Censorship and Why I Consider it Evil

The term "Evil" is not a label I seriously use often.  It's an incredibly strong word, and it has many different undertones.  However, I believe it to be appropriate for this topic.

Censorship.  I loathe it.  I hate censoring myself, and I don't expect other people to do it in front of me.  I don't condone extreme, harmful, and bad behavior, but masking it only gives more power to the act because society is thus prevented from addressing it.

I'm going to give examples in the following areas: Video Games, Music, and TV/Cinema.  I will explain why I think the particular incidents of censorship are bad, while concluding with how to deal with the problems inherent in the art.

Ah, my beloved "Vidja" Games.  I'm a gamer, not a dedicated one, and certainly not really good at them, but I love them and play them often.  Video games are a much sought target of Parents, Family Values Activists, and others for censorship and restrictive legislation.  Why? Because they are popular and interactive.  It's one thing to watch a fictional murder, yet quite different to fictionally commit said murder by interacting with a fictional character in order to throw fictional bullets at another fictional character.  Yet, violence is rarely censored in Video Games (save for ManHunt 2 where the previously allowed murder techniques where represented by some acid trip nonsense).  Now sex, sex is almost universally censored in all media these days.  Take, for instance, Grand Theft Auto.  Sleeping with prostitutes, once allowed in Vice City, was taken out of subsequent instalments.  As a PvP Online comic strip once expressed, it doesn't make much sense to allow a player to run over infinite amounts of pedestrians without much consequence (cops are easy to outrun), but then to prevent the player from engaging in the world's oldest business.  Seriously, in Vice City all you saw was the car rocking, but you can cut appendages off with accompanying blood squirts all day long.  Why is sex worse than violence?  The presence of sex AND violence is already indicated on the box.  If a parent or child is stupid enough to disregard that, then they shouldn't be allowed to purchase their own groceries.  Honestly, if you're that thick then you probably get the milk and alcohol aisles at Vons mixed up.  Here's an idea, the age restrictions remain in place, parent's take responsibility for their kids, and my video games are left alone.  The game is called Grand Theft Auto, not Pony Commander III: Fellowship of the Sheep (or is that, Fellowsheep?).  If you see a game like RapeLay, don't sell it to kids, and parents, exercise some common sense.

I don't even play GTA any longer as I got bored with the gameplay.  Yet, if Rayne from the BloodRayne series had giant black bars all over her each time she spun on a lamp post in her unique stripper style murder methods, I'd be just as incensed.  That fictional character got a centerfold in PlayBoy, yet no one complained!  Why?  Because for some reason it's easier or less hated when kids their hands on porn than video games.

Music is more important to me than video games, and sometimes even food.  Music has been a part of my life for as long as I can remember.  Hearing a song that has been edited for time or content infuriates me for multiple reasons.  Firstly, it completely ruins the flow of a song.  I feel sorry for any rap fans who listen to regular radio, it must be a nightmare.  Why doesn't music played over the radio carry the same warnings as those sold in stores?  How difficult is it to say, "This station features music that contains elements of ho's, guns, drugs, sex, hatred, etc.  It may not be suitable for everyone."  Run that every commercial break.  Problem solved, jerks.

Secondly, it ruins the artistic expression.  If I released a song (and I intend to one day), that contained something about sex, violence, or even just an intense and dark emotion, and someone censored it, I would be deeply insulted.  I personally don't throw certain words and elements into my poetry or songs without express intention, they are part of the story and expression, and to take it out is to change the song.  Songs are open to interpretation, NOT to presentation.  If someone wants to cover a song and change it, that's entirely different.

TV/Cinema I've paired together even though both are handled slightly different.  Cinema is often left alone because one has to purchase a ticket/dvd individually.  There's more personal control available to the viewer.  TV is potentially on for the public at all times, thus certain demographics are kept in mind.  This I have less of a problem with because I agree that children shouldn't be exposed to certain things without a parent present.

HOWEVER, why does Comedy Central, a channel devoted to adult-oriented humor, run censored movies? Parents, tell your kids what Comedy Central is, and leave the movies and shows alone!  Oh, what do I care? Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and the internet in general is killing TV anyway, I don't even watch it any more.

On a serious note, there are so many channels, TV interface should let someone format what they want to watch and when.  Let there exist a censored version of the shows that someone can opt into, don't let it be the norm.

As I have stated, censorship harms the artistic integrity of popular media, and parents need to take responsibility for their kids.  Yes, you can't protect your kids 100% of the time.  Hell, I learned 99% of my curse words from school when I was growing up.

When you take sex out of a romance scene, it doesn't mean your kid won't ask about sex.  If the word "shit" is muted in a song, it just makes people wonder what was actually and said, and most likely they will look it up later, thus being exposed to it anyway.  When you take adult elements out of an adult game, you are ruining the experience for those of us who are entitled to it.  Little Jimmy shouldn't be playing these games, so don't punish me if he does.

What do you all think we should do about censorship?

Thanks for reading.

Overhaul

Firstly, my apologies.

Being a paralegal is an incredibly stressful, time-consuming, and tiring job.  It has many advantages and I enjoy it greatly, but it does not always leave me mentally capable of researching and writing these posts.

I know I said the hiatus would be short, but it didn't turn out that way. By the end of January next year, I will have lived in three different places and been in three different jobs.  I pulled overtime, got involved in creative projects and weekly obligations which sapped my patience for this type of hobby.

However, I've missed this creative outlet, and would rather not see it go to waste.  This blog will probably never reach many people, and that's perfectly fine.  If anything, I'm satisfied with just committing my thoughts and opinions to some type of tangible format.  The discussion and comments this all generates is an incredible bonus that I cherish and I hope you all will continue to do so.

You may have noticed this blog's subtitle has changed.  This is due in part that this year's political race was exhausting to, well, everyone.  I can never imagine a job in politics, it must be awful and draining like no other occupation.  This is not to say that I am abandoning the topic, far from it.  Politics marches on and it will forever breed material for us to discuss.  I've just decided to open the discussion to the entirety of life in America (and subsequently the world, since the globe is ever shrinking).

Seeing as I have not commented publicly on this year's major events (Libya, school shootings, elections, etc.) I will probably write blogs that address these past occurrences as they reappear in the public sphere.  To give you all a taste of subjects I intend to tackle, I've included a small list below.

I can't promise updates will be weekly, I don't think I ever have, but I will do my best.

Thank you all for supporting me, both past and present.  I hope you continue to read and spread the word.  Remember, I'm always open to suggestions!

Thanks for reading.

Future topics:
2012 Election Results
America, and Society's Obsession, with Cars
Censorship and Why I Consider it Evil
Credit Cards
Freedom of Speech
Abortion
Drugs
Our Continued Presence in the Middle East
Taxes
English as the Official Language
Racism

....More to come!

Hiatus

Hey everyone,

I'm putting the blog on a short hiatus until I have my life more together.  I've got plenty of topics to choose from, but I'm strapped for time between work and non-work.  Thank you all for the support and discussion you've shown/contributed.
\
Chris

No post this week

Too damn tired from a packed weekend.  I will, however, be posting about women in politics next week.

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The debate surrounding the necessity of an armed populace is easily older than the Second Amendment.  It has produced much controversy, and lies at many the heart of a voter's principles.  As this is the second request I've had from the readers, this topic took me a good while (real life factors notwithstanding) to research and prepare.  As with past topics, I will summarize the arguments for and against the right for individual citizens to bear arms, and at the end offer my viewpoint.

To begin, I will speak on how the Second Amendment fits into history.  The right to bear arms is inherited (like much of our culture and law) from our English beginnings.  Fresh from a war with Britain, wherein many a regular citizen farmer took up his trusty hinting rifle to combat an often more well-equipped and professional army, it was completely understandable that the average American would have full license to keep and use weapons to repel invaders, self-defense, and hunting.

As time progressed and America came to further industrialize and urbanize, and state police came into a more recognizable form, the prevalence of a gun existing in each household began to drop dramatically.  Of course, this does not mean that the laws and debates surrounding the issue have weakened any.  In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that an individual was allowed to bear arms even if unconnected to any militia, and that any limits propounded by the Second Amendment have equal effect on both the State and Federal Government (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, respectively).

The rest of the legislation concerning militia and gun ownership stretches from the founding fathers in the Federal government up until today to many state superior courts, and to comment on them all would bury this topic in legalese and suffocating minutia.  So, I will conclude this portion by saying that it is currently legal for individuals citizens to bear arms.

The moral arguments for gun ownership are varied and passionate.  I will list and explain some of the most popular.  The first is that an armed populace is a free populace, only slaves aren't allowed to carry weapons.  Often, the first thing a dictator or tyrant does to disarm the people so as to prevent any insurrection or rebellion.  A second argument is that if citizens can't defend themselves with legal access to firearms, criminals will surely pose an unconquerable threat by having access to illegal weapons.  It is often said that an armed neighborhood is often the most safe; if you know your opponent has a gun, it is much less attractive to attack their house.  In addition, it is much less likely a postal office or supermarket will be robbed if everyone is armed.

The most prolific defense of gun ownership is that restricting such an activity is unlawful, unethical, and unnatural.  Firearms, with some more extreme exceptions, are the only weapons to be outlawed in this country.  Certain weapons such as swords, bows, and other archaic arms are illegal to carry out on the street, but they are not illegal to purchase and display at one's house.  Guns, in many degrees of calibur, ammunition size, rate of fire, and general level of destructiveness have many restrictions placed on them.  Only with the invention of such weapons have the laws prohibiting them been put in place.  Supporters of the Second Amendment ask why it is suddenly appropriate to outlaw these weapons just because they are more advanced than a sword or bow.  Knife crime is a testament to the argument that outlawing guns will not stop violent crime.  Escalation is also an argument purported by supporters of gun ownership; if the government can outlaw guns and knives, what is to stop them from outlawing hammers, bats, chainsaws, crossbows, etc.?

An additional argument for gun ownership is that some the restrictions placed on guns are ineffective; outlawing the possession of firearms within 1500 feet of a school will only spur a criminal to purchase a weapon that is capable of accuracy at 1600 feet.  One can outlaw guns capable of accuracy at a 1600 foot range, but that very well might increase the black market demand for guns of that capability; a veritable arms race can very well ensue.

Some arguments for gun control (restrictions on gun ownership up to outlawing them completely) are as follows.  The Second Amendment does not specify which guns are allowed to citizens; handguns are one thing, but fully automatics and RPGs are much different.  It is here that many Second Amendment supporters as well as opponents agree.

Many people who are pro-gun control argue that guns, due to their inherent danger, cause more damage than good in cases of self-defense.  Many studies have been conducted which say how gun ownership increases the likelihood of homicide within the homestead.  These studies extend to information on suicide as well.

A large argument for gun control is that the likelihood of a tyrannical government overtaking America is so incredibly slim, that the need for an armed populace is unnecessary.  Another Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or like-minded figure would have a difficult time getting support from the populace or leverage against the military.

Much of gun control arguments are just that, gun control.  Many people do not wish to see guns completely outlawed.  Use in sport or hunting are viable options that don't end in death or injury very much at all.  Certain deterrents to crime such as instant background checks, ID tagging, wider gun education, and stricter punishments for gun crime, are currently being lobbied for.  If the guns can be tracked and the populace is better informed, then there would be less in the way of accidents or illegal activity.

My view on gun control has been changing for a while now.  I was very opposed to guns being legal at all for a long time, mostly due in part to never having used, held, or having much knowledge about them or the people who owned them.  In the past couple years, I've been able to fire them at ranges, learn about their function and proper safety, and have met with supporters of their ownership.  Having been exposed to this opposing perspective has informed me a great deal.  I agree with the Supreme Court that the right to bear arms is a historic right that should be upheld; people should have a means to defending themselves, and taking guns away isn't going to stop crime.  Correct and widespread education of gun safety and operation would go a long way to reducing the gap between the two sides of this argument.  It makes much more sense to tackle deviant behavior in rapists than to outlaw short skirts and provocative dancing at parties.  However, I think the most destructive of weapons such as fully automatic guns, explosive rounds, bazookas, and the like have no place on the street or in one's home.  Keeping them at the gun range under secure lock and law would be more appropriate, I think.  The demand for them is so low, I don't think they pose a great threat.

Seeing as America is increasingly becoming the minority in countries that allow gun ownership, are we backwards in our laws and thinking?

Thanks for reading.

Further Updating

As an avid reader of webcomics, I know the frustration and disappointment that can accompany a lack of updates.  So when I give my latest excuse, know that I sympathize with those of who are awaiting the Second Amendment post.

I won't have internet in my house until Monday, and while I do have an Air Card that allows me to do basic surfing, it makes for difficult and slow multi-page research.  Most importantly, I haven't had the chance to sit down with one of my most knowledgeable informants on Second Amendment and general American gun law.  They have stated that they are more than happy to be interviewed, but I haven't had the time lately with my work schedule.

Seeing as this topic is a request, I want to take extra time and caution with this upcoming blog, just as I did with the Health Care topic.  So, I will do my utmost to bring the entry next Sunday.  I thank all of you for your patience and support, and I apologize for not sticking to my weekly schedule.

-Chris

Preview

Hey everyone,

Due to my lack of internet, I won't be able to post this week.  However, from this phone I can afford you a small preview.  The topic will be on the second amendment.  So arm your perspectives and polish your views for this very touchy subject.

Update 3-11-2012

Alienation Through Ideology

This week I will approach a topic that has been wearing on me for quite some time.  That topic is, as the title suggests, ideology.  In particular, the ideology of the "True Conservative".  I will make the note now that I will not be analysing "True Liberalism" for the following reasons:

1. I am not aware of any party or entity that espouses themselves as true liberals or think it necessary to broadcast it to the world.

2. There aren't any candidates, including Obama, that have asserted themselves as true liberals in reaction to "True Conservatives".

3. The infighting caused by the implication of a "True Conservative" candidate is not seen anywhere else other than the Republican Party at this moment in time.

Thus, there is no real reason for me speak on the imaginary counterpart of the "True Conservative".  If such an opportunity and situation presents itself, I would be happy to make a follow-up post.

To begin, I will attempt to define what a "True Conservative" candidate is.  According to the Tea Party Patriots website, this ultra-conservative grass roots entity wants fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free market economics.  At the outset, these proponents of conservatism don't appear very extreme.  However, things get more muddled as the associated GOP candidates (Romney, Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum) start asserting themselves as the best and "True Conservative" to take down Obama.  The goal of getting Obama out of office is another goal of the Tea Party, although sometimes unofficial.  It isn't stated in the goals, but can be seen all over the blog posts and news updates that the Tea Party hosts.  It also is a favourite one-liner you hear all too often from the TV debates.

While a true conservative's basis may lie in fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free market, so much other ideological fervour is attracted to the conservative message.  Positions against gay-marriage, allowing more prayer in schools, disgust at the elimination of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", contraception and abortion, and other minutia have become commonplace.  Perhaps it is because the three Tea Party goals are, in fact, umbrella terms that are all too magnetic for right-wing sensibilities.  Perhaps it is because the GOP attracts very right-wing candidates.  Whatever the reason, the Republican candidate, and the contest for who can be a "True Conservative", has become overloaded with baggage that has alienated many a moderate voter.

I've already spoken on how I dislike how the political climate is ruled by two parties and others can't manage the funding for equal representation.  This is another example of how damaging extremism can be.  Before writing this post, a registered-Republican voter was speaking to me on how she can't recognize the Republican party.  When she joined up originally, there was less talk about legislating morality, less posturing about prayer in schools, and more sensible talk about the economy.  Nowadays, she can't identify with any of the candidates because of how extreme they all are and how extreme one has to be to be a true Republican.

Whatever happened to being fiscally conservative yet having liberal views on social issues at the same time?  How and why is that a crime?  It is my understanding that many people sit in that position and don't know what to do.  They could care less about gay marriage, or may even support it, but they want less taxes.  They are Christian but agree that school-supported prayer is a bad thing that infringes on the rights of different religions and those without religion.  The emerging attitudes towards church and state, economy and environment, and a great deal of other issues are changing.  People no longer fit into the extreme mould the GOP has become, nor do they fully support the Democratic party.  Yet, all they are given are those two candidates and some fringe contestants who can't get a commercial on the air because of how political funding works in this country.

My final point is about how the Republican candidates have handled themselves in light of this "True Conservative" pissing contest.  Each candidate, including some of those who have dropped out, claim to be the only true conservative and list attacks against their opponents to disqualify them.  This infighting, which only makes each of them look less appealing, turns to excuse-making.  Each candidate has responded to attacks by either denying the allegation, or spinning to sound like it wasn't as bad as it sounds, or making it seem as though it is, in fact, a truly conservative choice.  Thus, you have (at the moment) four grown men yelling at one another about who has the cleanest record and trying desperately to alter their past to appease some high-handed ideal that much of the country doesn't seem to like in the first place.  This doesn't even benefit the extremists; as they are content to henpeck everyone's conservative credentials in a McCarthy-esque witch-hunt, until the prerequisites are so impossible to achieve that they distance themselves from everyone.

Take Gingrich, for example.  He actually came out to say that it was a mistake for him to join forces with Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi on combating global warming in an ad years ago.  He has been constantly attacked for it, and now directs his counter-attack to taking out the Environmental Protection Agency ( he called it a complete failure at a recent conservative conference).  I was impressed that he admitted to his mistake, it was mature of him and he gave reasons why he changed his mind.  I disagree with him on his current stance towards man-made climate change, but I respect his position.  What I find baffling is that he believes the EPA should be eliminated in its entirety because of some bad regulations it has put forth.  Sure, the EPA should get an overhaul and certain regulations have done some damage to the economy, but to leave potentially dangerous business practices unchecked is just utter folly.  Gingrich, I think, was hoping to score conservative points by appearing anti-regulation, making up for his past faux pas with Gore and Pelosi.  Once again, a conservative candidate took one step-forward, and then ran back inside the closet three miles back at the Tea Party HQ.

Another example is Rick Santorum.  Santorum's Christianity is something that should remain personal to him, and should not affect his views or action in office.  That is the law, that is the CONSTITUTIONAL law.  Yet,  every time he opens his mouth about religion, he comes on as this budding theocrat, claiming that Satan has invaded government and academic institutions (I'm not making that up, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/feb/22/context-santorum-satan/, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n4jopm7hYFk#!).  Santorum allows far too much of his religious beliefs to rule  his political decisions, and having someone like that in office at any level of government scares me, and I hope it as least concerns all of you.

To conclude, the race for an Obama-beating, Christo-fascist, anti-gay marriage, anti-regulation, limited government, free-market sycophant, Tea Party groupie is harming the political nature of this country.  It is alienating moderates of both sides, it is setting up the GOP candidate to be irrational and unstable, and it is pretty much handing the vote to Obama at this point.  I won't make any predictions, but I will sorely hope for at least a moderate candidate to take the stage against Obama.  If I don't see one, I will be forced to choose Obama once more, and I hope I don't have to do so out of regret and spite.

What do you all think of the current state of the republican party?  To all my UK viewers, don't be afraid to comment, we need some outside perspective.

Update 3-4-2012

Hiatus

Hi everyone,

I'm starting a new job and hopefully moving into a new house in the coming days.  Thus, I won't have time left over to devote to this blog.  I fully intend, once I am settled and back to a normal schedule, to continue this blog and the goals for which it stands.

So, expect me back in a couple weeks.  Thank you so much reading and contributing.

Update

Sorry guys, no post this week.  had a really packed weekend and am starting at a new, busier office tomorrow.  I'll have one for next Sunday.

Man-Made Climate Change

Man-Made Climate Change, or as it was more widely-known, Global Warming, is a top-ranking political topic. The phenomenon is now called Climate Change because certain areas of the Earth are getting cooler instead of warmer.  In this post I will analyze the arguments for and against Climate Change as well as its effect on the political sphere.  I am not a meteorologist, but I will do my best to synthesize the scientific data.  For all those scientists who are reading, please lend your thoughts.

In brief, Man-Made Climate Change is a warming or cooling of certain areas on Earth due to the proliferation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  These greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and ozone) serve to absorb and expose infrared radiation onto the Earth after collecting it from both the Sun and thermal radiation that emits from the Earth itself.  Naturally occurring gases warm the Earth, but the rise of man-made chemicals and gases have increased the amount of absorption and exposure, thus warming the Earth past what is normal.

Another argument from the pro-Climate Change camp is that soot particulates (both natural and unnatural) can have an unnatural cooling effect on the Earth.  Whether it be from volcanic eruptions or aerosol particulates, certain particles block the suns radiation and cool the area the stratosphere they inhabit covers.  Artificial pollutants have contributed slightly to this effect, while Greenhouse gases are the more prominent proponent of Man-Made Climate Change.

Those who do not agree with the prediction that irreversible damage will be done to our ozone layer rely mostly on the information gathered by those who made the study in the first place.  They say that the evidence is not clear, accurate, or able to fully predict the effect of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere.  They also say that current mitigation strategies (techniques to lower CO2 emissions) would only harm the economy more than it would lower Greenhouse Gases.  To be more specific, limiting industry for a projected anticipation based on imperfect data would do neither the climate or the job market any good.  In general, unless there is more compelling evidence, they aren't going to accept the theory.

Next, I will address both public and scientific opinion on Man-Made Climate Change.  In 2008, there was an overwhelming acceptance of Climate Change, with Scientists being in near unanimous agreement that humans were affecting the Earth in this negative way.  Many opposed it then, and a good few were unsure.  In 2012, four years later, much has changed.  The Scientific Community is still mostly in agreement, but those who oppose the theory are now being funded by like-minded non-scientists, and new studies are coming out rejecting the previously projected predictions.  Political rhetoric, mostly from the conservative side, has become more vocal in their disagreement and warning of the dangers of limiting industry.  All this has had an effect on public opinion, with more and more people becoming unsure of the likelihood of Man-Made Climate Change, as well as more of the public disagreeing with it completely.

It is here that I will give my personal belief on Man-Made Climate Change.  As usual, the truth is in the middle of all the mud-slinging.  Humans have a negative effect on the Earth, this is no secret.  Deforestation limits the benefits trees and plants have on regulating CO2 and O2 in our atmosphere.  Pollutants have a visible effect on the air and ocean.  Anyone who travels from Los Angeles to Big Bear can easily see how industry can brown the sky and create for less pure air quality.  The BP and Exon Valdez oil spills harm and pollute wildlife, and toxic dumps make water undrinkable.  These are obvious issues.  Climate Change is less obvious, but only slightly so.  I have no doubt that the artificial and extra gases we release into the air have a negative effect on the Earth.  Substances that don't occur in nature aren't handled well by it either; for instance, styrofoam can take anywhere from 1 million to an eternity to decompose.  While the evidence purported by the Scientific Community is compelling to me, there is a chance it may be exaggerated.  The opposition has a point in that the studies are not conclusive and are difficult to prove.  However, this does not mean they should be cast aside.  The studies should be refined and improved, while measures that lower emissions but do not place harmful limits on the economy should be implemented.  Measures such as better fuel economy and cleaner energy, as well as renewable energy, should have greater funding and focus.

Once again, I turn the discussion over to you, the readers.  Which side, if any, do you support?  What should be done?

Thanks for reading.

Health Care

This is a topic in which I have a very difficult time gathering unbiased and straight-forward information.  The supporters of each side can be incredibly inflammatory and zealous, making the truth or even the pros and cons of each very murky.  Therefore, I invite anyone with expertise or general knowledge in the area to lend their voice and correct me where I am wrong.

It is my understanding that Universal Health Care is a government-run system in which every citizen possesses health care insurance.  This is achieved through a higher tax rate paid by the citizens than what we in America are used to.  Such a system is embraced by the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Russia, most of continental Europe, certain parts of South America, Mexico, many areas of Asia including India, and other countries are attempting to obtain it.

The current system in America is a sort of hybrid.  Government-run programs such as Medicare and Medicaid provide health insurance for the elderly and impoverished, while there is a wealth of private health insurance companies that provide services to those who can afford them.

The current political issue, which has been mounting for years, is that around 50 million Americans are without health insurance because they can not afford it or are illegal aliens.  While many have cried out for health care reform, everyone has decried either one or all of the proposed reforms.  Some propose a shift to the Universal Health Care system, while opponents claim that will require an unacceptable raise in taxes that Americans neither want nor can afford especially in this economic client.  The recent passing of Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was meant to extend affordable and updated coverage to 30 million Americans (a good third of which are illegal immigrants).  This has been met with extreme opposition by the conservative right as a drain on the economy and American people.  Supporters claim the opponents would rather let those who can't afford health care to do without.  Both are not entirely true in their assertions, and the truth of the matter is no clearer than it was when I began this post.

For my opinion, I'm afraid I don't know exactly where we can go from here.  I agree that raising our taxes isn't going to necessarily going to help our economic state, but it is abhorrent that 50 million Americans are without basic health insurance.  We are a first world country, this and other items such as discrimination, bigotry, corruption, and other malefactors should not be an issue.  Unfortunately, that is not the reality.  Our infrastructure is quite sizeable compared to many countries of Europe who place confidence in their Universal Health Care.  The US has almost 6 times the population of the UK, and twice the population of Russia.  Our issues of illegal immigration, debt, conflict in congress, and other problems wouldn't be able to handle the immediate or even gradual shift to a  non-competitive system.  To make such a drastic change would be risky at the least and destructive at the most, and the inefficiency of our government is not something I would put my trust into when it came to my health.  While countries with Universal Health Care tend to have longer life expectancies, they also don't have our same problems, so one system does not always translate well in a different situation.

That being said, I'm also not pleased with many of our private institutions, I've been through interviews with companies that are clearly scams and should be kept in check with smart and efficient regulations.  However, regulations are currently contributing to the lack of competition between insurance companies, and when there is a lack of competition, the costumers suffer.  Less and less is being covered, and costs are going up.  Doctor's are being forced to run larger practices just to stay afloat, but still can't attend to all their patients.

I suppose I don't object to our current hybrid system.  Those that want a higher and faster quality of health care, and that can afford it, should have it.  Meanwhile, the government should provide a lower cost alternative that competes with its privately funded kin.  The current system, however, is not working.  The issue of illegal immigration hurts everyone involved.  A pregnant woman can cross the border illegally, and the border patrol is required by law to give them a map to the nearest hospital.  The child is born, and they are an American citizen.  This is a very delicate situation; by no means should the woman be turned away, but when she doesn't pay for the service, the hospital suffers.  Multiply this by millions times a year, and the issue becomes apparent.

I now turn it over to you, the readers.  What do you think should be done?  Should we repeal Obamacare in its entirety?  Should we keep it and move to a universal system?  Should be we elaborate on the hybrid system we currently possess?  I invite discussion, correction, and (hopefully) progress.  I think everyone can agree, this is a very crucial issue that needs to be fixed as soon as possible.

Religion

Religion is one of those topics that is both incredibly sensitive and ubiquitously discussed.  That being the case, it will also be the most difficult for me to stay unbiased towards.  So more than ever, I ask for help and suggestions on how to better approach the topic of religion, faith, spirituality, morality, etc.


Firstly, I will give my world-view, albeit in a very small nutshell.  I am, of this moment, agnostic.  I have been studying religion ever since junior high (14 years of age).  I was baptized an Episcopalian, confirmed as a Methodist, and attended a Catholic High School.  I was a staunch defender of the faith until I was 16, when I took a philosophy class.  My mind opened to new views, techniques, and facts, I dove deeply into the world of theological, philosophical, and moral debate.  I emerged from High School an undecided seeker of the truth, and to this day I continue my study of the world's religions.


Secondly, my view on religion and its place in sphere of politics.  The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religious expression, and that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  This applies to public schools, employers, and other such organizations.  To me this is a wonderful and logical law.  Everyone should be free to follow their own version of the truth as long as it doesn't conflict with society in harmful ways (and that is where the conflicts start).  If it were up to me, I would extend the law to say that no parent may impose or require their children to follow a faith or prohibit them from one either, but that is a different discussion.  The word "God" is in our pledge of allegiance, our money, or State of the Union speeches, everywhere.  Our heritage is primarily Judeo-Christian yes, but that carries a history of witch-hunts, gay-bashing, slavery, child molestation, and a host of other horrors with it.  If you are going to be proud of your history, make sure you know the baggage that comes with it.  It is for this reason that I believe "God" should be off the money, out of the pledge, and any other government or public institution.  The president can say it, that is their right, but anything more I feel is unconstitutional.


It is no small secret that religion plays an immense and almost leviathan-esque part in politics.  The current race for the Republican Candidacy is rife with accusations of Mitt Romney (a Mormon) not being a true Christian, of Gingrich's past three divorces bringing his morality into question, and Rick Perry's ad condemning gays in the military and the prohibition of children celebrating Christmas in schools.


To me, all of this is ridiculous.  Rick Perry needs to read the actual law on public schools and religion (they can't prohibit you from praying, but they aren't going to sponsor one faith over another, very simple).  In my eyes Romney's faith is as vulnerable to suspicion and criticism as any other Christian denomination or religion. Last, if any one wants to disqualify a person running for office on divorce, then fewer and fewer of us are going to be able to run at all.  It is my belief that as long as one's religious values don't stand in the way of upholding the law, then it shouldn't matter.


The other side of this is how religion plays into the voter's minds and choices.  I was told recently that no matter your view on religion, it is going to influence how you vote.  While this may be true for most, it doesn't offer Agnostics, Atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and other faiths much of an option when it comes to candidates.  I feel that if any public officer holder consults an unproven deity for their choices that affect all our lives, then they shouldn't be holding office.  This is, of course, an oversimplification, but an Agnostic can dream.  Would I immediately vote for the Agnostic candidate? Only if I liked the rest of their views, so at some point everyone has to do away with their religious preferences and vote for the lesser of two evils (a common motif of politics these days).  You can't force a voter to take religion out of the equation, nor should you.  It is just unfortunate that extreme religious views dictate how the final candidates come out.  Why can't we get an Atheist on the ballot?  Or a Buddhist?  Muslims have been immigrating here since the late 1800's, it is about time American realizes that Islam is not just one war for the establishment of Sharia law any more, and that Muslims are fair-minded citizens too.


There are voters who only want to see a Baptist get elected, and scream hell-fire when a president doesn't end their speech with "God Bless America".  There are Atheists who would tear down every memorial cross that decorates a highway.  None of these extreme views are correct, and mandatory moderation would be a good thing, in my opinion, for this country.


I am, probably, extreme in my own views.  My perceptions are born of intense debate, and (until recently) a one-sided  upbringing.  It is of little wonder that I would have left Christianity and adopted a more open view.  What do all of you think?  Where do we, as a country and international society go from here?

As always, feel free to share your experiences, thoughts, questions, comments, and the like.  Thanks for reading.

Education and Our Parents

Our earliest exposures to politics and government are school and our parents.  While they may not decide our political leanings, they are certainly a great influence.

I am not satisfied with the way our schools teach political topics.  I realize that the subject is complex, sensitive, and not usually appropriate for young children, but there needs to be change.  I will begin with how my schooling bred a disdain and disinterest in politics:

Firstly, the Pledge of Allegiance.  I can't think of many other nations who require their students to each day recite anything comparable to it.  People in the UK have told me how it sounds slightly scary and borders on indoctrination.  Frankly, I can't argue with them.  After having to recite it each weekday for years and years, it became a chore and a labor.  It isn't required by law, only encouraged, and there is no legal consequence for refusing to recite it.  So why then did I stop saying the words starting in High School?

I've never intended to defect to some other country outside the U.S., and I consider myself an American who wishes to uphold the values and laws of America.  Yet I am tired of reciting the pledge of allegiance.  Does one stop loving America if they stop reciting the pledge?  Isn't once enough?  How about 500 times?  I can recall a substitute teacher, a retired military instructor, who was appalled and disappointed at my geometry class' lack of enthusiasm during the pledge in sophomore year.  He came from a background that is incredibly devoted to all things ritual concerning America.  However, I had not lost any allegiance to my flag or country, I was just tired of having to say it, and the repetition had made pledging allegiance undesirable.

As of now, there is no requirement to say the pledge, or even say "under God".  But there have been lengthy Supreme Court Cases surrounding the wording of the pledge and if it is right to compel someone to say it.  What should we do about this?  A child should not have to verbally prove they are pledged to their country every school day.  Is this country so paranoid that the youth don't adhere to the laws and values of the Constitution that they have to have the indoctrination drilled into their skulls thousands of times?  My suggestions to make it available on special occasions.  For instance: Assemblies, Fourth of July (even though not all schools are in session), military gatherings, government celebrations, and other less daily events.  Our children should know the pledge, understand the history behind it ("under God" wasn't included until 1953 by president Truman), and know the laws surrounding it.  No American should be thought un-American if they don't recite it every time someone suggests it.

My next point regards how the voting system is taught in schools.  Unless I was just not paying attention, I was led to believe we elected the President by voting for him, along with our laws and major decisions of the country.  It wasn't until High School, right before I could legally vote, that I was informed that I could only participate in the popular vote for the Presidency.  The elected representatives voted and actually mattered, technically my voice was only an indicator of what the populace wanted.  I understand the populace isn't completely in the know about who is the best candidate for the job, but surely our votes should count for more.  I never voted for us to go to war with Afghanistan and other areas of the Middle East, yet there we are.  No one ever told me until I was 15 that those with the deepest pockets get the most publicity on the campaign trail and end up as the main ballot features, yet this remains true today.  I was deeply disappointed when I figured that out.

There needs to be more honesty in the education department when it comes to teaching our youth about American politics.  We don't not have to give up our history, achievements and progress; but we should be forthcoming with the drawbacks of our system early on, and to more than just those in AP Government.

Lastly, our parents.  My parents have had changing views about their political stance and leanings.  Thankfully, I never felt pressured into believing one parent or the other concerning which political party was right.  I was encouraged to educate and inform myself, and that my views were important and worth something.

I have seen other families who do not ascribe to this philosophy.  Differences of opinion create strife, distrust, and disunity.  For all the talk of getting back to family values, I see much hate and warmongering going on towards opposing view points.  Look at the extreme conservative and liberal media pundits, talk show hosts, and news channels.  Rarely is there a call for tolerance, calm debate, and cooperation.  One side says the other doesn't know what they are talking about.  The other retorts with how the first side is evil and un-American.  Politics should be a discussion, not a war; and the change of mindset we should take towards these issues should start at home.

What are your thoughts and suggestions?  I will respond via video as much as I can.  Thanks for reading.

This blog's raison d'etre.

Hello and welcome to my blog.

This opening post will operate primarily as an introduction and mission statement, while operating second as an invitation, and finally as a little about me.

Firstly, this blog is born of my recent foray into politics.  It is only with the recent presidential election of President Obama that I started to take an active interest in American politics.  Having lived in the isolated bubble that is Saint Andrews, Scotland for four years of Medieval History education, it was both easy and preferable to ignore the issues and concerns of my home country.  Now back in the states and entering the "real world", I realize that I can not remain ignorant.

I am not happy with how politics is handled in America.  I'm not happy with how it is taught to us as children, how it is represented to us by the media, or always how it is executed in government.  I would like to see change in not only the operations of politics, but primarily in how we as citizens see and approach the topic.  As a firm believer in the Socratic Method, I think the greatest way to refine ideas and see them implemented is through discussion and potentially influence how America governs itself.  Thus, I will use this blog to discuss weekly topics of interest, both from my independent research and through suggestions of anyone who is interested.

So, as the second component to this opening post, I invite all of you.  Is there something on your mind, something that interests you, something that you want discussed or simply to be heard about?  Then leave me a message or comment, and I will try to give everyone a chance.

Lastly, a little about where I am coming from.  I am an agnostic, a registered independent, white male, San Diegan.  I have a Masters in Medieval History from the University of St. Andrews as well as a paralegal certificate from the University of San Diego.  These events and experiences shape how I view the world thus far, and through discussion I hope to be as unbiased as possible through exposure to other perceptions.

Let's begin, first topic will be up soon.