Fireside Chat: Chaos Benefits No One

            I was looking at my newsfeed this morning and I was sickened. There were a couple of stories from NYT and Washington Post about the ANTIFA rallies going on around the country, along with pictures and videos about the protests. While the assaults and violence were largely glossed over in the media, the photos showed a completely different story. Several people were injured in the Portland rally, including a Youtuber Andy No, who suffered a cracked skull in the scuffle. In addition, there were people hit with mace, baseball bats and the old faithful fists. As of right now, the police were ordered to not become involved in such protests by the mayor, who sat back and watched ANTIFA essentially destroy the city.

            If anyone can tell me, I would like to have an answer to this question: what’s the point of all of this? I understand that the idea was to “battle Fascism” and all, but how is that to be accomplished by tearing a city down and hurting people? Do they think that they can just beat people to a pulp until they agree with the ANTIFA cause? Let’s say that this happens and everyone agrees with everything that the riots are supposed to be about. After that, who’s left? Do they start beating up each other?

            According to the Merriam-Webster school Dictionary, Fascism is defined as a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control. It also states that a Dictator is a person with unlimited governmental power and an Autocrat is a person ruling with unlimited authority. I would think that, to be Anti-Fascist, one would naturally assume that they would be AGAINST strong exercises of strong autocratic or dictatorial control. However, it is those who are supposed to be the opposition who are forcing their opinion and will on others. It would seem that their philosophy is that of a petulant child: believe what I believe, or I’m going to hit you.

            Who is the Dictator? Certainly not President Trump, seeing as he holds only a third of the power in Congress. If he wanted to be a Dictator, he’d shut down the House and the Senate and place America under Martial Law. There wouldn’t be any more elections, no more allowance of public outcry and definitely no Immigrants allowed in the country, legal or not. In fact, most Dictator’s first movements when they take power is to crush the infidels either through deportation or execution. Normally, they sandwich Racism into this mass genocide, as well. When has President Trump, anyone in Congress or any of the Governors of this country ever done that?

            Let’s move to the Autocrat. If President Trump were everything that the media claims that he is and had unlimited power, then the country would not have Blacks, Jews, Arabs, Hispanics, Muslims, or Asians in any part of the marketplace outside of slavery. He would tell all social media to say what he wants to say, all news sources would be closed down if they disagree with him and his face would be on every single form of currency. He would declare his birthday as a holiday, every television station would be like North Korea and would be 24/7 Trump is awesome and wonderful. He wouldn’t be re-elected; he’d make himself king. When he dies, everyone would have to be a part of a mourning process and if they didn’t cry hard enough, they’d be executed. We’d be living in a country that would be the weird love child of The Apprentice, Animal Farm and 1984.   

            Since none of the previous is true in any stretch of the imagination, why do they do this? I have a theory, though not a lot of people will like it. There’s nothing to fight against anymore. The American Dream came true, and for some people, it pisses them off. They want something to fight about, and since Racism in the legal sense has been solved, Sexism has been pretty much extinguished, the economy is based largely on merit rather than prestige, slavery is over, and it has never been easier than now to work from home, they have to invent things to bitch about! They want a reason to be angry, they want something to fight against outside being a pathetic loser who since being pulled off of his mothers’ tit has been given everything in the world but discipline. When you get a generation, which has been given everything for eighteen years and then put into the real world, where they have to actually WORK for a living, they find it a cruel and unfair domain. So, if anyone can be blamed for the way that their kid is a greedy, spiteful creature, full of anger, envy and low cunning, who maces old ladies in Portland and returns to the basement bedroom which he does not pay for, it’s the parent’s fault. Be a better parent and you’ll have a better kid, it’s that simple.

Fireside Chat: Pain Sucks. What's Your Point?

            I understand that everyone has something that is painful in their lives. Whether it is physical, mental, social or spiritual, everyone on Earth has something that they are going through.

If you are alive, you are a victim of something.

            Now, I’ve been accused of not being empathetic or rushing too quickly to judgement when it comes to a wide variety of subjects. Someone’s arm got broken and is now having to sign their name with their left hand. Another is going through a failed marriage. One person I know is not having the best go of life since she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Do I feel bad for these people? Absolutely! However, my level of empathy varies from person to person. I do not have the same sympathy for the guy in the cast as I do with the lady undergoing Chemo treatments. To me, even suggesting that you should care about everyone equally is, to be frank, horseshit! Why should I offer the same feeling for the grieving widow as someone who’s dog died? I’ll offer support in both cases, but certainly not at the same level. This moral objectivist logic is so void of a soul that it wants me to acknowledge their “victim” status on an equal playing field. Why? I’m telling you, the more that I know about people, the less I understand them.

            It’s funny, the other day I was at Walmart. There were these firefighters asking for donations for the MDA, an organization which aids those with Muscular Dystrophy. After I finished shopping, I gave the rest of the money I had to them. Right after they gave me my sticker saying that I donated to them, I watched as a morbidly obese man, whose partner had to pull up to the front of the store, waddled inside with his walker and made his way to the motorized scooters they have, took his seat, and with a swift motion, pulled his bag of chips out of his man bag and began to chow down as he waited for his family to find a parking spot. I suppose that the firefighters were thinking the same thing as I was, because we all looked at one another and were all thinking the exact same thing: pathetic!

            Now, am I supposed to feel bad for this man? I mean, in a way I do. He obviously uses food as a substitute for something in his life and he has people who enable him to continue down this path of destruction. On the other hand, no one is pointing a gun at him and demanding him to eat his way into an early grave. Actually, he’s the one who’s pointing the gun; food just has a longer trigger pull. Am I supposed to feel just as bad for him as I do for those who suffer from MD, something they have no control over?

            This man obviously suffers from some sort of mental pain. All of us do and all of us have some sort of vice. Whether that be food, cigarettes, drugs or alcohol, we all have something. If I may be so bold, I may know what most people suffer from more than most, primarily due to the fact that I have had to deal with obtaining injuries which most people deal with individually. I have vices in my life that aren’t necessarily good for me. The main difference is that I do not let these misfortunes define who I am. Too often, people just accept that their pain, their trauma, as what will dictate who they are for the rest of their lives. You know these people. These are the ones who accept that their dreams are over, those who give up at the first sign of any trouble, those who are so caught up with themselves and what THEY experienced, who try to win sympathy points on the basis that what they went through was so severe that there is no way for them to achieve their goals. And so thus they continue to live (or not) on the notion that they must be on their guard in every social situation or interaction that crosses their path.

            In my mind, this is such a pathetic way to live! The best way for anyone to cope, to endure, is to remember one single and solitary truth: YOU are responsible for how YOU feel. If you feel like crap because there are things you cannot do anymore, find something that you can still do. Pick up an old hobby. Go see a friend. Constantly work on breaking down the barriers in your own life, or at least make a peep hole in some of the walls you built up concerning your new quality of life. The strongest solution is always the simplest one and changing your mindset on a subject may not fix everything, but it sure would help out a lot.

            I don’t talk to people about what happened to me much. The reason being is that my greatest strength happens to also be my greatest weakness: my pride. I cannot stand sympathy and I’ll be damned if I just sit back and watch as someone else does something for me and I knew that I could have done it myself. I’m too proud to accept a victim label due to being disabled. Maybe that’s why I loathe others who, like the guy with the chips and scooter at Walmart, crippled themselves. Through no fault of my own, I am now disabled and will be disabled for the rest of my life. At 24, this is probably the most mobile and the least in pain I will ever be. Scooter guy’s situation, on the other hand, was preventable! I don’t want to focus too much on myself, but if I had just accepted Social Security benefits, my VA Compensation and gave up on life, how many people would have blamed me? I didn’t cause it; I wasn’t going down a dedicated and determined path of self-destruction and I was nearly killed in the line of duty. No one would blame me if I just checked out. I know too many people who are in much better shape than I am who have, so it would be a no brainer for me. The reason that I don’t, other than the pride thing, is that I don’t accept what any external force attempts to make me. I do not bow down to the whim of anyone or anything that dares try and determine who I am.

            In closing, there are a few universal truths for which I use to dictate my thoughts, my words, and my deeds. Some people won’t like them, but that’s because they are so caught up in their injuries to accept them. If you don’t like your situation, change it. If you feel like your dreams are over, then find different dreams, hopes and ambitions. If you can’t do everything you once could, then do what you can, with what you have, wherever you are. Instead of wallowing in self-pity, go and talk to someone. Whether it be your parents, your spouse or the Parish Priest, they will be able to help you out. The truth of the matter is a rather simple one, and that is others can see solutions to your problems much better than you can. Its hard to see the path when all your doing is staring at the mountains. Therefore, fight to craft an identity that is your own and be someone who you actually like to see in the mirror in the morning. You’ll be happier if you do, that I promise you.

Process: Five Steps to Misery

We live in a world which is filled with heartache, sorrow and pain. Some of it has been caused by others, but most of the time it is caused by the actions we take. It does not have to be this way though. When someone injects their lives with misery, it usually follows a simple 5 step process:

CAUTION: DO NOT DO ANY OF WHAT FOLLOWS!

Step 1: Become self-centered and believe that you are the center of attention

            Double down on this concept by turning every conversation that you ever have towards yourself. By doing so, you will have everyone you talk to calling you a jerk. Should they call you this, continue to tell them how wonderful and superior you are to them and point out their flaws at every turn. When you have them ready to toss a punch, point out your professional victim status. Whether you are a minority, are a woman, a smaller man or disabled, throw it in their faces in a way that they would feel bad for hitting you, call you a couple of names and will walk away from you. You will then feel bad because no one will want to be around you. After this step is completed, it brings us to the next phase.

Step 2: Blame others for you being miserable

            Inevitably, there will be some people who will actually want to still be your friend, and you should use that comradery to increase your isolation. You do this for accusing those who cannot stand you for your problems. Should you have no discretion for accusations. Everyone who disagrees with you is against you, everyone who does not hand you everything you desire is against you and everyone who has not bent over backwards to help you is against you. Create a social circle of people who have the same feelings as you and utilize their issues to help clarify all of the people who have wronged you in their eyes. Specialize in seeking out people who you know cannot help with all of the things that you want them to do. Once you are in this mindset, you can move on to the next phase.

Step 3: See pettiness as a virtue

            Keeping the lessons from the first two steps, hold grudges for everything! Did someone forget your birthday? They’re dead to you! Has a friend gotten a promotion which you felt that you were more qualified for? Make sure that their time as your boss is as painful as possible. Did your mom make a dish that she KNOWS that you don’t like? Make a scene where there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that you are so hurt by her doing such a thing. No matter what happens, if someone does something that you don’t like, intentional or not, be so offended that it defines your relationship and remember the ultimate truth: whether consciously or subconsciously, they meant to hurt you!

Step 4: Become a self-righteous ideologue

            Remember, even if others have done the same thing, nothing YOU say or do is offensive to anyone else. If they show offense or are hurt, that’s a they problem or they are faking it. They fake it because they want others to hate you more and nothing that comes out of their mouth is the truth. All they want is for others to look away from some terrible action they made in order to look at you taking offense. If someone takes their side, then they are now the enemy.

Step 5: Why should you have to change?

            After all, nothing you do is wrong. There is nothing wrong with what you say, what you do or what you feel. Their thoughts and their words are incorrect in your eyes; therefore, you should be static in how you react and they need to just accept that the world is your oyster, not theirs. They are the ones who need to change and get tougher skin, not you. After all, you need to remember that no one who disagrees with you is correct, no one is better than you and people who don’t meet your standards don’t deserve the privilege of being in your presence.

            You know that your doing it right if you live alone.

Process: How to Die in the Top 10% in America

For the past several years, I have heard non-stop the commotion concerning the “Top 1 percent” and their “evil, Scrooge McDuck greed”. In the previous process, I told you the story of Mr. Smith and what he did to build wealth for not only himself but also for his family. It was such an honor to sit down and speak with him and was exciting to learn that hard work and determination does indeed pay off in the end. However, I know that Mr. Smith already had some advantages that most people didn’t have, and even he admitted that certain circumstances fell into his lap. Therefore, this process is devoted towards the bare bones approach that everyone can obtain. It’s easy, I promise!

Step 1: Graduate High School

            I get it. Sometimes there are circumstances beyond our control that cause us to have to remove ourselves from school. I know someone who was gravely ill and needed to go to doctors for most of her senior year. In the end, she was forced to go on and get her GED. I’ll tell you something that most people won’t tell you: if there is no other option available, a GED is okay. For example, the person I know went on to get a degree and is quite successful in her field. The reason that the high school diploma is so prized should be rather obvious. What follows are just a few jobs and their annual salary which require no previous experience you are missing out on:

·         Subway and Street car Operator – 62,760

·         Electrical power line installers – 63,250

·         Business operations specialist – 65,120

·         Power Plant operators – 66,130

·         Elevator Repairers – 76,650

Which leads me to the second part of this process:

Step 2: Get a Job

            Any job will do but preferably one where advancement is possible and offers benefits. Take McDonalds as an example. They provide scholarships, certification programs and have a fantastic rate at advancement for those who want it. If you play your cards right, you can become the manager of the place in a couple of years, becoming SERV safe certified and having management experience and maybe even having a degree. At this point, you can either stay on as a manager or try to find another job where you will no longer be considered unskilled labor. Of course, this is just an example, but millions of people have done this in a wide variety of industries. How can you be seen as the correct candidate for promotion, success and opportunity? Here’s the secret. Are you ready? DO WHAT IS REQUIRED OF YOU! If you show up on time, in the right uniform and do solely what is on your job description, you will be doing more than what most of your coworkers do and will reap your rewards.

Step 3: Don’t have kids out of wedlock

            Now, don’t get the wrong idea. I love kids and I love spending time with them, watching them grow up and playing with them. However, there is nothing more detrimental to someone’s financial future than an unplanned pregnancy. I won’t go over this part too much, considering that I spoke of this at length elsewhere. However, not to get too graphic, here’s the top three ways to avoid this:

1.    Abstinence (Who are we kidding, right?)

2.    Pill + Condom

3.    Pill + Condom + Pull out

The reason that you want to be in wedlock before having children is twofold: you will have two incomes to take care of a child and both of you will be a bit more mature when you make this decision. Never before in the history of mankind has it been easier to plan for a family rather than having an “oops” family fall into your lap.

Step 4: Don’t do drugs or drink alcohol in excess

      Now, I’m not dense enough to think that someone is going to live their lives without any form of recreational substance. Whether its booze or marihuana or cigarettes or coffee, we all have that vice that we know isn’t good for us, but it is something we enjoy. I’m not judging, because I have a few of them myself. For me, there is a very simple way that I determine whether or not a vice is too powerful in my life. For my vices, I only use cash. Once I’m out of money, I’m done buying. Basically, if you have to decide between your vice or paying a bill, it may be time to get some help. Try the cash idea and see if it works for you. 200 dollars a month should be more than plenty for all of your wants. Well, maybe New York or California would be 400, but you get my point.

Step 5: Stay out of the legal system

Let’s be honest for a moment. No employer will hire someone who was convicted of theft. No trucking company will hire someone who has a DUI charge. No school will hire a teacher who is a sex offender. Basically, your legal record does not go into context about how or why you were convicted of anything. All an employer will see is the charge and will judge you from there. Here is a solution which will be guaranteed to keep you out of trouble, one which anyone and everyone can do. It is also a three-step process:

1.    Obey the law

2.    Be respectful to law enforcement

3.    If detained, follow the instruction of the police officer to the letter, asking permission before doing anything in their presence

It’s too easy to do the right thing and I won’t insult your intelligence by listing all of the things you shouldn’t do. Just follow the first four steps and use the lessons you learned about following the rules, and you’ll be fine.

            That is, it! This is a barebone system which is guaranteed to work for anyone who wants to die in at MINIMUM a middle-class status. There is no plea to go and get a four-year degree, I spoke nothing about finances (although a budget would only increase your wealth), and I spoke nothing concerning buying instead of renting cars and houses. This system is not affected by location, race or nationality in this country. That is what makes America so great! If you try, you will succeed.

Who we Are and Why?

            Welcome to my first Fireside Chat. This is a series where I will just speak from the heart. Through these posts, I will offer my personal opinion, what I have learned this week and what I believe on certain topics. Unlike some of my other essays, like the Polemics or the Processes, this will be very casual and from the heart.

            We are who we choose to be. Look around at the people in your life and at the choices that they make. Look at what they value, what they prefer and how they respond to conflict. Look for where their focus lies, and you will learn something about people in general: everyone determines the direction of their lives by the actions they take. If you decide to do good deeds, you will resist evil ones. If your values are narcissistic, juvenile and your focus is on medial matters, then it will become impossible to be altruistic. The truth of the matter is that every action we take determines not only what kind of person we have decided to become, but also what kind of person we are rejecting. Just as a garden can only produce the fruits for which has been planted, so true can the virtues we nurture begin to flourish. People are not born, they are made. Life is not about finding yourself, but rather creating yourself.

Process: Old School Wealth

There’s a lot of talk concerning whether or not it is ethical to tax the 1% a bit more to provide for the whole, despite the fact that they pay 37% of the taxes brought in. I’m not going to discuss whether or not this is ethical, but I was rather curious how someone gets into a situation where they make above 400,000 dollars a year. Yes, if you make this much, you are in the 1 percent! So, I sat down with someone, who didn’t want to be named, and the following is the method for which Mr. Smith told me:

            I lost my Daddy when I was still in school. Me and my brothers split the money and I bought a small home just outside the college I went to. After graduation, I rented the place off, paying the mortgage with the rent while I moved in with my wife. After about ten years of making no money from the place, also adding in some of our savings to paying the mortgage, my old college house was paid for. My wife suggested that I could make some extra money if we bought another rental home; so, after about a year of saving from the income received from the rent, I took the plunge. I kept the same process, taking no money and using the income to pay off the second house. Five more years go by, and now we have two houses drawing us money.

            I got a promotion at the local bank, so I could afford to see if I could make more money from renting to college kids. This time, I bought two more houses, still not drawing an income. At this point, I noticed that it became easier and easier to pay off my property. So, another ten years or so of me repeating my process, I was forty-four with ten properties to my name, all paid off, and was drawing me enough money to focus on doing this full-time. After a couple of conversations with my wife, we decided that it would be better for us if our son aided me in my business. I told him to help me with three things: help me increase my income, focus on quality properties and in maintenance of the old ones, and REDUCE THE TAX BURDON! (he laughs), I made sure that he focused on that one!

            We kept this system going for another twenty years. Much to my wife’s, and my Mother’s dismay, we managed to create Smith’s Realty Company what it is today. I don’t know how many hours I spent working, but I do know that I would enter the office at 5 AM and would come home for dinner around 6 PM. In total, it was a 46-year process that has had many headaches all along the way, but I am glad that I have something I can pass off to my kids when I am gone. Nowadays, I mostly catch up on all of the sleep that I missed all these years!

            After this conversation, I began to have a much greater respect for those who start their own business. This may be inaccurate, but if we go by the metrics that he gave me for the twenty-year span for how much time he put in when Mr. Smith began working on his company full-time, that would be 57,200 hours working towards being wealthy enough to enjoy his golden years with financial security. I respect that discipline.

            So I end with a question: if you were in this position, would you be willing to have everything that you worked so hard for being taken away from you to give to those who didn’t take the risk, make the sacrifices and put in the effort that you did?

It's a Process

I decided that, through the week, I was going to try something a bit different than my usual weekly or bi-weekly format. I will begin writing something known as a Process essay once a week on topics ranging from economic development, to what makes someone a troll to what kind of person uses their free time to write essays that a college professor didn’t demand them to write. They’ll all be relatively short, maybe 500 to 2,000 words or so, but I will do my best to give you an informative opinion on the topic at hand.

            The way I write a Process is different from what you see on Wikipedia. Most are kind of like those troubleshoot pages in the back of an engineering textbook, labeling every piece of how something works from beginning to end, talking about which bolt goes where and is a step by step guide to bring you to a conclusion. This format isn’t something that anyone, including myself, would enjoy to read, much less write. Therefore, I will make a couple of changes to the format. First, I am going to begin at the end point. From there, I will begin to break down whatever the topic is until I reach the starting point. For example:

We have a car.

The car was assembled on the assembly line.

The parts that were sent to the assembly line were manufactured in a plant from metal and plastic

Etc.

I promise that it won’t be that dry, but you see my point. My goal in this little experiment is twofold. First, too often I begin a project with no clear ending in mind. Second, I would like to be able to train my mind (and yours, if you are willing) to see the mechanics of a situation before I dive right into a conversation, an activity or occupation. I believe that having the ability to see all of the pieces and how they work together is crucial if one wants to be able to troubleshoot their life, find weaknesses and learn how to see a situation at every angle.

            Stay tuned, because the first one will be out this week!

On Eugenics

In yet another attempt to stir the pot, so to speak, I find myself writing about yet another taboo topic in our modern world. Why is it such a distained topic, you may ask? Well, all too often it transforms into a race superiority topic which causes too many people to freak out. We all know about the idea known as Natural Selection, the strong mating with the strong to create a stronger offspring. Rinse, repeat, life goes on. We see it all over nature. After all, there is a reason that Great White Sharks, Alligators and Crocodiles basic construction hasn’t changed much in millions of years. I believe that the act of aiding Natural Selection through Eugenics is only seen as an abomination when it comes to scientists talking about humans. Why is that? What makes this topic so out there that the only program that ever started experimenting with humans was the Nazi party (no, I’m not condoning what Dr. Mengele did)? Come to think of it, we do it with livestock, dogs and cats! What is it that creeps us out so much when lab rats are replaced by humans?

            While we normally think of Eugenics being related hand in hand with the Nazis, the term is much older, and the practice pre-dates the birth of Christ. The term itself was first crafted by a man known as Francis Galton[i]. He believed that, just as traits from wildlife could be passed down from parent to offspring, so too would it relate to humans. Not only that, he believed that less concrete, and less noticeable traits, could be passed down, as well. In his book Hereditary Genius, Galton expressed his findings on historiometry, a study into the habits of children, their parents and their grandparents[ii]. By doing so, he supposed that his evidence on who we are, our physical and cognitive capabilities, were more closely related to nature rather than nurture, though he did concede that more study would need to be done to be sure. In another book of his on the same subject, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, Galton introduced the ideas of Eugenics and Dysgenics[iii]. Galton further explained that frailty of body or mind should be taken into account before having children with someone.

            Not taking anything away from Galton’s intellect, the concept was already in place as far back as Plato in 400 BC[iv]. In Sparta, every Spartan child was inspected by the council of elders, the Gerousia, which determined if the child was fit to live or not. Ancient Rome’s custom was that a father was obliged by law to kill his newborn if it was crippled[v]. As recent as the 19th century in America, a physician named William Goodell advocated the castration and spaying of the insane[vi]. Even after the horrors of World War 2, eugenics still lives on today.

            Supporters of the movement include UC Berkeley sociologist Troy Duster, who claims that modern genetics is a back door to eugenics[vii]. In October of 2015, the United Nations' International Bioethics Committee wrote that the ethical problems of human genetic engineering should not be confused with the ethical problems of the 20th century eugenics movements[viii]. In fact, according to Richard Lynn, a former Ulster University professor, all of the following are components of modern-day eugenics[ix]:

1.      Advocacy for sexual abstinence

2.      Sex education in schools

3.      School-based clinics

4.      Promoting the use of contraception

5.      Emergency contraception

6.      Abortion

7.      Artificial insemination

8.      Egg donation

9.      Embryo Selection

10.  Pre-natal screenings

11.  Gene Therapy

In short, the claim by supporters is a simple one: just about everything for which we use today to conceive healthy children is simply us making choices which aid in Natural Selection and survival or termination of the child, sometimes all the way down to the genetic level.

            Those who reject Eugenics tend to fall into three categories: the religious, the academic and the misinformed, who still manage to consolidate to create a solid case for their opposition: who are we to play God? We’ve seen what can happen to a nationally supported study of Eugenics through not only Nazi Germany, but also from China’s one child policy, which led to mass drownings of infant girls. A common criticism, also the strongest, in my opinion, of eugenics is that "it inevitably leads to measures that are unethical"[x]. Many fear a scenario where racial superiority and classism will inevitably play a factor and will lead to the mandatory sterilization of those with dysgenic traits. This would perhaps not be limited to persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, specifically, segregation and genocide of races perceived as inferior[xi]. Although supporters point out that the goal isn’t about sterilization and abstinence anymore, but is rather about the sustaining of future development of humanity that is the goal, this statement does little to aid in pacifying people’s worst fears.

            And now, I will give my opinion, which will annoy someone, somewhere! I believe that Eugenics can be a good thing, but only in small doses. When we discuss the health of the unborn or the health of the mother, I’m all for it. When it comes to the advocacy for sexual abstinence, egg donation and pre-natal screenings, I will support it whole heartedly. When we speak of promoting the use of contraception or the use of emergency contraception, I am all for it. However, when we begin talking about Genetic Engineering, that’s where I tend to fall off of the bandwagon. For starters, why are we playing Sims with a future life? Who are we to alter a living being on a molecular level just because we want him or her (seriously, there are ways for you to pick now![xii]) to have smooth skin, green eyes instead of blue and red hair instead of brown? We are meddling with someone else’s existence, which goes too far into dabbling with nature for me. The truth of the matter is that those who want a designer baby don’t realize is they are messing with the mechanics of another life, which anyone of any faith could see as blasphemy. It may be a simple answer, but we were not made to play God with someone else like this. If Genetic Engineering becomes the norm, where would the process end? I tend to agree with the idea that, should such a road be taken, it will eventually end in an unethical destination.

[i] Francis Galton, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development (London, England: Macmillan and Co., 1883), pp. 24–25.

[ii] Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary Genius. London: Macmillan

[iii] "Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development by Francis Galton". galton.org

[iv] "Eugenics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University

[v] The Laws of the Twelve Tables, c.450 B.C. "A dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed"

[vi] Goodell, William (1881–1882). "Clinical Notes on the Extirpation of the Ovaries for Insanity". The American Journal of Insanity

[vii] Epstein, Charles J. (1 November 2003). "Is modern genetics the new eugenics?". Genetics in Medicine. 5 (6): 469–475

[viii] "Report of the IBC on Updating Its Reflection on the Human Genome and Human Rights" (PDF). International Bioethics Committee. 2 October 2015

[ix] Lynn 2001. Part III. The Implementation of Classical Eugenics pp. 137–244 Part IV. The New Eugenics pp. 245–320

[x] Lynn 2001. The Ethical Principles of Classical Eugenics – Conclusions P. 241

[xi] Black, Edwin (2003). War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. Four Walls Eight Windows. ISBN 978-1-56858-258-0.

[xii] https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/ethics-designer-babies

On Racism

Do you remember when you first heard a traumatic word, such as rape, incest or murder? Do you remember that gut feeling that even saying such a word was wrong, like when a kid first hears a curse word? Then, over time, the feeling of uneasiness wasn’t quite as bad for you? Do you remember the time when that word seemed to lose all meaning in your head and was just as casual as saying hello to someone walking down the street? That is what the term Racism has become. For whatever reason, something that has mostly been settled in our society has now crept back up into the context of humanity, causing division where there is none. Not a day goes by without someone, somewhere, is being accused of being a bigot, a sexist, anti-Semitic or a misogynist. The king of this pile, however, continues to be Racism. To start, I will admit that I do not believe in open racism, bigotry or legal backing of such beliefs. I DO believe in profiling and bias, which I will talk about later. You know the format by now, so let’s begin.

            According to the Merriam-Webster school dictionary (which is the same one I had in middle school, so it may not be up to date), Racism is defined as follows:

1.      A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2.      A doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles

3.      A political or social system founded on racism

4.      Radical prejudice or discrimination

Now, before you call me a “douchecanoe” as a nice gentleman named Keith Beckman, of whom I ABSOLUTELY don’t want people bugging, called me (I still don’t quite know what one of those are), I will provide the updated 2019 Oxford English Dictionary definition, which is:

1.      The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Not much of a difference between the two, is there? That is a good thing because it shows that we are all on the same page here. Originally, however, it heralded quite a different meaning. During the 19th century, scientists believed that humans, just as any other animal, could be divided up based on how we looked and through our actions; the idea was to divide the “races” scientifically[i]. It’s not really known when the superiority complex came to being, though it is probably true that racism has been around as long as there were people. As far as the term goes, it must have shifted this way rather quickly, seeing that a 1902 definition began to differentiate from the term Racism by calling it Racialism, defined as “[a]n earlier term than racism, but now largely superseded by it”[ii]. We were just barely out of World War II when it began to bear the hateful connotations it has today[iii]. Speaking of today, there are a plethora of versions of racism claimed by those who feel threatened by it, which include, but certainly not limited to Aversive Racism, Colorblindness, Cultural Racism, Economical Racism, and Industrial Racism, all with their own particular subsets[iv].

            So the question which comes to mind is rather a simple one: does racism still exist? Believers shout from the rooftops that, in America, this is a resounding YES! One of the more cited forms is the 2017 Muslim Travel Ban[v], which forbade travelers from seven foreign countries in the Middle East from entering the United States. Going off of the idea that the misgivings of some do not define the populous of the whole, congressional Democrats called this move detestable and it was decided that a third version would remain on the 26th of June, 2018[vi]. We all remember the news of the Trayvon Martin case, which sparked many activists who would later form the group Black Lives Matter, an advocacy group that protested the killings of Black men and women throughout the country from Police Officers and other citizens, normally officers who were Caucasian, but not always. In addition, the group known as ANTIFA (Anti-Fascist) began their exploits as early as the 1930s, but the United States version began turning more violent after the election of President Donald Trump[vii] as a way to fight what they believed to be the incoming of a fascist, racist regime.

            However, there are many, including myself, who believe that there is no such thing as systemic racism. Many Americans point to the fact that Barrack Obama, a half-black man, was elected in a country where 43 percent of the white vote, 23 percent of the South, voted for him[viii]. We have 10.6% of all of the Congressional seats held by Black Americans with only a population of 12.6% of them in the nation[ix][x]! On top of that, 11.7% of actors are black out of, again I say, 12.6% of the entire population of the United States[xi]! If that were set for Whites, there would be 25,898,400 White actors and actresses in the country. Keep in mind, the total number of members of the Screen Actors Guild stands only at 160,000[xii].

            To close, I will extend an olive branch: anyone who is a racist bigot who judges people solely by the color of their skin should be judged as brutally as humanly possible! It is a nasty, disgusting way to treat a human being and these are people who I would not be personally involved with. With that being said, the media, as well as Far-Left politicians, have diluted the term so much that I fear that it has lost all meaning. When you call President Trump a racist, I can follow your logic, even though I disagree. When you begin to call Vice-President Mike Pence a racist, I scratch my head and struggle to see it, though I do understand where you are coming from. However, I’m confused once you call Herman Cain a White Supremacist. It’s simply a political ploy which loses all meaning once you mention those who CLEARLY don’t fill that mold and it is disgusting that someone would stoop so low as to label people with an old wound from the past. Let me make this completely clear: while there may be prejudice still lingering, racism on the scale of the Pre-Civil Rights Movement does not exist anymore. There is no legal condoning of racism, most people don’t have any acceptance of such language or action and most people find most racism appalling. I just think that it’s sickening and hypocritical that the Democratic Party, the one who placed Jim Crow Laws in place, have the audacity to call anyone a Racist Bigot. Look at your history, folks![xiii] I believe that people are so bored that they have to invent oppression. Their lives are so good that there has to be an external reason why they cannot get ahead with minimal effort. I’ll give you the easiest way to die in at a MINIMUM the top 10% of the population:

1.      Graduate high school

2.      Get a job

3.      Don’t do drugs or drink in excess

4.      Don’t have children out of wedlock

5.      Stay out of Jail

If you do these things, no matter what “oppression” you feel is holding you down, you will be successful.

[i] "Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia". Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008. European Union

[ii] "racialism, n." OED Online. September 2013. Oxford University Press.

[iii] Fredrickson, George M. (2002). Racism: A Short History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-691-11652-5.

[iv] Dovidio, John F.; Gaertner, Samuel L., eds. (1986). "The aversive form of racism". Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism. Academic Press. pp. 61–89.

[v] US expands travel ban to include N Korea, BBC "Mr Trump's original ban was highly controversial, as it affected six majority-Muslim countries, and was widely labelled a 'Muslim ban'."

[vi] Liptak, Adam; Shear, Michael D. (June 26, 2018). "Trump's Travel Ban Is Upheld by Supreme Court". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331

[vii] Beinhart, Peter (September 6, 2017). "The Rise of the Violent Left". The Atlantic.

[viii] https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008

[ix] "ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates – 2011–2015". U.S. Census Bureau

[x] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45583.pdf

[xi]https://datausa.io/profile/soc/actors#demographics

[xii] https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/us/screen-actors-guild-fast-facts/index.html

[xiii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

Free Speech Vs. Hate Speech

Here is another topic which is in desperate need of clarity. From the left, any speech which causes emotional harm is hateful and must be regulated. From the Right, you have the right to say anything you like, whenever you like and however you like, provided that it is not a call to action. From firsthand experience, the argument over what is and isn’t free speech summons many ideas and often, these ideas lead to conflict when they are presented together. The Right argues that speech is speech, no matter how others feel about it. On the left, any ideas which cause emotional, psychological or social status trauma, is in need of being condemned and regulated. The truth of this matter is quite difficult to find and different opinions arise whenever the First Amendment is concerned. What is to be done in a manner which is written on paper, taking it at face value that our founding fathers wrote it down or offer our own context? It is crucial that this matter is resolved so that we may move on to more important matters. Once again, I have my own personal bias towards such matters, but will try my best to hold any and all of my opinions until the conclusion.

            First, a little backstory. On 16 December 1966, the United Nations General Assembly proposed The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a multicultural treaty which declared “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law"[i]. Though this is a declaration which has been enforced since 23 March 1976, nearly every country which has signed and ratified the ICCPR have different interpretations of it. Laws against hate speech can be divided into two categories: those which intend to preserve public order and those intended to protect human dignity. Those designed to protect public order require a higher threshold be violated, so they are not specifically enforced frequently. For example, while in Northern Ireland only one person has been found guilty of violation of their hate speech laws while Hate Speech laws in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands tend to be more frequently enforced[ii].

            The laws regarding hate speech throughout the world can be divided into two types: those intended to preserve public order and those intended to protect human dignity. This is something for which I do agree with and is a point which I will give hate speech ideologues, to a point. Preserving public order is essential in the hopes to retain order in the modern era. Iceland’s hate speech law states that action will be taken when “Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years”[iii]. In the Netherlands,  Article 137c proclaims that "He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, intentionally expresses himself insultingly regarding a group of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category”[iv]. These two examples simply regulate bigotry and hold those who discriminate others accountable for their actions by law and offer punishment for their actions. These are just two of the many forms of hate speech laws all around the world which make the attempt to ensure that order is kept throughout the populous.

However, the many definitions of hate speech causes issues among those outside of governments all over the world. For one, there is no ubiquitously accepted hate speech. Someone may insult someone openly in America and not be punished. However, the implying of the same insult could be made in Canada and would lead to imprisonment if you insulted "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or mental or physical disability"[v]. However, if you were insulting someone due to a mental or physical disability in Denmark, you’re off the hook according to their hate speech law[vi]. You could insult Islam in both of the previous countries, provided you didn’t point out anyone when mentioning the faith, but would face some issues in Jordan[vii]. One of the biggest concerns with hate speech laws regulated with legal action and facing criminal punishment is this: nearly EVERY form of speech can be twisted out of context and can ruin people’s lives.

Before I give my opinion, I will point out that I have left social media out of this conversation in its entirety. The reason that I have is a simple one: social media companies are their own entities and may allow or disallow whatever they wish, as is their right. In the same manner, I do believe that there needs to be certain laws concerning speech? I do. However, remember those two goals of hate speech laws from earlier? They are:

·         those intended to preserve public order

·         those intended to protect human dignity

Of the first point, there are several points for which I believe all those on either side of this issue may agree upon. For one, you cannot threaten to kill, assault or call to violence against others for which you do not agree with. Second, you cannot call towards any action which may cause violence, ergo the “can’t yell fire in a theatre when there is no fire”. This is speech which causes violence, but does not include a jackass who says something which offends someone.

This is where I get into where they lose me. What protects human dignity? Is the human dignity line when a racist comment is said? Is the human dignity ideal violated when a “microaggression” is spoken? Is it when someone who is across the room from you points, making you feel uncomfortable and singled out? The best way that I can demonstrate my thought process on this matter would be to provide a script, pointing out where and when I believe someone could be in violation of hate speech(DISCLAIMER: This example is graphic, but only to show what I believe and what I don’t believe is considered a crime and what isn’t. You’ve been warned!):

Neo-Nazi: I hate chinks, pollocks and Negros.

Asian man: Why are you so mean?

Neo-Nazi: Go back to the rice patty and leave this country!

Jewish woman: Why would you support mass genocide?

Neo-Nazi: Because Hitler was a great man and the world would’ve been better without Israel.

Black man: What did we ever do to you?

Neo-Nazi: Get back to the cotton fields!

Bystander: (pulls out baseball bat) I’m gonna kick your ass!

            Let’s review this one act play. Did the Neo-Nazi say hurtful things? Absolutely! Did he bring up old wounds of the past and make the entire populous of White people look terrible? Without a shadow of a doubt, yes! However, was the bystander in the wrong when he threatened the Neo-Nazi with violence? Actually, yes. This is where I believe people get confused when it comes to hate speech laws. The racist bigot can say whatever he likes, at least in the United States, without any repercussions short of being removed from wherever he is currently vomiting this venom and forever be labeled as a racist piece of dirt. Why is he allowed to say these things without any legal ramifications? Because of The First Amendment. He has every right to defame himself and be looked down upon by every decent human being. He is allowed to bury himself in the court of public opinion. Could he gain some supporters if he is still allowed to spread such bile? Probably, but minorities always lose if their ideas are an antonym of the view of the majority.

            This is the problem with this world today. If someone does not like what others say, then they are evil. If they are evil, they must be judged by the court of public opinion, by the court of their peers and family and in the courthouse. If ideas idolized through this concept are taken to the extreme, then everyone on Earth would find themselves in the hot seat, no matter what they intended. In this way, a compliment could be seen as “cat-calling”. Instead of policing our morals and values, we will have to look over every word we say, where we say them and how loud or soft we must say such words. By building a basis of legal proceedings in this manner, everyone will be guilty of causing someone, somewhere, somehow, an offense due to our words. What kind of a curmudgeon would place such an albatross around everyone on Earth’s neck? Must we carry around a checklist on our words, ensuring that we always stay to a metric to avoid jail time for what we say? Calls to actions are violence; taking offense by taking someone’s speech out of context is ignorance.  

[i] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 20

[ii] Bell, Jeannine (Summer 2009). "Restraining the heartless: racist speech and minority rights". Indiana Law Journal. 84: 963–79. Retrieved 9 October 2014.

[iii] Article 233 a.

[iv]  Dutch penal code – article 137c

[v] "Consolidated federal laws of canada, Criminal Code". laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. Legislative Services Branch.

[vi] Danish Penal code, Straffeloven, section 266 B.

[vii] "Jordan, Combined reports submitted for 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007", Reports submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, United Nations, 21 September 2011, accessed 13 September 2012