it simply because it is not what he is looking for. An attitude which does not advocate the idea that these resources are infinite is called for during this time.
Pinchot helps to tie the three main ideas together with his idea of conservation. Keep lands untouched, resources untouched, for as long as possible. This would help to increase the wise use of resources that are available while reserving resources for future generations. By this time national parks have already been formed, but this is the first time that space would be conserved for sake other than one which is aesthetic. This conservation applies to resources that are not obviously visible. This came about because Pinchot’s position in the Forest Service meant attention to all details, lands, mining, agriculture, hunting, etcetera.
Muir promotes the beauty of nature. His defense of the Hetch Hetchy valley calls on the beauty of the place as enough reasoning to not let it be turned into a reservoir for San Francisco. He cites that it is part of Yosemite National Park, which was set aside for aesthetic reasons predominantly. Muir cites the beautiful scenery, the rock formations, the Tuolumne River, its wonderful gardens, and the wildlife. One of the ideas he uses to argue against the turning of this valley into a reservoir is that the reservoir would ruin the beauty. Those in favor of the reservoir argue that it would become a beautiful lake, however Muir disagrees and explains that the water would only be at lake level for a small portion of the year, while during the rest it would be a slimy pit.
All of these men agree that nature must be regarded with respect and care. They all see it being wasted and wish to put a stop to it in one way or another. Roosevelt seems to argue more for not wasting natural resources, while Pinchot argues for saving these resources completely. Muir, however, seems to focus more on the aesthetic quality of nature, not paying mind (at least in this document) to the value of the resources at all. He wishes to conserve it for that purpose not mentioned by Pinchot or Roosevelt.
The American people should realize that not everything lasts forever, and that foresight must be used in this case. They must pay attention to the beauty offered by nature, and not be so disconnected by their city living, never realizing the impact they have on their environment. According to these writers, the people must use their resources wisely, and waste not. They must enforce the idea that nature needs to be saved, and that their future generation should not be punished for their excesses. At this point so many Americans are living in the city anymore, that the country life is forgotten. Those who are farming, some of them, are major farm owners who do not think ahead to not over-farm and deplete their soil. This has to change.
To an extent, I feel like I agree with Theodore Roosevelt about “wise use.” Although I would prefer to be able to use as few natural resources as possible, in the society we live in today it seems highly unlikely that we could live without making an enormous impact on communities that are not our own (importing resources). It seems like using what we have available in the smartest way possible is the way to go at this point, unless a radical movement sweeps our nation, and I don’t see that happening any time soon. As far as the conservation goes, especially for the sake of beauty, I highly agree with the idea. I only wish we could conserve more than we are now, instead of ever expanding into past conservation areas. I believe “wise use” fits in well here. If we were smarter with how we use our natural resources now, we would be able to have more conserved land in our country.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Sappho
Dec. 12th, 2009 | 12:47 pm
location: Albuquerque, NM
mood: busy
music: None
Life and Works of Sappho
While little is known about the chronology of Sappho’s life, much is known about her demeanor and about her upbringing. She was born to her father Skamandronymos (Freedman) and called herself Psappha in the Aeolic dialect local to where she was born and raised (Bunner). As a little girl, who ordinarily would have been frowned upon as she wasn’t a boy, was nicknamed “Little Pebble” by her father who was quite fond of her. The idea behind the nickname was that the inside of a pebble occasionally houses a jewel, which was a loving way of showing sentiment towards his daughter who was described as an ugly infant (Freedman).
Sappho is known largely for being a woman poet in a time when the field (and in fact most of the ancient world) was dominated by prominent men. She was born on the island of Lesbos in the Mediterranean Sea, and lived in the city of Eresos. It was here that she learned about the mythology of the culture and the ideas which surrounded the Hellenic Mediterranean at the time (Freedman). This would later greatly influence her writing, much like it did the rest of the world at the time.
Of her family, it is known that she had Skamandronymos as a father and Cleis for a mother. Sappho also had two brothers, Charaxus and Larichus. Her family was an aristocratic one, which allowed for many freedoms otherwise not available at the time (Bunner). This may also account for why it was allowed (if a bit grudgingly) for Sappho to later practice and make public her poetry in the manner in which she did. Of course there are no surviving manuscripts from Sappho herself, and all of the modern material we have has been passed down and translated from Dronymus. Herodotus also adds to the evidence which we have for Sappho ( Bunner).
As Sappho grew older she began to become more learned in the arts. It was said that she had quite an interest in the outdoors, and drew much of her inspiration from there. However, she became learned in the castanet and the flute by her parents’ doing, and that she went on to learn how to do ritual dance as well (Freedman). There is documentation which puts Sappho at a rather large ritual to honor the elements (Freedman). In addition to learning the arts, Sappho was also educated in mathematics, which was something her mother told her would not have been allowed had she been brought up in Athens (Freedman).
Though Sappho was born to aristocracy, her mother’s history is not so glamorous. She was a slave and according to Herodotus even lived in the same area as Aesop the fable writer (also a slave). Eventually she was taken from Thrace to Egypt where she was freed and became wed and wealthy due to her looks, as the stories go. Then she and her husband moved to Lesbos and had children, including Sappho (Bunner).
Another fact which is somewhat disputed is whether or not Sappho had a husband. According to Suidas she married a man named Cercolas who was “a man of great wealth, who sailed from Andros, and, she had a daughter by him, named Cleis.” (Bunner) While the husband is hotly disputed, there is enough mention of her daughter Cleis that it is generally accepted that she did indeed exist. Ovid and Sappho herself both mention Cleis. With the beginning of a life we come to the end of a life. While it is a popular story that Sappho killed herself by jumping from a cliff after a man, Phaon, spurned her love, it is not at all founded in historical fact . There are those who assert, however, that there was another Sappho who lived around the same time and that in fact it was this woman who threw herself off of the cliff (Bunner).
Sappho’s works went on to inspire the poetic world. While many of her contemporaries and later Greek and even Roman artists would come to admire her style and grace, so would the modern world. Among the long list of accomplished poets who honor Sappho’s works is Ambrose Pierce. There is also a poetic style which is referred to as Sapphic. While Sappho did not invent this style (more than likely) she frequently used the metre, and thus is granted the honor of being its namesake. The following is an example of this style:
“All the night sleep came not upon my eyelids,
Shed not dew, nor shook nor unclosed a feather,
Yet with lips shut close and with eyes of iron
Stood and beheld me.” –Swineburne (Bunner)
The ideas which are most often relished by the professional artists, and also by the casual reader, are the metre, as well as the word choice Sappho had. It has often been expressed that Sappho does something with visualization which is not often paralleled. The visuals offered are crisp and straight-forward. While they are beautiful, they are not unnecessary. Descriptive, beautiful, crisp visuals are not an easy task to undertake and succeed with.Shed not dew, nor shook nor unclosed a feather,
Yet with lips shut close and with eyes of iron
Stood and beheld me.” –Swineburne (Bunner)
Another aspect for which Sappho is known is her musical ability. She is the first poet known to use a pektis, a kind of harp, to accentuate her poetry. In addition to this relatively foreign instrument, others were also used to accentuate her words, mostly stringed instruments, unless there were extra artists available to play flute-like instruments in the background (Bunner). She was quite the performer, and could mesmerize her audience easily with the shows she had to offer. According to Bunner, Sappho’s technique applied to a Platonic ideal; the ideal that performance is “compounded out of three things, speech, music, and rhythm.” I have no doubt that Sappho met all three criteria.
Many artists throughout history have paid homage to Sappho through works of their own. Ameipsias, Amphis, Antiphanes, Diphilus, Ephippus, and Timocles were all Greek playwrights of the Middle Comedy age (404-340BCE) who wrote comedies entitled Sappho. While Greek dramatists have dedicated many works to the life and talent of Sappho, the English have also put a lot of work into honoring this legendary poet. Sappho and Phao, a play by John Lilley, was even performed for Queen Elizabeth in the sixteenth century (Bunner).
Sappho is a legend, and in fact was a legend in her own time. While she is known mostly for her lesbian poetry (named such because of the island from which she hails) and the fact that she was a woman in a man dominated world, she has left an honest and lasting impression on the literary world. She had in incredible life from what we can tell, being the product of an aristocratic household and at the same time of an ex-slave mother. Beating the odds thanks in large part to her parents and gaining talent is something to be well remembered.
Sappho contributed to the world of poetry by exemplifying a poetic style which now bears her name. The visuals which she represents are celebrated and rightfully so. She has been honored by contemporaries and by the generations which have followed. Sappho is a poet who deserves to be remembered and emulated, because of her works, and her life.
Works Cited
1. Freedman, Nancy. Sappho: The Tenth Muse. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998.
2. Sappho, and Anne Bunner. Sappho: Memoir, Text, Selected Renderings and a Literal Translation. New York: Brentano's, 1920.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Essay-The Importance of Word Choice in Persuasion
Nov. 23rd, 2009 | 09:02 am
location: CNM
mood: calm
music: National Geographic
According to Art Silverblatt of the St. Louis Journalism Review, the words which a speaker chooses to use “define a position, person or issue.” He goes on to say that connotations associated with words, even synonyms, influence the way a reader or listener understands the subject matter, and how they respond to it. Silverblatt uses the presidency of George W. Bush and is over-use of the title “Commander in Chief” as a way to illustrate this point (Silverblatt 2007).
Former President Bush’s administration had a belief in a strong executive branch which was heavily backed by then Vice-President Dick Cheney. Based on dictionary definitions and popular ideas behind word usage, Silverblatt concluded the following:
“Thus… he is a commander who exercises authority and control.”
Having established what this title truly means and how it is received by the general population, a specific view of President Bush was built (Silverblatt 2007). The creation of this image for the President of the United States owes its life to word choice.
In relation to purely oral speech, Aristotle explains to us in his Rhetoric that most speech is intended to persuade. He also speaks of word choice and how it is necessary to have the right vocabulary to form his now famous syllogisms. Since there are different connotations to different words of similar meaning, a syllogism can be easily broken apart based on inconsistencies with the speaker’s belief about his meaning and the meaning which the audience picks up (Aristotle). This brings up another crucial point regarding word choice in relation to persuasion. It is important that the words which are chosen are understood by the audience to mean the same thing which they mean to the speaker. It is pointless to use “fancy” words or to use words based on little known meaning or inclination if they fail to connect with the audience. Aristotle continues by explaining that putting the audience in a receptive state of mind is one of the three key components to a good argument. Proper word choice will persuade people to be open to being persuaded (Aristotle). Much of this happens on an almost subconscious level, again, based on the audience’s own personal experiences and ideas related to the chose words.
Susan Creal, an entrepreneur turned success coach, gives tips to doctors about patients accepting treatments. In a 2004 article in Clinician Reviews, Creal gives the example of persuading a patient to accept receiving staples in their head after suffering from a severe scalp laceration. She explains that instead of saying “staples,” the doctor would have more success using the words “closure clips.” (Creal 2004). Both expressions mean the exact same thing, but have highly different connotations. Staples evoke feelings of “fear and anxiety” according to Creal; whereas closure clips would sound more comforting (closure) and not as extreme as a staple (a clip does not imply as much force). Relaxing the patient will more than likely result in a more cooperative patient. This is an example of how it is possible to use word choice to assuage a non-receptive audience.
Inevitably, the topic of word choice brings up the use of jargon. Jargon is defined as technical vocabulary by Michael Lindvall, the senior pastor of the Brick Presbyterian Church in New York City. Lindvall postulates five reasons for the use of jargon. These include making the speaker sound like and expert (or “smarty-pants”), making the speaker look like an “insider,” making a possibly long and arduous definition into a small compact word or expression, capturing “the history of an idea,” and for the sake of precision (Lindvall 2008). Jargon is a form of persuasion when not used within the confines of the originating group. When used with the originating group, it becomes more a means of convenience. Because of this, we can eliminate the third use of jargon for our purposes. Jargon requires explanation to out-group people (the audience) anyway, thus defeating the purpose. Using jargon is somewhat akin to using “big words” or “fancy words” to woo the audience into granting the speaker credibility through experience and supposed knowledge. Therefore it would behoove the orator to use the technical term for something, instead of the commonly used term. That makes him or her seem as though they know more than their audience about a subject.
While the above refers to what some may call a sneaky or underhanded way of persuasion, Herschell Gordon Lewis refers to a type of persuasion called “power persuasion” in an article written for Direct Marketing International. This technique consists of using the proper words to convey meaning in a powerful way. Lewis cautions prospective orators and writers that word choice is ever changing because societal connotations rely of course on how society is developing at any given moment. Based on the societal atmosphere, a writer chooses his wording in order to deliver the greatest effect, and this extends of course to orators (Lewis 1992). The following is an example of word choice to deliver the greatest verbal “punch”:
“The dedicated wordsmith recognizes the difference between at once and immediately: At once is more emotional, ergo more imperative; immediately is more intellectual, ergo arm’s-length.”
Lewis also emphasizes the fact that although two or more words may be synonyms, their connotations are quite different, which changes the game, so to speak, in regards to persuasive writing or speech (Lewis 1992).
Besides the words themselves, the grammar also has a great effect on how the audience receives the material and the speaker. There is the obvious syntax which must be taken care of, but even correct grammar can be improved upon. Active versus passive voice and present versus past tense are both important things to consider as well when giving a speech. An active voice presents the speaker as an authority, and as a decision maker. A passive voice presents the speaker as a victim (which could be used as persuasion by reversal or an appeal to pathos). Present tense indicates urgency, whereas past tense indicates a “revision of history” which does not need immediate attention or action (Lewis 1992).
Ultimately word choice is incredibly important when it comes to persuading an audience. It can garner support; it can create a sense of need, a sense of action. On the other hand, it can alienate and turn off the audience. It is a mistake to assume that although words are synonyms that they will be received the same way regardless of which is used. Word choice is an indispensable tool in the hands of government entities, religious institutions, copywriters, advertisers, used car salesmen, and anyone else who try to persuade using written or oral words.
Works Cited
1. Aristotle. Rhetoric. Trans. Roberts, W. Rhys. Adelaide, Australia: eBooks@Adelaide, 2007.
2. Creal, Susan. "Watch your language." Clinician Reviews 14.4 (2004): 78. General OneFile. Web. 29 Oct. 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodid=ips&usergroupname=nm_a_albtechvi>.
3. Lewis, Herschell Gordon. "Cold-blooded copywriters beat poets." Direct Marketing International 21 (1992): 35. General OneFile. Web. 29 Oct. 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodid=ips&usergroupname=nm_a_albtechvi>.
4. Lindvall, Michael L. "Choice terms.(Faith MATTERS)(jargon)." The Christian Century 125.8 (2008): 33. General OneFile. Web. 29 Oct. 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodid=ips&usergroupname=nm_a_albtechvi>.
5. Silverblatt, Art. "I'm the Commander in Chief.(off the record)(George W. Bush)(Brief article)." St. Louis Journalism Review 37.299 (2007): 4. General OneFile. Web. 29 Oct. 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodid=ips&usergroupname=nm_a_albtechvi>.
Former President Bush’s administration had a belief in a strong executive branch which was heavily backed by then Vice-President Dick Cheney. Based on dictionary definitions and popular ideas behind word usage, Silverblatt concluded the following:
“Thus… he is a commander who exercises authority and control.”
Having established what this title truly means and how it is received by the general population, a specific view of President Bush was built (Silverblatt 2007). The creation of this image for the President of the United States owes its life to word choice.
In relation to purely oral speech, Aristotle explains to us in his Rhetoric that most speech is intended to persuade. He also speaks of word choice and how it is necessary to have the right vocabulary to form his now famous syllogisms. Since there are different connotations to different words of similar meaning, a syllogism can be easily broken apart based on inconsistencies with the speaker’s belief about his meaning and the meaning which the audience picks up (Aristotle). This brings up another crucial point regarding word choice in relation to persuasion. It is important that the words which are chosen are understood by the audience to mean the same thing which they mean to the speaker. It is pointless to use “fancy” words or to use words based on little known meaning or inclination if they fail to connect with the audience. Aristotle continues by explaining that putting the audience in a receptive state of mind is one of the three key components to a good argument. Proper word choice will persuade people to be open to being persuaded (Aristotle). Much of this happens on an almost subconscious level, again, based on the audience’s own personal experiences and ideas related to the chose words.
Susan Creal, an entrepreneur turned success coach, gives tips to doctors about patients accepting treatments. In a 2004 article in Clinician Reviews, Creal gives the example of persuading a patient to accept receiving staples in their head after suffering from a severe scalp laceration. She explains that instead of saying “staples,” the doctor would have more success using the words “closure clips.” (Creal 2004). Both expressions mean the exact same thing, but have highly different connotations. Staples evoke feelings of “fear and anxiety” according to Creal; whereas closure clips would sound more comforting (closure) and not as extreme as a staple (a clip does not imply as much force). Relaxing the patient will more than likely result in a more cooperative patient. This is an example of how it is possible to use word choice to assuage a non-receptive audience.
Inevitably, the topic of word choice brings up the use of jargon. Jargon is defined as technical vocabulary by Michael Lindvall, the senior pastor of the Brick Presbyterian Church in New York City. Lindvall postulates five reasons for the use of jargon. These include making the speaker sound like and expert (or “smarty-pants”), making the speaker look like an “insider,” making a possibly long and arduous definition into a small compact word or expression, capturing “the history of an idea,” and for the sake of precision (Lindvall 2008). Jargon is a form of persuasion when not used within the confines of the originating group. When used with the originating group, it becomes more a means of convenience. Because of this, we can eliminate the third use of jargon for our purposes. Jargon requires explanation to out-group people (the audience) anyway, thus defeating the purpose. Using jargon is somewhat akin to using “big words” or “fancy words” to woo the audience into granting the speaker credibility through experience and supposed knowledge. Therefore it would behoove the orator to use the technical term for something, instead of the commonly used term. That makes him or her seem as though they know more than their audience about a subject.
While the above refers to what some may call a sneaky or underhanded way of persuasion, Herschell Gordon Lewis refers to a type of persuasion called “power persuasion” in an article written for Direct Marketing International. This technique consists of using the proper words to convey meaning in a powerful way. Lewis cautions prospective orators and writers that word choice is ever changing because societal connotations rely of course on how society is developing at any given moment. Based on the societal atmosphere, a writer chooses his wording in order to deliver the greatest effect, and this extends of course to orators (Lewis 1992). The following is an example of word choice to deliver the greatest verbal “punch”:
“The dedicated wordsmith recognizes the difference between at once and immediately: At once is more emotional, ergo more imperative; immediately is more intellectual, ergo arm’s-length.”
Lewis also emphasizes the fact that although two or more words may be synonyms, their connotations are quite different, which changes the game, so to speak, in regards to persuasive writing or speech (Lewis 1992).
Besides the words themselves, the grammar also has a great effect on how the audience receives the material and the speaker. There is the obvious syntax which must be taken care of, but even correct grammar can be improved upon. Active versus passive voice and present versus past tense are both important things to consider as well when giving a speech. An active voice presents the speaker as an authority, and as a decision maker. A passive voice presents the speaker as a victim (which could be used as persuasion by reversal or an appeal to pathos). Present tense indicates urgency, whereas past tense indicates a “revision of history” which does not need immediate attention or action (Lewis 1992).
Ultimately word choice is incredibly important when it comes to persuading an audience. It can garner support; it can create a sense of need, a sense of action. On the other hand, it can alienate and turn off the audience. It is a mistake to assume that although words are synonyms that they will be received the same way regardless of which is used. Word choice is an indispensable tool in the hands of government entities, religious institutions, copywriters, advertisers, used car salesmen, and anyone else who try to persuade using written or oral words.
Works Cited
1. Aristotle. Rhetoric. Trans. Roberts, W. Rhys. Adelaide, Australia: eBooks@Adelaide, 2007.
2. Creal, Susan. "Watch your language." Clinician Reviews 14.4 (2004): 78. General OneFile. Web. 29 Oct. 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodid=ips&usergroupname=nm_a_albtechvi>.
3. Lewis, Herschell Gordon. "Cold-blooded copywriters beat poets." Direct Marketing International 21 (1992): 35. General OneFile. Web. 29 Oct. 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodid=ips&usergroupname=nm_a_albtechvi>.
4. Lindvall, Michael L. "Choice terms.(Faith MATTERS)(jargon)." The Christian Century 125.8 (2008): 33. General OneFile. Web. 29 Oct. 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodid=ips&usergroupname=nm_a_albtechvi>.
5. Silverblatt, Art. "I'm the Commander in Chief.(off the record)(George W. Bush)(Brief article)." St. Louis Journalism Review 37.299 (2007): 4. General OneFile. Web. 29 Oct. 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodid=ips&usergroupname=nm_a_albtechvi>.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Essay-Diagnosing ADHD
Nov. 23rd, 2009 | 08:59 am
location: CNM
mood: calm
music: National Geographic
The DSM-IV, which is the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (version four), sets up specific guidelines for what constitutes a case of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). It measures inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. There are several criteria for what constitutes the above symptoms and a subject must meet six of the criteria for inattention, and/ or six for hyperactivity-impulsivity. If six criteria are met in one or both subject areas an ADHD diagnosis can be reached with the addition of some considerations (DSM-IV).
While the criteria presented must be met, there are also conditions which must also be met which are in place to try and prevent misdiagnosis. Since ADHD was traditionally a children’s disorder (though today it has also been recognized in adults) one consideration is that the child must have had some symptoms before seven years of age. Some symptoms must also impair function in two or more different settings and in a clinically observable way to constitute a case of ADHD. The seemingly obvious consideration is that the abnormal behavior cannot be explained better by another developmental or mental disorder (DSM-IV).
Tandon et. Al. conducted a study to measure the effectiveness of the DSM-IV in children. They found that the criteria appeared to be satisfactory for children over four years of age, but that the ADHD guidelines may need to be revised for children under the age of four. This conclusion was arrived at by comparing scores from a test administered by the study leaders between children diagnosed with ADHD and children who were not diagnosed. It showed that those diagnosed with ADHD according to the DSM-IV criteria did indeed to worse on the test (Tandon, 2009). This study seems to fuel the debate as to whether or not the criteria are effective.
Despite the apparently clear-cut criteria for diagnosing ADHD and the conditions which need to be necessarily met, there still appears to be enough doubt in proper diagnosing that a relentless debate continues on whether or not ADHD is over-diagnosed (Compton, 2006). In order to avoid making generalizations on the other side of the argument, Manuel Mota-Castillo lays out some ways in which ADHD mis- and over-diagnosis happens in his experience as a medical director at juvenile detention centers and residential treatment centers.
Often, failure to obtain a complete and thorough family history results in missed symptoms. Some disorders like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder can display symptoms similar to those of ADHD; but doctors rely heavily on family history to determine a diagnosis. Some disorders do display hereditary characteristics. Another common problem is that in-take and evaluating psychiatrists all too often do not communicate enough, or at all, with the clinicians who are regularly seeing the patients in question (Mota-Castillo, 2007). In this case, those all too important details which are indeed known get forgotten and generalizations are made in their place.
One of the most common issues with diagnosing ADHD is the fact that many symptoms present in ADHD are also present in many other psychological disorders (Wagner, 2005). Many professionals are quick to diagnose ADHD as a common disorder instead of fully investigating behavior (Compton, 2006). Mota-Castillo cites hyperactivity, oppositional behavior, and defiance as examples of symptoms which are often present in ADHD as well as many others (Mota-Castillo, 2007). This idea is one of the reasons why so many parents are beginning to refuse diagnosis and/ or treatment. Since there is a possibility of generalization, many do not wish to risk labeling their child or possibly altering their behavior with drugs when it is not needed.
From a slightly less observable and recordable angle, some have argued that the confidence and comfort level of those doing the diagnosing is also a factor. Through this information advanced practice registered nurses have been studied and it has been found that most nurses who are involved in the diagnosing process tend to follow the standards of diagnosing more closely than most. This study was based on a non-experimentally self-administered survey (Vlam, 2006). It is somewhat alarming that such subjective criteria have been used as justification and explanation for something which requires incredible attention to detail.
In the general teaching field the implication is that a teacher should not hint at disorders to parents (Nadeem, 2009). While there are few issues with explaining a child’s disruptive behavior to the parents, it is not the place of a general education teacher to suggest to a parent to have their child reviewed by a psychologist or doctor for ADHD or any other developmental disability (Skinner, 2009). There are ways in which a parent could needlessly upset a parent or even the student with such ideas.
If a parent feels that this may be necessary, they may ask the teacher for recommendations, but otherwise there should be no involvement. There are ways in which a teacher could upset a parent or even the student. In class it is important for a teacher to take objective notes of children’s behavior, especially if they believe that there is an anomaly and that they need to communicate this to the parents. That is what should be presented at a conference, not a medical diagnosis which a teacher is not qualified to make. A teacher can even recommend a child to special education if the parents seek the route (Skinner, 2009).
On the flip side of the coin, there is still the possibility of children not being diagnosed when in fact they should be. In this case it is up to the teacher to advocate for the child, and if that does not work for any reason, to be able to foster growth as best as possible. A teacher is expected to be able to do their job regardless of the children who make up the classroom, and even if miracles cannot be worked, there is no excuse for not trying to adjust for the needs of any child.
Bibliography:
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Compton, K., Taylor, L., Carlozzi, N., Fortson, B., Bushardt, R L, Askins, D G, & Barkley, R A (Dec 2006). Distinguishing ADHD from juvenile bipolar disorder a guide for primary care PAs: pediatric clinicians should know how to distinguish juvenile-onset bipolar disorder from ADHD, since arriving at the right diagnosis is essential to providing the most effective treatment. JAAPA-Journal of the American Academy of Physicians Assistants, 19, 12. p.41(6). Retrieved July 13, 2009, from General OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/ips/start.d
Mota-Castillo, M. (July 1, 2007). The Crisis of Overdiagnosed ADHD in Children.(attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). Psychiatric Times, 24, 8. p.12. Retrieved July 08, 2009, from General OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/ips/start.d
Nadeem, E., & Jensen, P S (March 2009). Teacher consultation research in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a cause for congratulation or consolation?(COMMENTARY)(Report). School Psychology Review, 38, 1. p.38(7). Retrieved July 13, 2009, from General OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.d
Skinner, J N, Veerkamp, M B, Kamps, D M, & Andra, P R (May 2009). Teacher and peer participation in functional analysis and intervention for a first grade student with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.(Report). Education & Treatment of Children, 32, 2. p.243(24). Retrieved July 13, 2009, from General OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.d
Tandon, M., Si, X., Belden, A., & Luby, J. (May 2009). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in preschool children: an investigation of validation based on visual attention performance.(Report). Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 19, 2. p.137(10). Retrieved July 08, 2009, from Academic OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/ips/st (Mota-Castillo, 2007)art.do?prodId=IPS
Vlam, S. L. (Jan-Feb 2006). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: diagnostic assessment methods used by advanced practice registered nurses. Pediatric Nursing, 32, 1. p.18(7). Retrieved July 08, 2009, from General OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/ips/start.d
Wagner, K. D. (April 1, 2005). Treating ADHD in Childhood Bipolar Disorder. Psychiatric Times, 22, 4. p.61. Retrieved July 13, 2009, from General OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.d
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
The Ones Who Scatter
Jul. 1st, 2009 | 11:59 am
location: Albuquerque, NM
mood: calm
music: Pandora
At the beginning of time the entire world was dark. It was a time of great knowledge and sharing, for people spoke to all creation. They discussed matters of the heart, of the soul, of the mind with their neighbors the plants and stones and other animals. There was no need for competition, no need for judgment, as spirituality was what fed their bodies as well as their souls.
However, it would happen that the darkness was scared away. Accounts vary as to who brought up the light for the first time, but one thing is for certain: one day, the first day, light flooded the landscape. As the light caressed every surface, every wrinkle, and every nook, the people began to look around, as did the plants and the stones and the other animals. Light had given to them another sense; but with a new sense, so came new needs, new thoughts, and new problems. The people were the first to utilize these new abilities and began to separate the creatures into groups. The plants and stones pleaded with the people not to, but they were no longer listened to. While the people turned a deaf ear to the other inhabitants, they began to examine the animals more closely. While their eyes opened wide, their hearts closed shut.
They found some aesthetically pleasing and set them aside as pets. They found others as useful and set them aside as animals to be revered, respected, and thanked in exchange for resources. Then there were those unfortunate few who had no use, and thus were not given a chance for a free life. Those with antenna, those which creeped, crawled, slithered, and were perceived to be dangerous. There was much persecution; but some were able to defend themselves. The Widow and The Rattlesnake had bites which could make a person whither and blow away in the wind. The Flies had speed and cunning to flee, and others had fear on their sides to stave off the people. Yet one creature was left defenseless and had no advocate: The Cockroach.
No time of day was given to the little Cockroach, and while others could defend themselves and made people think twice, The Cockroach was stepped on without a second thought. The insect felt ashamed that it was not something more worthy. It fell into the trap set for it's soul by the people and began to think low thoughts of itself. Besides all this, it became afraid of the world around it. It was because of this that The Cockroach decided to disappear into the darkness , to try and hide from the judgment and mistrust that the light brought with it when it touched the eyes of the people.
To this day, The Cockroach will only come out in the dark, and scatters immediately if the light is turned on. It scatters in fear and in shame to the dark crevices, always remembering what light let the people bring forth into the world.
However, it would happen that the darkness was scared away. Accounts vary as to who brought up the light for the first time, but one thing is for certain: one day, the first day, light flooded the landscape. As the light caressed every surface, every wrinkle, and every nook, the people began to look around, as did the plants and the stones and the other animals. Light had given to them another sense; but with a new sense, so came new needs, new thoughts, and new problems. The people were the first to utilize these new abilities and began to separate the creatures into groups. The plants and stones pleaded with the people not to, but they were no longer listened to. While the people turned a deaf ear to the other inhabitants, they began to examine the animals more closely. While their eyes opened wide, their hearts closed shut.
They found some aesthetically pleasing and set them aside as pets. They found others as useful and set them aside as animals to be revered, respected, and thanked in exchange for resources. Then there were those unfortunate few who had no use, and thus were not given a chance for a free life. Those with antenna, those which creeped, crawled, slithered, and were perceived to be dangerous. There was much persecution; but some were able to defend themselves. The Widow and The Rattlesnake had bites which could make a person whither and blow away in the wind. The Flies had speed and cunning to flee, and others had fear on their sides to stave off the people. Yet one creature was left defenseless and had no advocate: The Cockroach.
No time of day was given to the little Cockroach, and while others could defend themselves and made people think twice, The Cockroach was stepped on without a second thought. The insect felt ashamed that it was not something more worthy. It fell into the trap set for it's soul by the people and began to think low thoughts of itself. Besides all this, it became afraid of the world around it. It was because of this that The Cockroach decided to disappear into the darkness , to try and hide from the judgment and mistrust that the light brought with it when it touched the eyes of the people.
To this day, The Cockroach will only come out in the dark, and scatters immediately if the light is turned on. It scatters in fear and in shame to the dark crevices, always remembering what light let the people bring forth into the world.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Vacation
May. 1st, 2009 | 10:44 am
location: Albuquerque, NM
mood: cheerful
music: Gary Jules
The family will be taking a breather in the Gila Wilderness for a couple of weeks, so I won't be online. I'm really looking forward to the trip, and am glad that we were able to figure out a way to afford it for this break period .
Byron got Betsy all fixed up for us so we shouldn't have to worry about her breaking down, and we've been doing prep work a bit before the day of the camping trip, so we shouldn't have quite as much of a last minute panic before we hit the road this time around. From what I understand, it'll be a pretty long trip, and we're doing dispersed camping, so we get to haul our stuff to whichever spot we like for camping, from the trailhead. I'm still super excited though. I would rather find a place in the "wild" as opposed to fighting other weekend campers for set aside plots. It'll be really exciting. So I'll be back in a couple of weeks.
Byron got Betsy all fixed up for us so we shouldn't have to worry about her breaking down, and we've been doing prep work a bit before the day of the camping trip, so we shouldn't have quite as much of a last minute panic before we hit the road this time around. From what I understand, it'll be a pretty long trip, and we're doing dispersed camping, so we get to haul our stuff to whichever spot we like for camping, from the trailhead. I'm still super excited though. I would rather find a place in the "wild" as opposed to fighting other weekend campers for set aside plots. It'll be really exciting. So I'll be back in a couple of weeks.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Legacy of the Greek and Roman Worlds
Apr. 29th, 2009 | 10:04 am
location: Albuquerque, NM
mood: calm
music: Gary Jules
Legacy of the Greek and Roman Worlds
It can be argued that today’s Western world owes it’s foundations to the ideas put forth by the Greek and the Roman civilizations. Many concepts were originated by the Greeks, who then were adopted into the Roman Empire by ancestry and military conquest. The Romans took their military campaigns to all corners of their world and spread this culture to what would become the center of the old world in northern Europe . The ancestors of the modern day civilizations (kingdoms in Great Britain , Prussia , Gaul , etc.) were directed influenced by the Roman expansion into what would be their territories.
The root of this story begins with the Mycenaeans. These peoples were amongst the first to populate the Greek peninsula in a way that would foreshadow the Greek civilization we know. Some of these peoples, however, also would travel to the Italian peninsula (and other places) where that same influence would later affect the Roman culture. It is here that we see a connection between the Greeks and the Romans for the first time: they share common cultural ancestry. In Greece , the Mycenaeans will establish settlements on the sites of future Greek city-states (such as Athens , Corinth , and Sparta ). In Italia, they would transfer aspects of their culture to the Etruscans, who then transfer these proto-Greek ideals and ideas to the Italian tribes destined to become the Romans.
While the Italian tribes at the future site of Rome follow their path, the proto-Greeks are developing. As the Greeks, several concepts were explored, key concepts. The idea of the Polis was developed all across the peninsula. That is, one unified community ideology around which all citizens of a city-state gathered, was formed. Where-ever the citizens went the Polis, and the cultural ideals, followed.
Political experimentation was commonplace in all of these distanced city-states. Each tested different systems, all of them arriving at different conclusions at different times. This experimentation allowed the Greeks to come up with what worked “best” for the most people. Famously, Athens was the first place (that we know of) where democracy worked. Naturally it was a slightly altered democracy in which the small percentage of people who were citizens could vote; but everything was voted on.
The way people thought was also revolutionized by the Greeks. Up until this point, all other civilizations we have record of, attributed most of the happenings in their universe to their religions. When the Greeks emerged, they began to look at their world with logic, rather than religion. A group of philosophers named the Pre-Socratics explained the natural world around them using observation, logic, critical thinking, and deduction. People like Pythagoras (Pythagorean Theorem) and Democritus (atomic theory) pioneered the way humans perceived the world around them. They essentially set the ground work for our modern scientific method. The Socratics took new approaches to figure out how the human mind worked, what was behind ethics, emotions, and thoughts. A question often looming over each philosopher was: how can we know anything in a world that is constantly in flux? People such as Plato and Aristotle took stabs at it, attempting to assign practical answers, while avoiding “deus ex machine” style answers like “God did it.”
Unfortunately, the Greeks also set a precedent for the downfall of a civilization. After the Persian Wars, Athens was charged with collecting money from the other city-states to spend on protection for the Greek world. This is where one of the biggest and earliest recorded cases of corruption changed a possibly glorious path. Athens misused the funds and this sparked civil wars, dubbed the Peloponnesian Wars. It tore the Greek Peninsula apart, and that is when King Philip of Macedonia came in and took the prize while no one was looking; and that is the end of the Greek Empire that never was. It was during this Macedonian rule that the Greek and the Roman worlds collide once again.
While the Greeks rose and fell, the Romans were making their mark as well. By the time the Macedonians had established firm rule for several generations, the Romans had developed into a civilization all their own. After a scandal by the Etruscans against the Roman tribe, the Patricians of Rome rose up against them and expelled them, making Rome its own official entity. Using military ingenuity, Rome was able to conquer the Italian peninsula, Hispania, and eventually the Carthaginian Empire. It was during the second war with Carthage (Second Punic War) that Rome came into contact once again with its Greek cousins. King Philip the Fifth of Macedonia-Greece joined the Second Punic War on the side of Carthage , and lost miserably. Rome gained control of their entire empire, and spread further west to Ionia . The Romans loved the Greek culture (which the Macedonians kept alive) and adopted many of their cultural attributes themselves. Rome had become an empire, and it owned the entire Mediterranean Sea .
To Rome , we can credit many military innovations. The Legion was perhaps the tool which made them the seemingly unstoppable force they were perceived as on the battle field. This idea of a self-sufficient military unit which could travel and conquer abroad (without “phoning” home) came about as a result of being sacked years earlier by the Gauls. It was with this new unit that Rome was able to conquer the lands that it did. The Legion was so versatile that it even succeeded when called to build the first Roman navy against a people ( Carthage ) used to sea faring. The Romans won.
Another military legacy left behind by the Romans was the change in how the army worked, brought about by Emperor Augustus. It created the career path in the military, which had not been seen by Rome before. After twenty years of enlistment, a soldier was given land and money to live off of. The army had become an avenue of advancement. This legacy can be seen even today in the United States military, which has a similar system. Until recently, it even had the same time span before retirement (it has now changed to twenty-five years instead of twenty).
During the change from BCE to Common Era, Christianity was born in the Roman kingdom from the surfacing of Joshua Ben Joseph. This new belief (stemming off of Judaism) was highly scorned, at first. When Diocletian takes control, he sanctions the official persecution of Christians (whose word has by this time spread). It is not until Constantine takes control of the empire and begins to favor Christianity that it becomes accepted, and ultimately (with Theodosius) accepted as the official religion of Rome . Theodosius gives the Church tax breaks, land, and generally anything they could need to be self-sustaining. This leads the Church to be the last remaining institution of the Roman Empire today.
Today we can see the influence of the Romans and the Greeks all around us. In the United States of America , much of the architecture in state and national capitals is Greek and Roman. This is also the case in other parts of the world. The philosophies brought forth for the first time by Socrates, Plato, Democritus, and others, are still affecting modern thought today. Concepts like the scientific method and even many psychological ideas still remain from the Greek origination. Some of the military ideas brought forth by the Romans also still survive, such as the military career. Their culture is a major talking point in any university in the western world, and its legacies are taught as a mandatory part of the curriculum in many places. Even the new form of urbanism which they introduced is still pervasive today. It can easily be argued that the Greek and the Roman worlds were the spark which ignited the modern state of being.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Bees
Apr. 12th, 2009 | 08:11 pm
location: Albuquerque, NM
mood: content
music: Better
When I was about seven years old and still living in Germany I had a dream. I've never had a dream that I've remembered as well as that one, and I still remember it to this day. That's pretty incredible considering I don't usually even remember dreams on a day to day (or night to night) basis. I haven't had the dream recently, but it has entered my thoughts. I never thought about significance behind that dream before, but maybe since it is trying to get my attention I should give it more thought.
In my dream, I wake up in my room. We lived in a two story home (my room was on the second story) on Anton Bruckner St. It is daytime, but I panic as I wake up. It is almost like I experienced a nightmare in my dream and woke up to it. I look around for everyone, for my family, but I can't find them in the house; and then the bees show up. I run into the street outside and discover that there's no one to be seen, anywhere. The bees chase after me and I run to a friend's house, a friend who lives a few blocks from my home, but not too far. It seems like I run forever, and the bees don't relent. When I finally get to my friend's home, I climb the stairs to his apartment. When I get there I find the corpse of my mother in the kitchen. The bees have swarmed her body and are consuming her. My heart practically leaps out of my chest. I just keep running. I am chased up the stairs to the roof. Once I'm up there, there is no where else for me to go. The bees surround me, and I woke up terrified.
I've never been good at interpreting dreams, especially not my own. I am considered the non-believer in my family here in New Mexico. CD, Byron, and of course Sam all put a lot more faith and energy into "superstitious" beliefs than I do. I believe definitely in the power of dreams over our lives, however. I have had "premonition" dreams create deja vu in my life. There have been things (not really big deal style events) that I've dreamed about and then they happened, months, even years later. Of course there are a lot of people who talk about the psychology of dreams, and I suppose that goes for past events as well. Perhaps this dream from my childhood was a premonition or a subconscious "on" switch for something, or "off" switch.
Bees have many symbolic meanings, including messengers. Perhaps I was receiving a message. I was constantly fleeing and then became cornered. My mother, the last remaining signal of family at that time, was removed. My parents had split up by this point, and I was really missing my Papa. Could my dream have marked a change in my psychology? Maybe it was letting me know about my path in the future. Making myself constantly run away from something, and cornering myself even though I should know better. Leaving my family behind in traditional roles.
In my dream, I wake up in my room. We lived in a two story home (my room was on the second story) on Anton Bruckner St. It is daytime, but I panic as I wake up. It is almost like I experienced a nightmare in my dream and woke up to it. I look around for everyone, for my family, but I can't find them in the house; and then the bees show up. I run into the street outside and discover that there's no one to be seen, anywhere. The bees chase after me and I run to a friend's house, a friend who lives a few blocks from my home, but not too far. It seems like I run forever, and the bees don't relent. When I finally get to my friend's home, I climb the stairs to his apartment. When I get there I find the corpse of my mother in the kitchen. The bees have swarmed her body and are consuming her. My heart practically leaps out of my chest. I just keep running. I am chased up the stairs to the roof. Once I'm up there, there is no where else for me to go. The bees surround me, and I woke up terrified.
I've never been good at interpreting dreams, especially not my own. I am considered the non-believer in my family here in New Mexico. CD, Byron, and of course Sam all put a lot more faith and energy into "superstitious" beliefs than I do. I believe definitely in the power of dreams over our lives, however. I have had "premonition" dreams create deja vu in my life. There have been things (not really big deal style events) that I've dreamed about and then they happened, months, even years later. Of course there are a lot of people who talk about the psychology of dreams, and I suppose that goes for past events as well. Perhaps this dream from my childhood was a premonition or a subconscious "on" switch for something, or "off" switch.
Bees have many symbolic meanings, including messengers. Perhaps I was receiving a message. I was constantly fleeing and then became cornered. My mother, the last remaining signal of family at that time, was removed. My parents had split up by this point, and I was really missing my Papa. Could my dream have marked a change in my psychology? Maybe it was letting me know about my path in the future. Making myself constantly run away from something, and cornering myself even though I should know better. Leaving my family behind in traditional roles.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Cicada
Apr. 12th, 2009 | 04:19 pm
location: Albuquerque, NM
mood: content
Don't allow yourself to break
Discard your old shell, like so much debris
Your true self awakes
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Violence in Entertainment
Mar. 30th, 2009 | 11:05 am
location: Albuquerque, NM
mood: 
blah
music: Beborn Beton
There was a point in my life where I was hugely in favor of violence in entertainment. I played God of War and relished every beautifully rendered death combination. I watched Saw and salivated at all of the horribly creative contraptions and devices conceived and implemented by that demented old man. Today, though, I don't really find a lot of entertainment in that sort of thing anymore. Every once in a while I might be in the mood for a mindless horror or action movie, but Die Hard or Nightmare on Elm Street are enough for me (and much less violent than many of today's movies). For the most part I enjoy a movie with a great story line, and a solid one. I find myself stumbling across these things in more foreign movies than American. As far as games, I've significantly scaled down, and now spend most of my time playing online (text-based) RPGs and Real Time Strategy games (sometimes violent, but the figures are so small, it's negligible to me).
I'm not against violence in entertainment though, in fact, quite the opposite. The case that most people make against violence in entertainment is that people (especially children) will copy the activities which they see on television, in movies, or in video games. I think that's ridiculous to tell you the truth. The first point against this is the numbers. For every college kid that runs rampant on campus with a gun (and who happened to have played Doom 3) there are thousands and thousands more who played that same game, and yet don't. There is a minority in every group that does uncharacteristic things. Of course there are some exceptions, as in every statistic (unfortunately the WWE does not quite have the numbers pointing in it's advantage, as wrestling venues come through town, that city's violent crimes, particularly domestic, rise noticeably).
A point that I would like to make, though, is that the blame lands on the society as a whole. Just like with kids who join gangs, commit solo crime, or just burn out and drop out, children and people being interested in violence is in large part due to their surroundings. People deviate from the norm in such large numbers because something is wrong with the norm. Rockstar probably would not have put so much money into developing the Grand Theft Auto series if it didn't know there was a HUGE market for killing hookers, illegal street racing, and general "gangster" (in the Godfather sense) culture. People like these ideas, and are willing to pay money for them. That happened before the game came out. The folks who buy the violent games and such generally do so because they already have enough of a violent tendency to get entertainment out of acting it out in a digital realm, or seeing it played out on a television or movie screen.
Generally, people will not go out and buy or rent or pay to see a movie which they might not like. I know my family didn't. We only put money into movies and time into television programs which we knew we were already interested in or thought we might be interested in. This kept us from seeing a lot of great movies by the way which I'm trying to catch up on now. Think about how many movies you pass up when you go to Hollywood Video or when you browse NetFlix. Most people do that.
The solution to people (especially kids) becoming violent towards themselves or others (and in the case of mostly women, wanting to become objects) is not to ban the material which "perpetuates" this, but rather to make it to where there isn't an interest in these deviant ideas. Fix society, not the products of it. It's a lot like trying to put out a fire by aiming at the flames, it doesn't work, you have to aim at the base, the source.
I'm not against violence in entertainment though, in fact, quite the opposite. The case that most people make against violence in entertainment is that people (especially children) will copy the activities which they see on television, in movies, or in video games. I think that's ridiculous to tell you the truth. The first point against this is the numbers. For every college kid that runs rampant on campus with a gun (and who happened to have played Doom 3) there are thousands and thousands more who played that same game, and yet don't. There is a minority in every group that does uncharacteristic things. Of course there are some exceptions, as in every statistic (unfortunately the WWE does not quite have the numbers pointing in it's advantage, as wrestling venues come through town, that city's violent crimes, particularly domestic, rise noticeably).
A point that I would like to make, though, is that the blame lands on the society as a whole. Just like with kids who join gangs, commit solo crime, or just burn out and drop out, children and people being interested in violence is in large part due to their surroundings. People deviate from the norm in such large numbers because something is wrong with the norm. Rockstar probably would not have put so much money into developing the Grand Theft Auto series if it didn't know there was a HUGE market for killing hookers, illegal street racing, and general "gangster" (in the Godfather sense) culture. People like these ideas, and are willing to pay money for them. That happened before the game came out. The folks who buy the violent games and such generally do so because they already have enough of a violent tendency to get entertainment out of acting it out in a digital realm, or seeing it played out on a television or movie screen.
Generally, people will not go out and buy or rent or pay to see a movie which they might not like. I know my family didn't. We only put money into movies and time into television programs which we knew we were already interested in or thought we might be interested in. This kept us from seeing a lot of great movies by the way which I'm trying to catch up on now. Think about how many movies you pass up when you go to Hollywood Video or when you browse NetFlix. Most people do that.
The solution to people (especially kids) becoming violent towards themselves or others (and in the case of mostly women, wanting to become objects) is not to ban the material which "perpetuates" this, but rather to make it to where there isn't an interest in these deviant ideas. Fix society, not the products of it. It's a lot like trying to put out a fire by aiming at the flames, it doesn't work, you have to aim at the base, the source.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Clarksville, Tennessee
Mar. 6th, 2009 | 10:16 pm
location: Greyhound
mood: calm
music: US Army Strings
He paced slowly back and forth in a driveway about two houses down from his own. If you asked his family, he was waiting for a friend to pick him up to go to school that morning. Of course they didn't know that his backpack didn't have any school books in them. No, those were all piled up in his locker. In truth, this morning he was waiting for a taxi. It came, luckily for him, before his sister came to wait for the bus at the end of the street. He deposited his backpack and got in the back seat. She was waiting for him there.
It was a mostly quiet ride to the hotel. The ride seemed heavy. To lighten the mood, she poked and tickled a few times. To get a smile, not a nervous one. They got close and seemed to hope that the other would reassure them both. They passed a high school, not his. When they got to the hotel, the cab driver made his comment, "I don't want to see you two on the news now." He must have noticed the backpack, and the age gap. It's the little things one remembers.
There would still be some time before the bus was due to leave. Check the bags, and get some breakfast. Luckily the school would not call for a while either. McDonald's always had a pretty good breakfast sandwich; he liked the one with the maple syrup in the bun. And then off to the bus station. They left the driving to them. It probably would have been pretty funny to watch him figure out the tags for the bags. Of course it was his first time, and like with so many other first times, she helped him through it; and then they boarded.
It would be a good many hours before they arrived at their destination, and at least a few stops. Each one was more nerve-wracking than the last. Perhaps many people behave this way when they feel they are in trouble, but every other law enforcement vehicle was eyed with suspicion, especially at the stops. Each one of which dragged on longer than the last it seemed.
From Tennessee, on to St. Louis........
It was a mostly quiet ride to the hotel. The ride seemed heavy. To lighten the mood, she poked and tickled a few times. To get a smile, not a nervous one. They got close and seemed to hope that the other would reassure them both. They passed a high school, not his. When they got to the hotel, the cab driver made his comment, "I don't want to see you two on the news now." He must have noticed the backpack, and the age gap. It's the little things one remembers.
There would still be some time before the bus was due to leave. Check the bags, and get some breakfast. Luckily the school would not call for a while either. McDonald's always had a pretty good breakfast sandwich; he liked the one with the maple syrup in the bun. And then off to the bus station. They left the driving to them. It probably would have been pretty funny to watch him figure out the tags for the bags. Of course it was his first time, and like with so many other first times, she helped him through it; and then they boarded.
It would be a good many hours before they arrived at their destination, and at least a few stops. Each one was more nerve-wracking than the last. Perhaps many people behave this way when they feel they are in trouble, but every other law enforcement vehicle was eyed with suspicion, especially at the stops. Each one of which dragged on longer than the last it seemed.
From Tennessee, on to St. Louis........
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Gay Marriage/ Domestic Partnership
Feb. 28th, 2009 | 09:37 am
location: Albuquerque, NM
mood: calm
music: Ray LaMontagne
I was catching the first few minutes of the news one night while they were running a story about domestic partnerships. The piece of legislation they were trying to pass in favor was defeated. The station interviewed a few people for and against the idea. Naturally the lesbian couple they interviewed was heartbroken, and the Christian family they interviewed (a husband, wife, child) were happy that it didn't pass, it would have been an abomination to God. In any case, what caught my attention was that the husband of the Christian family then went on to say that if gay people want to get married, then they should move to a place that already allows it instead of trying to spread. This sounded oddly familiar.
I've been in school since I was a little kid, and in American schools since third grade. I've heard a few things about American history. However, as if by fate, I heard for the first time this past week something about the woman's Suffrage movement. You see, much like gays now, women were campaigning for change that few wanted to support (at first). The specific tie, the one I heard this past week, just before the news broadcast, was that voting rights were granted to women on a state-by-state basis before it was granted in an amendment years later, making it national law. If you don't see the parallel yet, that's what is happening with domestic partnership/ gay marriage. There are a few cities and states which allow a legal union for same sex couples already. I don't have much of a problem believing that when women were campaigning for a right to vote in national elections that their opponents would say, "go to the states where you can already vote, if you really want to, but don't expect it to spread." That should sound familiar. Mr. Christian Husband up there said the same thing for same sex marriage.
The states that allowed women to vote earliest were the northern west states, such as Wyoming and Idaho. Of course they had good reason, what with their population not being all that high at this point in time. Although curiously, New Mexico (also a sparsely populated western state) was the last to catch on, in the whole country. I guess the Catholic population over-rode the idea of having more population represented.
Another American historical parallel, Black Rights. Most people do recall learning in their history classes that even after blacks were freed of slavery and supposed to have been given the same rights as white men (remember, woman's suffrage has not happened yet) in the South their rights were restricted with loopholes again. Imagine the white plantation owner: "you're free, isn't that enough? If you want to galavanting around town like you're worth something, go North." There were national laws and the a couple of amendments that were put into place to help equalize black men to white men, but the South was great at creating loopholes. That's one of the reasons the fifteenth amendment was put into place, to try and eliminate loopholes left by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments. And again, a historical parallel to the situation we now face with domestic partnerships and gay marriage.
People so love to explain that history repeats itself. If this is true, we probably all know what to expect to happen with the gay marriage debate. Probably a lot of debating and years of failed legislation and then the inevitable allowance of the practice. I suppose that it would come full circle with a lot of the discriminations we categorize. The beginning of the end of racial discrimination on a legal level (with the freed blacks), the end of sex discrimination (with the equalization of women) on a legal level, and now the end of legal sexual orientation discrimination.
Of course, another historical precedent is important to remember. Even after these pieces of legislation were passed, the people were still highly torn on how to treat the members of these movements. The black population did not gain equality for many decades due to the "separate but equal" ruling, and that lasted well into the sixties and seventies. For other races, the war still continues in the country to be considered equal. Women were kept in traditional roles well into the seventies and eighties (and even nowadays find themselves in a precarious position). Now, that's not to say that these fights will ever be over. Even Martin Luther King Jr. had been quoted as saying that everyone is racist, and probably always will be. I believe that's true. There are still people who make black jokes, there are still people who make Asian jokes, there are still people who believe that a woman's place is and always will be for everyone at home, constantly pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen. But history tells us that at least these people can be granted the legal rights of every person, and eventually probably will.
I've been in school since I was a little kid, and in American schools since third grade. I've heard a few things about American history. However, as if by fate, I heard for the first time this past week something about the woman's Suffrage movement. You see, much like gays now, women were campaigning for change that few wanted to support (at first). The specific tie, the one I heard this past week, just before the news broadcast, was that voting rights were granted to women on a state-by-state basis before it was granted in an amendment years later, making it national law. If you don't see the parallel yet, that's what is happening with domestic partnership/ gay marriage. There are a few cities and states which allow a legal union for same sex couples already. I don't have much of a problem believing that when women were campaigning for a right to vote in national elections that their opponents would say, "go to the states where you can already vote, if you really want to, but don't expect it to spread." That should sound familiar. Mr. Christian Husband up there said the same thing for same sex marriage.
The states that allowed women to vote earliest were the northern west states, such as Wyoming and Idaho. Of course they had good reason, what with their population not being all that high at this point in time. Although curiously, New Mexico (also a sparsely populated western state) was the last to catch on, in the whole country. I guess the Catholic population over-rode the idea of having more population represented.
Another American historical parallel, Black Rights. Most people do recall learning in their history classes that even after blacks were freed of slavery and supposed to have been given the same rights as white men (remember, woman's suffrage has not happened yet) in the South their rights were restricted with loopholes again. Imagine the white plantation owner: "you're free, isn't that enough? If you want to galavanting around town like you're worth something, go North." There were national laws and the a couple of amendments that were put into place to help equalize black men to white men, but the South was great at creating loopholes. That's one of the reasons the fifteenth amendment was put into place, to try and eliminate loopholes left by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments. And again, a historical parallel to the situation we now face with domestic partnerships and gay marriage.
People so love to explain that history repeats itself. If this is true, we probably all know what to expect to happen with the gay marriage debate. Probably a lot of debating and years of failed legislation and then the inevitable allowance of the practice. I suppose that it would come full circle with a lot of the discriminations we categorize. The beginning of the end of racial discrimination on a legal level (with the freed blacks), the end of sex discrimination (with the equalization of women) on a legal level, and now the end of legal sexual orientation discrimination.
Of course, another historical precedent is important to remember. Even after these pieces of legislation were passed, the people were still highly torn on how to treat the members of these movements. The black population did not gain equality for many decades due to the "separate but equal" ruling, and that lasted well into the sixties and seventies. For other races, the war still continues in the country to be considered equal. Women were kept in traditional roles well into the seventies and eighties (and even nowadays find themselves in a precarious position). Now, that's not to say that these fights will ever be over. Even Martin Luther King Jr. had been quoted as saying that everyone is racist, and probably always will be. I believe that's true. There are still people who make black jokes, there are still people who make Asian jokes, there are still people who believe that a woman's place is and always will be for everyone at home, constantly pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen. But history tells us that at least these people can be granted the legal rights of every person, and eventually probably will.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Artificial versus Natural Flavors
Dec. 12th, 2008 | 01:18 pm
location: CNM
mood: calm
Often we see under the ingredients on the food labels “natural flavors” and/ or “artificial flavors.” This is a legal way that companies that produce consumables can try to keep their formulas secret because they don’t have to write what’s in the flavors(FDA 2008). Most people do not know what constitutes a natural flavor or an artificial flavor. The definitions have become so blurred that people tend to come up with their own ideas regarding the facts. One of these ideas is that natural flavors are more organic and healthy, as opposed to the “dirty” artificial flavors. This, however, is not typically the case.
According to the Code of Federal Regulations from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1998)the term “natural flavors” actually means:
“the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional.”
The artificial counterpart to this definition is simply any flavor (not nutrition) not derived from the above (FDA 1998). This means that the difference between natural and artificial flavors is actually the way in which they are derived, not the composition.
Gary Reineccius explains that artificial and natural flavors are a lot like apples. He presents the following analogy, paraphrased: a natural flavor is like buying an apple from the supermarket on the corner. An artificial flavor is like buying that same apple, except at a gas station (2002). In truth, natural and artificial flavors are made of the same basic chemical composition, because it would not be possible to arrive at a specific taste found in nature without using the same chemicals. The only difference in the composition is the ability for the chemist creating the artificial flavor to omit the poisons found in some natural flavor chemicals (2002). Because of this, there is really a negligible amount of difference between natural and an artificial flavoring as far as nutrition goes, because they are the same basic thing.
As far as the methods used to derive the flavorings go, there are huge differences. An artificial flavor is synthesized in a lab from the base chemicals, elements, and compounds (Reineccius 2002). Imagine trying to create salt. A chemist would manually take sodium and combine it with chlorine to create it. Of course it is far more complicated than that, but it makes for an understandable analogy. Natural flavors are sought out of nature itself. The flavors are harvested from their natural source and then isolated and injected into the subject that is being flavored (Reineccius 2002). Imagine harvesters going to the ocean and simply extracting the salt directly.
In many cases in order to get the chemicals for natural flavors, the source is stripped directly. For coconut flavoring, for example, the Massoya tree is completely stripped of its bark in order for the chemical to be extracted. Of course this kills the tree (Reineccius 2002). Many products including coconut oil, confectioner’s coconut shavings (in several different types of grain), and toppings are derived from these flavorings (Heath 1981). This process is also more costly for companies because of the travel (in some cases) the extra resources used and the extra man power (in some cases) needed to achieve the extractions. The main reason companies choose to go through all of those lengths despite seemingly little if any true difference between the two flavoring types is because people are willing to spend more money on “natural” products without researching what that truly means in all cases.
Although there is no way that food and drinks will ever be completely safe, artificial flavors are said to be safer than their natural counterparts (Heath 1981). As mentioned above, nature does not filter poisons out of her compositions, whereas man, in a lab, can, and does in the case of artificial flavors (Reineccius 2002). The downside to filtering is that traces of substance are lost, substances that may be good for people. Artificial flavors are created using the same chemicals nature uses to create the flavors, but nature also throws in a few extra chemicals which do not add to the flavor aspects, and so chemists leave those out of their mix (Haas & Levin 2006).
There are pros and cons to both natural and artificial flavors. Natural flavors are indeed natural, in that they come directly from Mother Nature herself. They contain extra chemicals that people do not get from the artificial flavors. Artificial flavors are safer because chemists omit poisons that are not removed in nature. They are cheaper to produce and are basically the same thing as artificial flavors as far as composition is concerned.
On the flip side, natural flavors are harmful to the environment in some extreme cases. They cause the harvest (and possibly over-harvest) of natural resources. It is more costly than the process used for acquiring natural flavors and there are often trace poisons in the chemicals extracted. Artificial flavors often leave out certain chemicals which the chemists say are not related to taste and people lose out on the extra nutritional stimulation. Also, the artificial flavors are not as marketable as the natural flavors.
There is little true difference in the composition of the two kinds of flavoring, but there are enormous differences in the methods used to extract these flavors in order to put them into foods and drinks and any other ingestibles. It is up to the public to decide which they prefer, but it is important that they realize what it is that they are paying for.
Works Cited:
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (1998). Food and drugs (food labeling: specific food labeling requirements). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2008). A Food labeling guide: chapter VI. ingredient list (contains nonbinding recommendations). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Haas, Elson M., & Levin, Buck. (2006). Staying healthy with nutrition. Berkeley: Celestial Arts.
Heath, Henry B. (1981). The Source book of flavors. New York: Springer.
Reineccius, Gary. (2002). What is the difference between artificial and natural flavors? Scientific American. Retrieved October 17, 2008 from http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-i
According to the Code of Federal Regulations from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1998)the term “natural flavors” actually means:
“the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional.”
The artificial counterpart to this definition is simply any flavor (not nutrition) not derived from the above (FDA 1998). This means that the difference between natural and artificial flavors is actually the way in which they are derived, not the composition.
Gary Reineccius explains that artificial and natural flavors are a lot like apples. He presents the following analogy, paraphrased: a natural flavor is like buying an apple from the supermarket on the corner. An artificial flavor is like buying that same apple, except at a gas station (2002). In truth, natural and artificial flavors are made of the same basic chemical composition, because it would not be possible to arrive at a specific taste found in nature without using the same chemicals. The only difference in the composition is the ability for the chemist creating the artificial flavor to omit the poisons found in some natural flavor chemicals (2002). Because of this, there is really a negligible amount of difference between natural and an artificial flavoring as far as nutrition goes, because they are the same basic thing.
As far as the methods used to derive the flavorings go, there are huge differences. An artificial flavor is synthesized in a lab from the base chemicals, elements, and compounds (Reineccius 2002). Imagine trying to create salt. A chemist would manually take sodium and combine it with chlorine to create it. Of course it is far more complicated than that, but it makes for an understandable analogy. Natural flavors are sought out of nature itself. The flavors are harvested from their natural source and then isolated and injected into the subject that is being flavored (Reineccius 2002). Imagine harvesters going to the ocean and simply extracting the salt directly.
In many cases in order to get the chemicals for natural flavors, the source is stripped directly. For coconut flavoring, for example, the Massoya tree is completely stripped of its bark in order for the chemical to be extracted. Of course this kills the tree (Reineccius 2002). Many products including coconut oil, confectioner’s coconut shavings (in several different types of grain), and toppings are derived from these flavorings (Heath 1981). This process is also more costly for companies because of the travel (in some cases) the extra resources used and the extra man power (in some cases) needed to achieve the extractions. The main reason companies choose to go through all of those lengths despite seemingly little if any true difference between the two flavoring types is because people are willing to spend more money on “natural” products without researching what that truly means in all cases.
Although there is no way that food and drinks will ever be completely safe, artificial flavors are said to be safer than their natural counterparts (Heath 1981). As mentioned above, nature does not filter poisons out of her compositions, whereas man, in a lab, can, and does in the case of artificial flavors (Reineccius 2002). The downside to filtering is that traces of substance are lost, substances that may be good for people. Artificial flavors are created using the same chemicals nature uses to create the flavors, but nature also throws in a few extra chemicals which do not add to the flavor aspects, and so chemists leave those out of their mix (Haas & Levin 2006).
There are pros and cons to both natural and artificial flavors. Natural flavors are indeed natural, in that they come directly from Mother Nature herself. They contain extra chemicals that people do not get from the artificial flavors. Artificial flavors are safer because chemists omit poisons that are not removed in nature. They are cheaper to produce and are basically the same thing as artificial flavors as far as composition is concerned.
On the flip side, natural flavors are harmful to the environment in some extreme cases. They cause the harvest (and possibly over-harvest) of natural resources. It is more costly than the process used for acquiring natural flavors and there are often trace poisons in the chemicals extracted. Artificial flavors often leave out certain chemicals which the chemists say are not related to taste and people lose out on the extra nutritional stimulation. Also, the artificial flavors are not as marketable as the natural flavors.
There is little true difference in the composition of the two kinds of flavoring, but there are enormous differences in the methods used to extract these flavors in order to put them into foods and drinks and any other ingestibles. It is up to the public to decide which they prefer, but it is important that they realize what it is that they are paying for.
Works Cited:
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (1998). Food and drugs (food labeling: specific food labeling requirements). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2008). A Food labeling guide: chapter VI. ingredient list (contains nonbinding recommendations). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Haas, Elson M., & Levin, Buck. (2006). Staying healthy with nutrition. Berkeley: Celestial Arts.
Heath, Henry B. (1981). The Source book of flavors. New York: Springer.
Reineccius, Gary. (2002). What is the difference between artificial and natural flavors? Scientific American. Retrieved October 17, 2008 from http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-i
Link | Leave a comment {5} | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Update 11/ 23/ 2008
Nov. 23rd, 2008 | 07:42 pm
location: Albuquerque, NM
mood: calm
music: Guns N' Roses-Chinese Democracy Album
This past week has been a lot of go and stop (as opposed to stop and go). As far as projects go, I've started a lot and find myself having a hard time finishing any of them really. I've worked my way through a few of them, with help of course, so I'm feeling a bit better now than I did going through the week. I finished a huge research paper (huge as far as points are concerned) for Biology and that lifted quite the weight, and Spanish is almost over with (it actually finished before the other classes as far as work goes) and so with the class projects near their end things are getting smoother. I'm lucky enough to not really have to worry about finals all that much coming up.
I got pretty jumbled with the coffee committee stuff this week. I was supposed to send a copy of the schedule to the director of the religious education department because some of the youth were going to volunteer, on top of that, I was supposed to send one to the main office since two people had quit, and we had a new volunteer who's at least interested, although the scheduling won't happen until we're a little ways into the new year. I couldn't for the life of me find the schedule so of course that didn't get done. Luckily for me I have an amazing wife, and Sam helped me out with coffee today (including training the new guy Dan who was awesome) and typed out a new schedule for us while I was at the Covenant Group meeting today.
Things have been tough with our loss of Dillinger, CD's dog (mainly). He was fifteen years old, and probably had a lot of adventures in addition to those he had with the family when he eventually found the girls (CD and Sam). We were all pretty worried about how CD was going to take it, because he was her main companion for the last few years, and they were so very devoted to each other. She's been doing quite well given the circumstances, and we've all been mourning with chocolate and nachos. The big hit to me was that Byron and I didn't know Sam or CD without Dillinger in the picture. He has always been such a constant, and such a powerful personality and figure. A house without Dillinger is like a house without a grandfather. It was always hard for me to imagine how people who lost their pets could mourn them the same way they would mourn a human being, but it's a lot different actually experiencing that. I didn't show it as much as CD did when it happened, but when the vet injected him with the mixture, there was kind of a disbelief as to whether he was really gone. Sitting there half on their comfort couch, half on the floor with him and CD, the transition was almost seamless. Was he really gone?
That same week then I learned that our dog Sam passed away in Kansas. We got him when we first moved to America. That would make him about ten or eleven when he passed. I hadn't seen him in a good few years of course, since he stayed in Kansas with my step-father Tony and my sister Terri when my mother divorced him and we moved away, but he was a big part of our lives and the transition. It was hard to believe, but I had so far removed myself from things, I don't think the full impact hit me.
We've been going to the foot hills a lot lately, and I've had a really fun time climbing the rocks and trying to make it to the top. I've gotten pretty close, but it's quite the trip, and when the cacti are hitting you so badly that you bruise, it might be a sign to pace yourself. We've brought Zia too and of course she had a wonderful time, the little goat that she is. She hops from rock to rock like it's nothing, even putting us long-leggers to shame. I've had so much fun climbing around up there. This last weekend that we went we went dinosaur hunting. On Friday I looked up some information on New Mexico native dinosaurs (including the likes of Parasaurolophus and Torosaurus). When we went climbing in the foot hills we had a lot to look out for. There were all kinds of dinos out that day, it must have been the mild weather. It was challenging to hide from all of them in the rocky hillside, but it was a great time.
We've been going pretty crazy with the movies lately, and I can't say I mind. NetFlix has been pretty awesome, and now we all have our own accounts that link up to the master account, so we can all get the movies we like, and we're thinking about upgrading to having more at a time. I've been doing my best to be more open-minded with my choices and not just choosing movies I know I like or know I would like, but also picking some of the less main stream ones and some I have no clue about (like foreign horror and musical movies). We have been spending most of our evenings watching TV and movies, but it doesn't add up to our limit pretty much so I don't really feel too guilty about spending the time we are in front of the boob-tube.
I'm going to do my best to be better about keeping regular updates on here at least on a weekly basis and probably adding some little posts here and there about seemingly random things. I hope that'll make things a bit more interesting around here for those of you who check my page occasionally.
I got pretty jumbled with the coffee committee stuff this week. I was supposed to send a copy of the schedule to the director of the religious education department because some of the youth were going to volunteer, on top of that, I was supposed to send one to the main office since two people had quit, and we had a new volunteer who's at least interested, although the scheduling won't happen until we're a little ways into the new year. I couldn't for the life of me find the schedule so of course that didn't get done. Luckily for me I have an amazing wife, and Sam helped me out with coffee today (including training the new guy Dan who was awesome) and typed out a new schedule for us while I was at the Covenant Group meeting today.
Things have been tough with our loss of Dillinger, CD's dog (mainly). He was fifteen years old, and probably had a lot of adventures in addition to those he had with the family when he eventually found the girls (CD and Sam). We were all pretty worried about how CD was going to take it, because he was her main companion for the last few years, and they were so very devoted to each other. She's been doing quite well given the circumstances, and we've all been mourning with chocolate and nachos. The big hit to me was that Byron and I didn't know Sam or CD without Dillinger in the picture. He has always been such a constant, and such a powerful personality and figure. A house without Dillinger is like a house without a grandfather. It was always hard for me to imagine how people who lost their pets could mourn them the same way they would mourn a human being, but it's a lot different actually experiencing that. I didn't show it as much as CD did when it happened, but when the vet injected him with the mixture, there was kind of a disbelief as to whether he was really gone. Sitting there half on their comfort couch, half on the floor with him and CD, the transition was almost seamless. Was he really gone?
That same week then I learned that our dog Sam passed away in Kansas. We got him when we first moved to America. That would make him about ten or eleven when he passed. I hadn't seen him in a good few years of course, since he stayed in Kansas with my step-father Tony and my sister Terri when my mother divorced him and we moved away, but he was a big part of our lives and the transition. It was hard to believe, but I had so far removed myself from things, I don't think the full impact hit me.
We've been going to the foot hills a lot lately, and I've had a really fun time climbing the rocks and trying to make it to the top. I've gotten pretty close, but it's quite the trip, and when the cacti are hitting you so badly that you bruise, it might be a sign to pace yourself. We've brought Zia too and of course she had a wonderful time, the little goat that she is. She hops from rock to rock like it's nothing, even putting us long-leggers to shame. I've had so much fun climbing around up there. This last weekend that we went we went dinosaur hunting. On Friday I looked up some information on New Mexico native dinosaurs (including the likes of Parasaurolophus and Torosaurus). When we went climbing in the foot hills we had a lot to look out for. There were all kinds of dinos out that day, it must have been the mild weather. It was challenging to hide from all of them in the rocky hillside, but it was a great time.
We've been going pretty crazy with the movies lately, and I can't say I mind. NetFlix has been pretty awesome, and now we all have our own accounts that link up to the master account, so we can all get the movies we like, and we're thinking about upgrading to having more at a time. I've been doing my best to be more open-minded with my choices and not just choosing movies I know I like or know I would like, but also picking some of the less main stream ones and some I have no clue about (like foreign horror and musical movies). We have been spending most of our evenings watching TV and movies, but it doesn't add up to our limit pretty much so I don't really feel too guilty about spending the time we are in front of the boob-tube.
I'm going to do my best to be better about keeping regular updates on here at least on a weekly basis and probably adding some little posts here and there about seemingly random things. I hope that'll make things a bit more interesting around here for those of you who check my page occasionally.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Politics
Nov. 13th, 2008 | 11:24 am
mood: busy
I was going to do a post about creepy similarities between some campaigning posters I had seen this election year and some old propaganda posters from World War II, but while I was looking up some neat-o pictures to share, and make my point, I found nearly all of them on sites talking about the exact same thing I was going to, and at the same time taking it pretty far. That means they didn't just compare the pictures, but rather went to great lengths so that they could put Obama on the same side of the coin as Hitler and others. I'm not trying to focus on President-Elect Obama with this posting here, but rather on politics in general, throughout the last few decades especially.
To me it doesn't seem like there has been much difference in the way campaigns have been run and advertised. I suppose that "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is the philosophy which many campaign advisers run with. I say this because they are using the same kinds of propaganda that were used decades ago, even by people who didn't necessarily stand for the same thing. Here is where some of the neat-o pictures come into play.
The election hasn't been over too long, and there are a lot of people who have been pretty lazy about taking down those lawn signs, and those Obama or McCain bumper stickers will be plaguing us for years to come, so I'm sure that most of you recognize those pictures.
The reason I compare to "negative" campaign/ propaganda posters is to make the point that it doesn't really matter much which side the person, politician, is representing, the ad campaign basically remains the same.
I'd like to use that as a platform from which I can talk about what really got to me about the whole thing. The two main candidates in this election, as well as the media, kept preaching about CHANGE the entire time, through all of it. I'd like to credit Obama for getting us all started on that kick, not because he most emulates change, but because he's the one I heard say that word over and over and over before I heard anyone else say it that many times in a row.
I'm not against change, change is good, right now in politics, especially in this country, change is necessary. What gets my goat is that it's a lie. What's going to change, honestly? Let's start with the first and most obvious aspect, how are the lives of most American residents going to change? Not all that much, if at all. Have any of you (who are not making more than, oh, say 70K per year) really noticed that much of a difference in your lives because of the political happenings over the last twenty years if you're old enough? When Clinton went into office, did your lives change drastically? How about when Bush took office? I think that for most of you, the honest answer would be "not really, but we had some neat stuff to talk about at the office."
I don't understand how things are truly going to change when campaigns were run the same way as they have been for the last however many decades, in multiple countries, by multiple cultures, by any side you can imagine. Obama is black, that's a good change, that he could be elected President, but beyond that, what is he going to do that is that much different from what's already going on? He has promised a lot of things, but just looking at it from a legal point of view, he can't do most of those things on his own, he needs Congress. Now, I'll grant that Congress is now mostly Democratic and thus Obama is probably more likely to be agreed with, that still doesn't mean that he can wave a wand and make it happen (not at all referencing time there).
You know how I think change could have truly come to our country? If you (meaning the Americans eligible to vote) had elected a candidate who did minimal, if any known, advertising. If a candidate who really did have revolutionary (meaning new, not violent uprising) ideas to bring to the White House. On election night, I saw my first and only glimpse of any candidate other than Obama or McCain on the news. The only other place I ever saw them was on a blog my wife posted. Their names were right underneath the main two on the ticker keeping track of votes. (for those interested, I never saw any of the "minor" candidates vote counts exceed a couple of thousand). Obama is a member of the same party that has been around for years and years (and held office a few times). How is electing another member of the same governing group really change?
For the most part, the media is to blame. They give little if any airtime to independents and don't even whisper their names. Anyone who isn't a democrat or a republican has to fight tooth and nail to even have a hope of getting to be part of a debate. I don't think many people realize how much free publicity the main candidates get just from "speculation" shows on most news channels; of course they have oodles and oodles of money to pay for ads, but that only makes up a small portion of their exposure. So few voters are willing to research any candidates on their own, so if the news doesn't mention them, they don't exist. I actually heard someone saying this in response to other candidates being brought up: "I thought Nader was the other guy running." Not even aware there were other people in the race, or that there could be other people in the race.
Then there is such a danger of being ridiculed if a person is "brave" enough to support one of the "other" candidates. I'm sure it's been said more than once to an independent, "don't you want your vote to count?" or better yet "why are you wasting your vote?" Another way that any true "change" is kept from ever actually happening. Obama is going to be a politician in the traditional sense, he has no real new ideas, just "innovative" ways to toggle current ones.
Things haven't changed in the world of politics in ages, and they haven't changed in America since they slid into a two party system.
I'm not being critical of Obama, or McCain, or Bush, or Clinton, or any of the people who may have won or lost. I'm being critical of the idea that "change is here!" when in fact it's a farce. Thinking about it, there was more change after folks like Hitler came into power, whether it was good or bad change, it was true change.
To me it doesn't seem like there has been much difference in the way campaigns have been run and advertised. I suppose that "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is the philosophy which many campaign advisers run with. I say this because they are using the same kinds of propaganda that were used decades ago, even by people who didn't necessarily stand for the same thing. Here is where some of the neat-o pictures come into play.
The election hasn't been over too long, and there are a lot of people who have been pretty lazy about taking down those lawn signs, and those Obama or McCain bumper stickers will be plaguing us for years to come, so I'm sure that most of you recognize those pictures.
The reason I compare to "negative" campaign/ propaganda posters is to make the point that it doesn't really matter much which side the person, politician, is representing, the ad campaign basically remains the same.
I'd like to use that as a platform from which I can talk about what really got to me about the whole thing. The two main candidates in this election, as well as the media, kept preaching about CHANGE the entire time, through all of it. I'd like to credit Obama for getting us all started on that kick, not because he most emulates change, but because he's the one I heard say that word over and over and over before I heard anyone else say it that many times in a row.
I'm not against change, change is good, right now in politics, especially in this country, change is necessary. What gets my goat is that it's a lie. What's going to change, honestly? Let's start with the first and most obvious aspect, how are the lives of most American residents going to change? Not all that much, if at all. Have any of you (who are not making more than, oh, say 70K per year) really noticed that much of a difference in your lives because of the political happenings over the last twenty years if you're old enough? When Clinton went into office, did your lives change drastically? How about when Bush took office? I think that for most of you, the honest answer would be "not really, but we had some neat stuff to talk about at the office."
I don't understand how things are truly going to change when campaigns were run the same way as they have been for the last however many decades, in multiple countries, by multiple cultures, by any side you can imagine. Obama is black, that's a good change, that he could be elected President, but beyond that, what is he going to do that is that much different from what's already going on? He has promised a lot of things, but just looking at it from a legal point of view, he can't do most of those things on his own, he needs Congress. Now, I'll grant that Congress is now mostly Democratic and thus Obama is probably more likely to be agreed with, that still doesn't mean that he can wave a wand and make it happen (not at all referencing time there).
You know how I think change could have truly come to our country? If you (meaning the Americans eligible to vote) had elected a candidate who did minimal, if any known, advertising. If a candidate who really did have revolutionary (meaning new, not violent uprising) ideas to bring to the White House. On election night, I saw my first and only glimpse of any candidate other than Obama or McCain on the news. The only other place I ever saw them was on a blog my wife posted. Their names were right underneath the main two on the ticker keeping track of votes. (for those interested, I never saw any of the "minor" candidates vote counts exceed a couple of thousand). Obama is a member of the same party that has been around for years and years (and held office a few times). How is electing another member of the same governing group really change?
For the most part, the media is to blame. They give little if any airtime to independents and don't even whisper their names. Anyone who isn't a democrat or a republican has to fight tooth and nail to even have a hope of getting to be part of a debate. I don't think many people realize how much free publicity the main candidates get just from "speculation" shows on most news channels; of course they have oodles and oodles of money to pay for ads, but that only makes up a small portion of their exposure. So few voters are willing to research any candidates on their own, so if the news doesn't mention them, they don't exist. I actually heard someone saying this in response to other candidates being brought up: "I thought Nader was the other guy running." Not even aware there were other people in the race, or that there could be other people in the race.
Then there is such a danger of being ridiculed if a person is "brave" enough to support one of the "other" candidates. I'm sure it's been said more than once to an independent, "don't you want your vote to count?" or better yet "why are you wasting your vote?" Another way that any true "change" is kept from ever actually happening. Obama is going to be a politician in the traditional sense, he has no real new ideas, just "innovative" ways to toggle current ones.
Things haven't changed in the world of politics in ages, and they haven't changed in America since they slid into a two party system.
I'm not being critical of Obama, or McCain, or Bush, or Clinton, or any of the people who may have won or lost. I'm being critical of the idea that "change is here!" when in fact it's a farce. Thinking about it, there was more change after folks like Hitler came into power, whether it was good or bad change, it was true change.