tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-75719868490784123652024-02-20T02:17:13.765-08:00Love the DilemmasThis is my first ever blog that I am starting to get into the opinion writing field. I plan to write about current issues I am having that pertain to a national if not global theme, and also hot topics of the political world.EmmaJoannehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01709757932071469528noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571986849078412365.post-67057435517116936852010-11-11T18:42:00.000-08:002010-11-11T20:14:57.290-08:0013th Post - AnarchismRecently, I was writing a paper discussing anarchism and Emma Goldman, a famous late 19th, early 20th century anarchist. In my paper, I had to weigh my opinion on my chosen interlocutor's political ideal(s). Anarchism, to me, should be the natural state for man (gender free) to live in. Basically, since the beginning of time, man has organized itself in a way where one or a small group in some way or another control to some degree the lives' of the other men. This pattern has continued in every corner of the world throughout history.<br /><br />I assuredly understand why this pattern has continued. Look at the societies humanity has created for itself based off the ideals of authority and organization. However, one has to come to the realization that in these kind of systems there will never be complete fairness to all the levels of society. But in these urbanized, industrialized times, is anarchism possible? It is doubtful. Humanity has become to dependent to scrub everything it has become reliant on. We would basically have to live in the animal world, who are the perfect examples of anarchism. How?<br /><br />The majority of animals, beside humans, organize themselves into packs, prides, pods...some type of familial group, which is usually the most amount of authority resides. Lions don't have presidents, and dolphins don't have prime minsters. The family is responsible for its life and death. They hunt and/or forage for food, they protect their family from other predators, and create a suitable habitat for their families.<br /><br />When we compare this to how humans behave...humans separate into families, yes, but very large, extended families. Then coworkers, friends, and other acquaintances are added into the social circle. Humans have also created much larger, governmental authorities that, while we like to think we live in a free society, almost completely control our ways of life. In many ways, humanity doesn't just rely on its immediate family for life and death responsibilities. It relies on the companies that make their cars that they are safe to drive to work in the morning. It relies on the companies they work for to provide safe work environments, and to keep them employed to feed their families. They rely on local supermarkets to supply them the food they need for their families.<br /><br />The web gets more and more complex the more you delve into it. Real estate companies make sure you can buy a house, and supply stores provide you the tools and products you need to fill and finish the house and keep it in good shape. The extent to which humans rely on other humans, particularly authoritative groups of humans, is becoming increasingly frightening.<br /><br />The disparaging end to this is that humanity right now, is not capable of living independently, certainly not in America or many other first world states, if any. Many people might find this odd coming from me, since I am firm believer in socialism, like the governments we see in Sweden and Iceland currently. I am a firm believer in socialism because I feel that it is the lesser of the evil directions governments can go in. The true nature of man though, should be free. Free from of the control and manipulation of companies, of governments, and of forced societal constructions.EmmaJoannehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01709757932071469528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571986849078412365.post-20421885447848039042010-10-06T18:09:00.000-07:002010-10-06T19:12:42.916-07:0012th Post - Schools and the Labeling EffectI am posting an assignment for my Schools and Society class, a class that discusses and analyzes the socialization processes schools provide, and the policies that drive schools. The question I am answering is how my ascribed statuses/labels, such as race, gender, age, class, etc. affected my education. Please note that this is my intellectual property and I own all rights to it. Please use correct citation if you would like to use any part of this essay at any time for academic purposes.<br /><br /> <style>@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }p.MsoHeader, li.MsoHeader, div.MsoHeader { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }span.HeaderChar { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"> There are many things about us that we cannot easily change. Everyone comes into the world already dealt a set of circumstances that will impact them their entire lives. The four major attributions that influence a person’s life are race, gender, class and age. Our culture, as well as most cultures in the world have practiced stereotypes that deal with all four of these characteristics. In the United States, whites are superior to blacks and other racial minorities, men are superior to women, the rich superior to the poor. While age does not have such a general stereotype there are many instances in where one age group is preferable over another (older and experienced versus young and fresh, for example).</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style=""> </span>When it comes to education, especially public education, these characteristics collide in usually a very nasty way. Going to high school in Maine provides for me very little insight of the inner workings of racial stereotypes in a classroom. Even with two years of public university education under my belt, I have not come to understand this predicament personally very well. My political science experience has lent me knowledge of places like Arizona, a state that makes racial profiling nothing less than law. I can only gather that their education system makes it much harder for students who belong to<span style=""> </span>a racial minority to graduate and become a truly welcomed member of their school. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style=""> </span>From my own experience, I can explicitly say females are favored over males at any level of education, which is contrary to the general societal stereotype. In college, younger students are usually preferred over older students. I was born moderately lucky; a white middle class female. My race and gender pushed me into the favored group of education without having to lift a finger. I also made sure that I went to college straight after college, therefore becoming one of the most traditional, average students one could find. I was in the top twenty of my graduating class, got accepted into every college I applied to, carried a 3.6 GPA and was in National Honor Society. For sure, I can thank myself and my brain for getting those things. To a point. I can’t help but sit back and wonder if I were born poor, male, or black (or any combination thereof) if my education would have been different. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style=""> </span>While I cannot be completely confident in my assumptions for the future, I can be marginally assured I will have a nice job, possibly with the federal government. I will get married to a white male, probably soon after I finish my Master’s degree. I will have a nice house, with a dog, and one to two children. I will acquire these socially correct objects with many thanks to my education, especially my higher, post-secondary education. I will most likely meet my future partner through school, and make connections to my future career the same way.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style=""> </span>To date, I have reached what could be considered the highest academic level that is normal for my age. While I can thank my dedication from studying and classroom participation to my love of reading and intellectual television shows over sitcoms, can’t I also thank my ascribed statuses? I’m white, so therefore I have been favored. I am female, therefore favored and given more attention from teachers from elementary school until now, my junior year in college. I am middle class, therefore I have a nice home and was given the supplies, orderly home,<span style=""> </span>and supportive and attentive parents I needed to succeed. I have always been the correct age for my education level, thus making me the favored normal yet again.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style=""> </span>No matter where I go in this country, I will be considered an average American. And apparently, in the education system, that makes me special.</p>EmmaJoannehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01709757932071469528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571986849078412365.post-14237012387133760702010-09-18T23:04:00.000-07:002010-09-18T23:57:07.443-07:0011th Post - An Open Letter to President BotmanDear President Botman,<br /><br />I realize the likelihood of you reading this letter is relatively rare, but I feel as if I must make an effort to write down, and share, my feelings about the University I attend.<br /><br />First of all, let me introduce myself. I'm a Junior Political Science student, who one day hopes to be a political commentator/columnist, while also lecturing part time. I work 9 hours a week for the English Department as a work-study student. I'm a member of the Student Conduct Committee, and the Political Science Student Association. I am a student at the University of Southern Maine, I'm an employee at the University of Southern Maine, and I'm also involved with bettering the community in which the University of Southern Maine provides.<br /><br />And I have to tell you, I'm concerned. Mostly I am concerned with the future of the program I plan to get a degree from, the Political Science department. I would hope you, as being University President, would know the POS department very well. Currently we have four (4) professors serving full time, with an adjunct lecturer filling a full time professor's shoes for the Fall 2010 semester. Now I have done the math. There are 390 students who are enrolled in at least one POS class this semester. While certainly this does not rival the English Department who has over 2,000, I am still confused. You are asking the ratio of full time professors in the POS department to be 97.5 students/1 full time professor. That certainly sounds like a lot to me, since the POS department lacks an advising coordinator.<br /><br />Now I understand that the POS department is small, compared to others like English, Nursing, Business, and Music, but in all reality, does that make us less important? The Nursing, Business, and certainly the Music departments have made their names known for being some of the top programs in their field within the state of Maine. But the POS department is still struggling to get air. It certainly has the hope of gaining the same honor that the departments listed above have received, but to do that it needs attention, funding, and a give-a-damn from the University administration. It is the only public POS program in the state worth attending, in my opinion, which I believe is well shared. Thus it has to compete with the likes of Bowdoin, Bates, and Colby, which is certainly not easy to do. The faculty, including Dr. Francesca Vassallo, Dr. Ronald Schmidt, Jr., Dr. Robert Klotz, Dr. Michael Hamilton and Dr. Mahmud Faksh are well published and, frankly, deserve a department that proves that.<br /><br />To give you some ideas: Dr. Faksh is on sabbatical this Fall. I have been told by trustworthy sources that originally the department was going to be allowed to hire a visiting professor to fill his place, since he taught several popular courses. The department was not allowed to hire a visiting a professor though, because of funding issues. Thus, four required courses were cut down to offering only one section by other professors (one of them also being a "J" class), and one 300 level elective that was very popular is not being offered at all. Another popular 300 level elective is also not being offered this semester because of professors being stretched so thin. Only one program required course is being offered with more than one section (two), and that is because it is a widely taken "J" course.<br /><br />This leads, I believe, to several obvious conclusions:<br />1) it should be the wish of the University's administration for USM's POS department to rival those of Bates, Bowdoin, and Colby,<br />2) it should be the wish of the University's administration for USM's POS department to offer more than one section of all program required courses, and for it to be able to offer fully each semester's usual course listings.<br />Thus, several obvious solutions:<br />1) it should be the wish of the University's administration to gather new talent for the USM's POS department's faculty to offer the correct amount of sections and classes, and allow retirement in a few years to several members of the current full time faculty,<br />2) it should be the wish of the University's administration to allow curriculum and department changes which would allow POS students to choose a "track" to follow, which almost all POS programs around the country offer, for example: political theory, international relations/affairs, American politics, European politics, Ethics, etc.<br /><br />Now that you have seen my concerns, conclusions, and solutions, I do hope you will take some of these seriously. You yourself have said that the University is in strong financial shape. I would like you to prove it. Take some initiative, and take a department that is almost floundering, and turn it into the stellar program it could be.<br /><br />Sincerely,EmmaJoannehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01709757932071469528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571986849078412365.post-67996756770818418982010-08-27T21:57:00.000-07:002010-08-27T22:11:04.037-07:0010th Post - New York Mosque BalognaHi there. Now, as most of you have gathered by now, I don't like religion. But out of all the major religions, I have to say I favor Islam more than Christianity. This has happened for several reasons. For one, there seem to be much fewer "half-Muslims" then there are "half-Christians." Islam is much more strict, in sense than Christianity, but yet you still see people following many of these rules. Many women still wear a burqa or hijab, or niqab. Many Muslims still follow the rules of no alcohol, and no pork. How many self-proclaimed Christians do we see who don't judge, love their neighbor, and don't cheat on their wife?<br /><br />I promise I am not trying to categorize people into boxes. But perhaps I am so sick of Christianity because of its two-faced-ness. Yes, Islam has its radicals, but so does Christianity. The Oklahoma City Bombing was carried out by a radical Christian, and how many of these massive cults that make the news come from radical sects of Christianity?<br /><br />My base point is, no matter how much some of these religious behaviors bother me, in this country you have the right, until a certain point, to practice what you believe. Part or practicing your religion is building houses of worship (for most religions) and going there to practice your faith with other members of that community. The fact that so many people are trying to deny the construction of a mosque near ground zero is not only rude, but unconstitutional. I do see how some people consider it rude, and impolite to build a mosque there, but there is already a mosque there, and they simply want to build a new one in the community they already belong in.<br /><br />Plus, has anyone looked at the Ground Zero site lately? It's trashed. It's gross. If this is supposed to be a memorial, a place for people to come to remember, mounds of dirt and scaffolding is not going to do the job. It truly worries me that our politicians and citizens are too busy being worried about a religious group trying to practice hope and love and peace (which IS what Islam teaches), than to memorialize a site they consider oh so sacred.<br /><br />If it wasn't an election year, I truly wonder how different the response, from both sides of the aisle, would have been. We can only wonder, and hope that the Constitution is upheld.EmmaJoannehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01709757932071469528noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571986849078412365.post-35073987840841632292010-08-08T20:21:00.001-07:002010-08-08T22:22:26.602-07:009th Post - Go to Hell, Bishop JacksonThis post is in response to this article: <a href="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/08/opinion-same-sex-marriage-will-hurt-families-society/?iref=allsearch"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/08/opinion-same-sex-marriage-will-hurt-families-society/?iref=allsearch</span></a><br /><br />Now, full disclaimer on my part...I don't like religion, and I am a full supporter of gay rights. So let the tearing apart commence.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">italicized text = Bishop Jackson's points<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span>normal text = my points<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"The institution of marriage is unique. It is the one institution that binds women and men together to form a family, and this serves broad societal purposes.<span style="font-style: italic;">"</span><br /></span>-->Agreed. The institution of marriage is unique and is very important to society. It does create families, and serves broad societal purposes, but how these purposes become ruined when the partners of a marriage are the same sex is still something that, to me, cannot be proved in any sane way.<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span></span>"The majority of Californians, including two-thirds of the state's black voters, have just had their core civil right -- the right to vote -- stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his views on the state's people."</span><br />-->Well now we have issues. Sure, 52%, which was the "majority" that passed Prop 8 is a legal majority. But it's a TINY majority, and of course not every registered voter in the state voted. And I also believe that if the 16 and 17 year olds were allowed to vote, the majority would have swung the other way. We are still seeing a generation gap in the voting process, and soon enough, that gap will be gone. I also find it interesting that within the same paragraph the black bishop brings up the numbers of black voters, and then continues to talk about civil rights. Um, are you confused? I do believe that it was federal judges and not the process of citizen voting that got blacks the right to vote they deserve, and also ended the horrid Jim Crow laws. Please review your history, sir. OH, and one more note, this "openly federal gay judge" was a Reagan appointee. Yea I am sure he is SO liberal minded.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"The implicit comparison Judge Vaughn Walker made between racism and opposition to same-sex marriage is particularly offensive to me and to all who remember the reality of Jim Crow. It is not bigotry, it is biology that discriminates between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples."</span><br />--> I believe I already covered the idiocy of the first part of this statement. Keeping people from legal, state rights over something they cannot change is discrimination. You, Bishop, are black, and you cannot change that. That should not keep you from marrying the partner of your choice. At one point, you were not allowed to. Gay people are gay, and they cannot change that, and that should not keep them from marrying the partner of their choice. And biology? Just because a heterosexual couple has parts that fit together a little better, and that can procreate doesn't mean that is the only way to validate a loving relationship. The common points of couples who cannot conceive, single mothers/fathers, and other such families are fighting back against this idea of procreation creating a family.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><br />"A marriage requires a husband and a wife, because these unions are necessary to make new life and connect children to their mother and father. Judge Walker's decision will not stand the test of time and history. Congress and the Supreme Court must act to protect all Americans' right to vote for marriage."</span><br />--> Once again, the bias here against families who simply do not want to have children or cannot have children is frightening. Also, many gay/lesbian families have a myriad of options to have children. Adoption, surrogacy, and sperm donors, there is nothing wrong with these options! In fact, let's take a quick look at the upside. Adoption = less children who don't have families. Surrogacy = a great way for a couple to have a child of their own, while providing a job for a woman who enjoys pregnancy. Sperm donors = well, all that sperm is just sitting there doing nothing... And honestly Bishop Jackson, you don't believe this will stand the test of time? This exact statement was also uttered by people who didn't want women to have the right to vote, one of their main concerns being how the Bible taught that women were not of equal stature to men. It was uttered by people who did not believe that your race should have the right to vote, to not be property, and not have the right to marry who they choose, one of their main pieces of evidence being that the Bible clearly taught them that there was a superior race. I believe the solutions to those problems stood the test of time Bishop, and you should be thankful for it, as I am.<br /><br />And I understand, Bishop, that your Bible tells you that heterosexual marriage is the only type of marriage. But you need to understand several things you obviously don't: 1) The Bible was written by man, in a time where things were taught very differently than now. 2) Our founding fathers were beyond clear that our founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were in no way based upon a religious ideology, and that they enforce the separation of government created laws and free will of people to practice their own beliefs. 3) Those founding documents stress the equality of all citizens.<br /><br />I think it is time that you Bishop, open up a book other than the Bible or Texas created textbook and learn about the history of civil rights, including the part about your own race, and how once civil rights are expanded, the United States becomes more of the democracy it is meant to be.EmmaJoannehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01709757932071469528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571986849078412365.post-33320814057199038872010-07-30T18:59:00.000-07:002010-07-30T19:34:30.944-07:008th Post - Why The Tea Party is CrazyLet's reveal my bias, first and foremost. I despise the Tea Party. Not just because it's a neo-conservative movement, but because it's a really fucking stupid one. I am tired of seeing "Don't Tread on Me" flags and bumper stickers being flown outside houses and being slapped on vehicles on politically indolent imbeciles who have no appreciation of what that flag means.<br /><br />So first off, a history lesson! The DTOM flag, also known as the Gadsden Flad, was first flown over 250 years ago. During the period of time we American citizens like to call the Revolution. You know, that REALLY important thing where they decided to kick Britain out of the country and found the United States of America and a centralized government with a constitution with its most important focus being on the freedom of religion? BREATHE. Yeah, THAT.<br /><br />I am getting some of my information from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag</a>, the other stuff I just know from paying attention in school and watching the History Channel way too much, if there is such a thing. So, basically, the rattlesnake represents the fact that England was being the biggest bitch possible to us, so Ben Franklin joked that a great way of being bitchy back was to throw some rattlesnakes their way. The "Don't Tread on Me" statement is pretty straightforward. You are over there, we are over here. Leave us alone, or we'll bite you with our venomous fangs.<br /><br />So why is the Tea Party stupid for using this flag? Because simply, it has nothing to do with their main mission statement of stripping away a strong centralized government, civil rights, and being entirely racist. Sure, you can go look at their website and it all looks fine and dandy. They want fiscal responsibility and a constitutionally limited government. Sweet! But let's look at some things they don't agree with, and then check back with that good ol' Constitution.<br />Health Care Reform: They don't want government regulated health care because it oversteps the bounds of the government into the private sector. Constitution says: Article I, Section VIII - "provide for the common Defence and general <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE">Welfare</a> of the United States; but all Duties, <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST">Imposts</a> and <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE">Excises</a> shall be uniform throughout the United States." Huh, so general welfare? And it should be uniform throughout the United States? Sounds pretty legit to me...<br />Gay Marriage: They don't like it, cause it's all anti-Christian and that good stuff. Constitution says: Nothing (Except that whole "right to privacy" thing). Interesting. You mean, marriage isn't legally defined as between and woman and a man only?! But it still isn't legal? Weeeeird...<br />Abortion: Once again, they don't like it cause it kills a bunch of cells that will probably turn out to be another human (like we don't have enough of those already). Constitution says: Nothing, again...(except that whole "right to privacy" deal...again). You mean, abortion isn't illegal?! Oh, and the Supreme Court decided that abortion was legal under the right to privacy statute? This statement sums it up quite well: "The opinion of the <i>Roe</i> Court, written by Justice <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Blackmun" title="Harry Blackmun">Harry Blackmun</a>, declined to adopt the district court's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Ninth Amendment</a> rationale, and instead asserted that the 'right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.'"<br /><br />So these THREE major things that the Tea Party stands against, are actually and could actually be easily enforced by the Constitution? The very document they use to further their radical movement? Once the ridiculous contradictions that are the driving force behind this movement are discovered, the Tea Party will hopefully be no more.EmmaJoannehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01709757932071469528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571986849078412365.post-4851832230126570702010-06-30T20:05:00.001-07:002010-06-30T20:34:56.842-07:007th Post - We Are All HumanQuick question: What do illegal immigrants, gays, women, men, Muslims, and children all have in common?<br />Quick answer: They are all human.<br /><br />Which may seem like the obvious answer, of course. But think deeply into it. They are human. Human. HUMAN.<br />Sunk in yet?<br /><br />Let's think about it this way. A new family moves in next door. A nice white, middle class family. Two kids and a golden retriever. They seem nice enough. You do your part to welcome them to the neighborhood right? Perhaps bake a plate of cookies, introduce your kids...hey! maybe schedule a play date.<br /><br />But let's say it happened this way. The new family is Latino and they don't speak a lot of English. They seem frightened and slightly skiddish. What are you first thoughts about them? Do immediately go over and offer cookies and set up a play date, or do you hang back? Something about them just kind of rubs you the wrong way. You can make up excuses for yourself, but the fact remains that, perhaps, part of the fear you feel is that this family is here illegally.<br /><br />Now, my next question is, what makes a human being illegal? I found a bumper sticker lately that stated "No Human Being is Illegal." And I rather liked it. Why? Because it is without a doubt one of the most honest things I have ever read.<br /><br />We humans tend to forget that everyone else on this Earth is just like us. We let things like lines on a map and nationalities and documents get in the way of happiness and freedom, and simply LIFE. There is nothing about a single human being that makes them deserving of a life shoved in a third world nation under a dictatorship that strips away everything it means to be human.<br /><br />We deport people, we tell them they don't belong, they aren't welcome, they aren't one of us. Well, what would? They, if anything, exemplify the true American spirit. The pull yourself up from your bootstraps idealistic view of the world. They come from nothing to try to make something. And they are punished for that. Does anyone truly believe that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin would have asked these people to leave? I think most of you can figure out the answer.<br /><br />Does illegal immigration cause problems? Of course it does. But not because of the people, but because of the system. Hunting and deportation just pushes illegal immigration more under the rug and forces the immigrants to further hide themselves, and a vicious cycle erupts. And this cycle needs to end, and soon. The better our government handles the onslaught of immigrants, the better our country will fair for all. It is simply a matter of action and reform.<br /><br />Land of opportunity? My ass.EmmaJoannehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01709757932071469528noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571986849078412365.post-75819393037838786452010-06-15T20:07:00.001-07:002010-06-15T20:25:50.381-07:006th Post - My Atheism ArgumentWell it appears as if I have been neglecting my blog...oops!<br /><br />To introduce this topic: Stephen Prothero, author of the book <em>God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World</em> was a guest on The Colbert Report the other night. This led him to writing a short post on CNN's Belief Blog, where I read a lot of things that frankly pissed me off. Prothero doesn't give much attention to atheism, and when he does, he does it in the way of shining it with a yellow, dirty light you would be likely to find in a bathroom too dirty for a hooker to shoot up in. He exemplifies that atheists consider the world's religions as, "all religions are one and bad." Well that's rude.<br /><br />I commented on the article, specifically to Prothero, saying this:<br /><br />"The poison, I feel as being an atheist, that other atheists refer to is that of irrationality. The belief that some unknown, unseen being created everything on this world, while pushing clear reasons and explanations of science and evolution aside is irrational. By simply calling atheism's view on religions as "bad and all the same" is demeaning to the practice of atheism. Atheism, to me, and many other atheists is the practice of choice, freedom, and individuality. It is also astounding to me how you say atheism has a very little impact on the world. Perhaps now, it cannot overcome the cruel practices and bigotry of organized religion, but it is certainly trying to. Atheists are some of the biggest supporters of gay rights, pro-choice, and peace movements. When atheism becomes a stronger influence in America and the world at large, there will be a greater sense of peace, rationality, and hope."<br /><br />He had, commented earlier in the comments section, that atheism has very little impact on the world, which also made me quite angry, not for the honesty behind the words, but from the future meaning.<br /><br />Atheism is a weak belief system (which I am comfortable calling it), compared to the strength behind Islamic and Christian belief, specifically the terrifying power of the Catholic Church (which could equal a blog post within itself). It does not have a book, or a set of rules, or anyone to answer to except yourself. With those aspects, it becomes less cult like, and thus a less formidable opponent against the irrationality that religion is.<br /><br />I can only hope that rationality and atheism grows, and the push for true secular societies and communities gets stronger. When we stop looking up at the sky for answers, and turn our thoughts, hopes, and actions towards the living human beings on this planet, the world will be a much better place.EmmaJoannehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01709757932071469528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571986849078412365.post-54055700425199472922010-05-13T13:05:00.000-07:002010-05-13T13:42:50.443-07:005th Post - Why I'm Pro-ChoiceHello everyone! Once again I have neglected my blog for way too long, but I am now officially on summer break and have a lot for motivation to write for the...fun...of it. In my fifth post I will be tackling the very politically social issue of abortion, and why I have come to be pro-choice.<br /><br />First of all, let's look at the stance of pro-lifers, who, in my opinion, should be called anti-choice. The practical stance for AC supporters is that life begins at conception, thus the termination of any pregnancy is purposely ending a human life, thus abortion is murder. Most of the other arguments revolve around this kind of argument, give or take. I am going to go out on a limb and say the AC perspective is kind of simple. They believe, for the most part, that abortions should not be legal, unless the mother's life is in danger, or in the case of rape and incest. There are also other situations where the baby has some kind of permanent disability or disease that is going to most likely cause a miscarriage or still-born birth. AC stance? Check.<br /><br />Now, for the PC stance. It is difficult to define exactly what a fetus is. Is it a baby? Not in the first trimester, or into the beginning of the second. It is simply not capable of living on its own, and relies on the mother for all life sustaining, well, everything. Will it be a baby? Yes, most likely. Is it yet? No.<br /><br />My other point that goes along with the first is that women are not incubators. They are the one gender of our species that can reproduce, so why should they have to, just because they can? I am certainly not saying that all fathers run out on their children, but many do, especially in unmarried couples. I'll say it again. Women are not incubators. We have brains, and we have uteri, and we should be able to use both at the same time.<br /><br />There also seems to be speculation that all women who get knocked up either want the baby, or deserve to get pregnant because they made the choice to have sex so it's their fault and they need to deal with the consequences. There are several very wrong ideas in that argument. For one, it has been stated that around 95% of people have sex before they get married. I have also read several articles where most of the women getting abortions used at least one type of birth control. So these women should have to deal with raising a kid for the rest of their life, or putting a kid in the "system" for who knows how many years, because they were doing what the rest of humanity does AND being responsible?<br /><br />Also, we should weigh the consequences of having an abortion and having a child. An abortion, while, yes does not let what most likely will be a normal human life continue, society is not impacted by this. It has not had a life taken away from it. There will be a difference of opinion here if you believe from the moment of conception that a person has a complete life destiny and that if the mother has an abortion she could be killing the next Nobel Peace Prize winner or something. But please, realistically, letting one less person into the planet means one less person in an already over populated planet. One less mother who would probably be on social welfare. One less kid who might wind up in the foster system for years. I am a huge fan of the statement "every child a wanted child."<br /><br />I understand that some of these arguments sound cruel, but I stand by them for the mere fact that women deserve choice. Even if you are anti-abortion, it is hard to be anti-woman. I don't like abortion, and I don't think it should be a necessary tool in this world. Hopefully as technology progresses, more reliable forms of birth control will be created, so abortions won't have to even matter anymore. But, right now, if you take away a woman's right to abortion, you give her back alley abortions, and other horrific references that go along with coat hangers.<br /><br />If abortions weren't allowed, over 44 million more people and <span style="font-style: italic;">their</span> offspring would be in the United States today. Does society feel the strain of these "missing people?" It doesn't seem so. In fact, we are just barely keeping up with taking care of the people in this country as is.EmmaJoannehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01709757932071469528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571986849078412365.post-3653124714183891522010-03-27T22:25:00.000-07:002010-03-27T23:15:45.858-07:004th Post - ImmigrationSorry for not updating this for a bit...vacation makes a person lazy!<br /><br />Now, immigration is something that I have had mixed views on for awhile now. I used to take the stance of, if you are an illegal immigrant then you should be kicked out of the country. But now I look at the issue of illegal immigrants differently. Many citizens in this country take their citizenship for granted. We were born here, raised here, never really questioned what our home country was to us. And we were never questioned by it. But what about our parents? Or, if not our parents, our grandparents, or if not out grandparents, our great-grandparents? And so on. Unless you are a full-blooded Indian (which I use that term out of respect since most Indians I know prefer not to be called Native Americans, since their ancestors were not native to an "America"), you do not come from this country. This country became the country you live in because someone in your family in the past chose to do possibly the hardest cultural thing a human being has to do and that is to emigrate to another nation.<br /><br />I am personally a mutt of Russian, Irish, and English...and probably a whole lot of other things. I know mainly about my Russian history. My dad's mother's father (paternal-maternal great-grandfather?)lived in Russia and came to America on a boat, and landed at Ellis Island. My family still has his original documents (er, somewhere, they do seem to MIA at the moment) from when he became an American citizen. That's how I am here, I call this country my home, but I could just as easily call Russia my home.<br /><br />So I begin to wonder. Why do we hate these people so much now, that just want what our predecessors wanted for us? And no, you may think it is easy to get that American citizenship so many of millions of people want, but it's not.<br /><br />http://www.immigrationdirect.com/?gclid=CO3Ey8rc2qACFQk65QodFjMtCQ<br /><br />If you follow that link, you will go to the official US Immigration site. It's rather confusing about a) what you need to actually do, compared to b) helpful things to do, and c) what order you should do them in. And while there is an option to change the site's language, it starts off in English, which I can only imagine is going to confuse people who aren't fluent in English a lot more.<br /><br />This also seems to be something that people complain about a lot, the "I shouldn't have to press 1 for English" thing. Oh, that's right, because we are a totally one culture nation that should not give people the option of being able to fully understand what they are doing. Right, makes a whole lot of sense. Also, I don't believe it is honestly that difficult to press a button to continue whatever call you are making. The lack of respect for the new immigrants in a country that was based upon the idea of immigration and starting over and FREEDOM of all kind is beyond frightening.<br /><br />It's frightening:<br />* That we complain about new immigrants having jobs that most other citizens would never even apply for (in my experience: mall janitors, apple pickers, gas station attendants, stock-room workers at grocery stores) just because they will take on any job that will keep them in this country, and so they can help their family.<br /><br />* That we complain about groups of immigrants (such as the Somalian population in Portland) when we could never know the every day terror they lived through, and what coming to America represents for them<br /><br />* That it is such a complicated process to even become an American citizen when we complain about what illegal immigrants due to society (if we made it easier for them to be LEGAL then it would be better for EVERYONE).<br /><br />* That we are building walls and fences to keep people out, instead of building doors to let people in in a safe, proper, and official manner.<br /><br /><br />Do you understand what having so many MILLIONS of undocumented people in this country does to it? It stresses the health care system, the education system, the economy...<br /><br />Health Care: People who don't have insurance or who are illegal tend to use Emergency Rooms as their main physician and pharmacy, since having a normal physician is much more complicated. This takes precious time away from severely injured people who really do need the expertise of ER staffs, and many bills can go unpaid.<br /><br />Education: Children of illegal immigrants are usually not sent to school, since many home demographics are needed in any student's file. This means that in the coming generations, the education level of the citizens of America is going to be extremely stratified, with many people with little education looking for jobs they will not be skilled for.<br /><br />Economy: Many illegal immigrants work for pennies on the dollar, creating a horrific system of don't ask, don't tell. Employers pay their undocumented workers wages that they couldn't get away with documented citizens. In return, employers keep their profits up, and they don't sell out their employees to the state. This brings down the already hurting American economy, when people are being paid just enough to get by, if that, instead of paying them a fair amount, which they could put back into the system more than when they are making a dollar an hour.<br /><br />My basic point is this. We don't need the fences, we don't need all the rules. We need more centers, more help, and more understanding for the people trying to emigrate to the USA today. They deserve to live here, just like we do. Their languages, cultures and customs should be welcomed, not pushed away.<br /><br />The New Colossus<br /><br />"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,<br />With conquering limbs astride from land to land;<br />Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand<br />A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame<br />Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name<br />Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand<br />Glows <span style="font-style:italic;">world-wide welcome</span>; her mild eyes command<br />The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.<br />"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she<br />With silent lips. 'Give me your tired, your poor,<br />Your huddled masses <span style="font-style:italic;">yearning to breathe free</span>,<br />The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.<br />Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,<br />I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'"<br />-The Statue of Liberty, written by Emma LazarusEmmaJoannehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01709757932071469528noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571986849078412365.post-57119853210972853552010-03-11T18:52:00.000-08:002010-03-11T19:48:34.053-08:003rd Post - Why Agnosticism?This is a very thought involved entry. So let's begin.<br /><br />Facebook asks you to identify your religion, if you choose to have that information shown. Even if you don't fill in the box, it still makes you think. When I first made a facebook when I was 17, or 18, I automatically answered Christian - Protestant...because up until that point, that's who I was. No ifs, ands, or buts. I went to church, I was a cute little Sunday school kid who went to a small community church with a reverend who raised cattle. But every time I saw my profile, every time I saw that label of myself, it didn't feel right. I am not a Bible thumper, I don't pray really. I don't spend my life wondering how what I am doing looks like to god. So I came to the realization that I am really not a protestant. And in fact, I don't really agree with the Bible on much. For instance:<br /><br />1) When God floods the Earth and kills everything on it except for Noah's family, and two of every kind of animal (except Unicorns, you know. Poor buggers).<br />2) When God kills every first born son except for the people who got the message to put blood on their door (apparently they should have signed up for text message alerts).<br />3) All the RIDICULOUS, non-modern rules that people have to pick and choose to live by.<br />Some of these rules include not being homosexual (even though it has been proven that people can be genetically homosexual, oh but that's right, that whole Bible and science conflict...), not socializing with women when they are having their period (cause girls have cooties ewww!), and not eating shrimp, lobster, or any other kind of shellfish (guess the whole state of Maine is out of luck).<br /><br />When you read these rules, you probably think, well the Bible is an ancient text and was written in an entirely different time and these rules are not to be taken literally. And that is correct. We understand how menstrual periods work now, and aren't as entirely grossed out by it. We also know how to properly eat such sea creatures without getting sick. But we also don't offer gay people the same rights as other people...and most people vote against referendums (in my opinion) for equal rights for homosexuals because of their religious views. I don't understand why people can pick and choose things from the Bible to follow, and how other rules are kicked to the curb. And it is this misunderstanding and the judgment that comes from it that turns me away from organized religion and the Bible in general.<br /><br />Moving away from the Bible, I want to discuss about what organized religion has done for the world. Sure, it has inspired millions. But it has also started a large amount of wars by men simply screaming, "God wills it!". It has been the cause of discrimination, bigotry, hate, and murder that cannot be denied. How am I supposed to believe in something that tells me my friends are sinners because of the way they were born? <br /><br />Being agnostic became the answer for me. Being an agnostic does not deny the existence of a god, simply that you reject the unquestioning beliefs of organized religion, and that it cannot be proven whether a god exists...it also fights back against atheism, arguing that it cannot be proven that NO god exists. Would I like it if one day a god stepped down from the sky and said he was protecting all of us? Absolutely. But for now, I don't see how that is possible.<br /><br />And no, I don't live in fear that I won't go to heaven when I die, or hell. I don't need to live by a religious code to be moral. I don't need commandments to tell me how to treat people. If anything, I am proud of myself. I am a considerate, decent, moral, human being that is willing to question teachings and the world I live in. I can be moral without being told to be, or fearing being punished if I am not.<br /><br />But no, I will not live by a code, or fear, or by a book. Until undeniable evidence of a god, until all people are treated equally under a religion, until love is the REAL lesson of any god or religion. Agnostic I will be. Agnostic, and happy.EmmaJoannehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01709757932071469528noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571986849078412365.post-37486929940231956742010-03-10T14:35:00.000-08:002010-03-10T17:03:39.933-08:002nd Post - Chuck Klosterman's 23 QuestionsThese questions were posed by a man named Chuck Klosterman...they are very involved questions with very short answers. Due to the depth of the questions though, I shall only be answering five here. You can find all the questions at: http://melanism.com/2006/07/chuck-klostermans-23-questions-i-ask.html<br /><br /><br />"2. Let us assume a fully grown, completely healthy Clydesdale horse has his hooves shackled to the ground while his head is held in place with thick rope. He is conscious and standing upright, but completely immobile. And let us assume that--for some reason--every political prisoner on earth (as cited by Amnesty International) will be released from captivity if you can kick this horse to death in less than twenty minutes. You are allowed to wear steel-toed boots.<br /><br />Would you attempt to do this?"<br /><br />My answer: Absolutely not. For one, no animal should be abused EVER. Also, not all political prisoners are innocent. For all I know, I could be taking the life of an innocent animal to let a group of terrorists out into the world. These prisoners should have a fair trial before they are released, and not just because of the death of a horse.<br /><br />"9. A novel titled Interior Mirror is released to mammoth commercial success (despite middling reviews). However, a curious social trend emerges: Though no one can prove a direct scientific link, it appears that almost 30 percent of the people who read this book immediately become homosexual. Many of these new found homosexuals credit the book for helping them reach this conclusion about their orientation, despite the fact that Interior Mirror is ostensibly a crime novel with no homoerotic content (and was written by a straight man).<br /><br />Would this phenomenon increase (or decrease) the likelihood of you reading this book?"<br /><br />My answer: I really don't think it would change my opinion on reading the book. If I thought the plot was interesting, I would probably try to get my hands on a copy at some point. If not, then who cares? Also, my assumption would be that this book is not making people gay, or helping people realize they're gay, but that one person said that it helped them discover they were gay, so another person had an, "OMG that must mean I am gay too!" moment that led to many other people having the same kind of moments and then a fad erupts and several months later these people are saying they were just confused and are back to being straight.<br /><br />"15. You have a brain tumor. Though there is no discomfort at the moment, this tumor would unquestionably kill you in six months. However, your life can (and will) be saved by an operation; the only downside is that there will be a brutal incision to your frontal lobe. After the surgery, you will be significantly less intelligent. You will still be a fully functioning adult, but you will be less logical, you will have a terrible memory, and you will have little ability to understand complex concepts or difficult ideas. The surgery is in two weeks.<br /><br />How do you spend the next fourteen days?" <br /><br />My answer: The better question would be how would I spend the next six months since I would certainly not have the surgery. I enjoy my intelligence and living pretty much as a vegetable does not sound appealing to me at all. I would probably stop paying for school and move back home to spend as much time with my family as possible...and also spending as much time with my boyfriend as possible. I would still try to keep in contact with the professors that mean a lot to me at school, just not spend all my time in classes, since I wouldn't be getting a degree anyway. Honestly, I would eat a lot of yummy food and go play outside whenever possible. I have always been a "little things" person...no need to make grand trips to go see other parts of the world. Dirt is just dirt, but home cooked food is priceless.<br /><br />"3. Let us assume there are two boxes on a table. In one box, there is a relatively normal turtle; in the other, Adolf Hitler's skull. You have to select one of these items for your home. If you select the turtle, you can't give it away and you have to keep it alive for two years; if either of these parameters are not met, you will be fined $999 by the state. If you select Hitler's skull, you are required to display it in a semi-prominent location in your living room for the same amount of time, although you will be paid a stipend of $120 per month for doing so. Display of the skull must be apolitical.<br /><br />Which option do you select?"<br /><br />My answer: For one, Hitler's skull should be nowhere near my house. I'm a believer in the paranormal side of things and I just really wouldn't like the idea of such an evil person's HEAD being displayed in my house. A conversation starter, sure...peace of mind? Not so much. Besides I love animals and am pretty sure I could keep a turtle alive and happy.<br /><br />"7. Defying all expectation, a group of Scottish marine biologists capture a live Loch Ness Monster. In an almost unbelievable coincidence, a bear hunter in the Pacific Northwest shoots a Sasquatch in the thigh, thereby allowing zoologists to take the furry monster into captivity. These events happen on the same afternoon. That evening, the president announces he may have thyroid cancer and will undergo a biopsy later that week.<br /><br />You are the front page editor of The New York Times: What do you play as the biggest story?"<br /><br />My answer: The biggest story is by far the president possibly having thyroid cancer. The ramifications of the leader of our country having cancer are far greater than that we have finally captured a couple creatures that we already have some evidence of anyways. The American people need to be ready for the possibility of the president having to step down or relinquish more duties to the VP. Also, scientists need time to study the Sasquatch and Loch Ness Monster before the public goes wild about it. I would try to help control the story so people don't go out and do crazy things, like dive to the bottom of Loch Ness Lake to try to find the mate of the captured monster. You never really know what people are going to do.EmmaJoannehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01709757932071469528noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571986849078412365.post-87743773054242387342010-03-09T21:05:00.000-08:002010-03-09T21:31:46.946-08:001st Post - Allergies on CampusLet's just put it this way: I don't want to die because someone forgot to put on a label that there was non-fat dry milk in the chicken noodle soup. <br /><br />For people who don't live with food allergies, eating is a "what do I want" habit, versus the food allergy sufferer's, "what is here that won't kill me" habit. Now that I am almost twenty, going grocery shopping isn't a problem. I'm a big girl who can read labels, and with the new handy dandy FDA law passed a few years back, the major allergies need to be specifically mentioned below the normal ingredients list. But going to restaurants, eating food made by someone else at a friend's house, or heaven forbid eating on my college campus? Those situations can be downright bitchy.<br /><br />For instance, restaurants commonly don't have the ingredients list for a lot of their shipped in food, since the packaging, with the label on it gets thrown out. That means that the waiter/waitress, who I ask to check if there are certain deathly components of a specific meal, really can't be sure if they food they are going to serve me is going to fill me up with yummy-ness, or send me to the hospital in an ambulance. Another fun fact is a lot of people don't know what "dairy" truly is. My allergy, which doesn't let me eat anything derived from a cow (we are talking I can't have gelatin people, which is made up of ground cow and horse hooves and bones...THAT MEANS NO JELL-O) includes the normal things like...cheese, but a lot of people don't know that whey and sodium caseinate (casein) are ALSO total milk products that will make me very sick. It's not their fault, just makes restaurant eating harder for me.<br /><br />The last problem I talked about with restaurants, people not being aware of certain ingredients, is a main problem I have eating with friends at their houses. People assume things are fine without checking labels, or if they do, not recognizing things on them. I have to be pesky and annoying, but a couple of times it has saved my butt.<br /><br />Now onto my main issue, campus food. I go to college at a state school in Maine, that has quite a few nice dining areas. But there are two problems there are 1) the amount of food offered there that I would even begin to think that I could possibly have is ridiculously minimal and 2) there are not ingredient labels on anything that was made on campus AND when I ask an employee they "have no idea because it wasn't made here." Well honestly, do I give a shit where on campus it was made? That would be a no. For one there should be ingredient labels in the first place to prevent this kind of situation (remember that FDA law I mentioned?). Also, if you sell it to the student body, you should be able to tell them what is in the damn food. Maybe I am selfish for asking this, I don't know. But what I do know is that any student, faculty member or staff member at my school with food allergies is going to have an extremely tough time finding something they know is safe to eat. And that is just not right.<br /><br />MILLIONS of people suffer from some kind of food allergy or intolerance. The victims of such conditions, people like me, should not be forced to always have to be on the defensive, especially when solutions are so simple! A little more effort could go a long way when it comes to this issue.EmmaJoannehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01709757932071469528noreply@blogger.com0