Archive for the 'Social Commentary' Category


How To Handle Free Speach

Free Speech

"Free speech ought to be as free as possible"




The right to express oneself freely without fear of persecution or retaliation is among the most important rights of the American people and should be preserved to the fullest extent possible. The only rules that should be allowed to govern the use of this right should be those that detail and regulate offensive expression, prevent speech from being used to explicitly orchestrate destruction or carnage, and oversee the honesty of commercial activity or news organizations. Though there could be many finer details to govern the use of freedom of expression, these are the major ones. Due to the extreme importance of preserving this revered freedom, it should be dealt with solely on the federal level and the U.S. should do its best to impose as few limits on it as possible.

Though it is most important to preserve as much freedom for speech as possible, it should be expected that there should be certain well defined rules imposing a certain degree of civility on it use. There are certain components of speech that are considered offensive by the majority of U.S. citizens. Because the majority of Americans would like control over their exposure to such expression, laws should be in place to prevent it from being displayed in public places or through public mediums, such as public radio or television programming. Expression through the use of obscene words or gestures as well as nudity should simply be restricted to display in private settings, such as within the home or within a personal social circle.

Limitations should exist in order to regulate the expression and speech of commercial entities and news organizations. Such groups are in positions of power to greatly influence the general population through their use of claims and information in public mediums such as newspaper, internet, television, and radio. By choosing to operate publicly, they must adhere to strict standards of honesty in their reporting. Whether they are making claims about a product’s capability or providing accounts of events in the world, the actions of players, such as these, that are in the public eye must be required to provide substantial evidence for their statements and assertions.

Speech that is explicitly being used to orchestrate carnage (bloodshed) should have a special set of rules governing its use. The use of language in a public setting that completely and clearly calls for killing and harm to other human beings should be illegal. Those that are found out to have been speaking of such things should be investigated in order to determine whether definite steps were being taken to carry out any plans to commit bloodshed. However, even during times of war, no one should be lawfully allowed the ability to monitor private communications made by telephone, email, or mail, without the use of a warrant. Those that have been found to be worthy of investigation should have there private correspondence monitored in order to determine the threat they may or may not pose to others. However, the majority of American citizens, who have provided no reason for such a high degree of suspicion, should not be subject to such a violation of rights. Guidelines such as these should remain constant and unchanging, especially in times of war, when fear and other strong emotions can interfere with sound reasoning and decision making. Any expansion of abilities of a centralized organization, such as the government, to invade the private communications of everyday Americans represents a powerful opportunity for which an individual or group can utilize for sel

Throughout the world history, many positive changes have occurred due to people exercising this fundamental right to express themselves freely. It is through the use of this right that people are able to gain support for a cause, represent the interests of a group, and obtain/preserve rights. It is the most fundamental and important privilege because it allows for the citizens of a nation to represent themselves and is the right from which all other rights stem from. It is due to the sanctity of this right and the fact that it is protected by the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights, that it management should only be dealt with on a federal level. The government should take more of a role as its protector in order to  defend it from any attempts to erode the extent of its power.

Due to the importance of the right to free speech, relatively little rules should govern its use. However, like all rights, there must be rules that ensure that it will be used in a civil manner so that it will not interfere with the rights of others. Governing the freedom for expression should be guidelines for offensive or indecent expression, honesty in communication of commercial and news organizations, and expression that clearly and intentionally promotes the harming of other people. Beyond this, freedom for expression should be preserved and protected as it is the most important right of the American people


Give Me the ARTS!

The government should continue to support the arts, but should have a set of basic rules governing which art is suitable for public funding. First and foremost, all public funding for the arts should be spent in the best interests of the citizens of the United States so that the art displayed somehow satisfies a desire or want of society. Secondly, there should be rules put in place that provide guidelines as to what sort of contents and subjects are appropriate to allocated public funding towards. Lastly, the U.S. should continue to support the arts because they are creatively stimulating to the general population and promote the distribution of wealth and ideas throughout society.


Government funding is made possible through the taxation of the American people, therefore, the government should utilize these funds in a manner that is in society’s best interest. Since art is something that is something that can be appreciated by nearly all people, the government should ensure that its monetary funding is being directed towards promoting art that in some way satisfies a large portion of the country’s citizens and groups. For instance, the US should not fund art of low quality or art that is generally accepted as being of poor taste.


There should rules that act as guideline as to what sort of art the government should be allowed to provide support for. Just as the FCC provide guidelines that bar the use of offensive and obscene language, so should the government adhere to similar rules when choosing the artwork for government funding. There are certain subjects and topics that are generally considered very distasteful to the American public and, therefore, should not receive funding. The argument could be made that meaningful messages are often presented in offensive artwork, however, it is quite possible for message of a similar quality of meaning to be made in acceptable ways. Offensive art should be only allowed private funding.


Lastly. Government funding for artwork should continue due to the very beneficial effects it has on society. The presence and promotion of art stimulates creativity among the people. This, in turn, contributes to a society that is more visionary and, therefore, more in a position of leadership in the world economy. The presence of art also can attract wealth to depressed regions of the country. It is a common economic concept that flourishing art cultures often attract the congregation and investment of the wealthy. By promoting art in poorer areas of the U.S., the government can help to combat depressed areas.


In summary, the government should continue to fund art throughout the country because it is important part of a society. However, since the funding is provided by the American people themselves, it is important that the funding goes towards art that is in peoples’ best interest. Also, certain guidelines governing what sort of art the government can support should be put in place so that artwork that is generally considered obscene or offensive does not receive funding. Given the importance of art, the government should continue to support the creative arts forever.



Universal Healthcare: Don’t Screw Yourself America!

The founding fathers created the United States government as a representative democracy because they believed that the general public was not educated enough to make informed political decisions. Judging from the outcome of the special senatorial election in Massachusetts, I am convinced they were wholly right. However, they were wrong if they assumed that the educated representatives would solve that problem.

This specific election is the most prime example I can think of in which the art of marketing has aptly exhibited the power of corporate America over the opinions of American citizens who don’t make the effort furnish their own opinions. Though I cannot claim to understand the formulation of every American voter’s opinion, I am making the case that most people are, for the most part, disengaged from the critical thinking process when it comes to politics. I’m formulating this view from my own personal standpoint based on my experiences and knowledge of studies done on the matter.

The most glaring of recent example of mass media opinion replication is, indeed, the special senate election between Brown, Coakely, and some other poor bastard. Due to the general understanding that the fate of the pending national healthcare bill hung in the balance, the race became more of a question of whether the American people were for or against such legislation. The answer to that questions should have been a resounding, “YES! Give us a nationalized healthcare option!” To my understanding, through an economic perspective, this truly would have been a victory for the common American man. With such a passing of the bill, it may have saved America more than the government would spend to install it such a system.

Firstly, overall health insurance premiums would fall as demand for private health insurance fell, saving money.

Secondly, national health care would save money by reducing the number of emergency room visits each year by uninsured people, who accounted for nearly 24 million of the nations 120 million such visits in 2006 alone. If even $4 worth of service was given to each of those persons, that would account for nearly a billion dollars in expenses that the hospital itself would have absorb. With the preventative care provided by a nationalized plan, its plausible that a great deal of those visits could have been prevented with regular visits to the doctor.

Thirdly, thousands of jobs created. Money spent by the government directly entering the pockets of everyday Americans working to maintain the health care system.

Lastly, the money expended by the tax payer would be relatively low for the service being produced. While the middle and lower economic classes would have a more moderate portion of the costs to share, big business and wealthy individuals would have a higher tax percentage, creating a more-fair distribution of the nation’s wealth from the top, down. I use the word fair because, according to the US Census Bureau, the nation’s average middle class income has hardly risen since 1982 (around $8,000) while the upper class incomes continue to rise exponentially higher and faster, even with inflation included in the calculation. This makes sense, as skilled and educated workers come “a dime by the dozen” nowadays and demand for such qualified labor has decreased. The health care would be a good way of evening this economic divide. Overall, universal health care makes sense from a partially theoretical point of view.

It is with these considerations that I judge the voting public to be composed of mostly passive minds regurgitating the opinions of the media or a few individuals. How else could the majority of people take a shotgun and blow their own foot off in such a manner by voting against their OWN interests and, rather, FOR the interests of corporate America, a.k.a not the little guy? I have a scathing suspicion it has to do with the plasticity of the average man’s intellect. The average man tends not to give a shit about formulating his own opinion. Instead, the average man is content with having outside forces do his thinking for him. He has a very general view of the world, consisting of his values, insecurities, and shallow understandings, and looks for information sources that fit this general mold. No critical analysis or deep thinking goes beyond this stage. He has his adopted opinions and his flimsy, unsubstantiated arguments. He won’t change his mind.

A relatively recent statistical study may exemplify the lack of plasticity in the minds of politically-minded people. In 2004, the Pew Research Center published a report ( based on a survey of 3,000 voting individuals nationwide in regards to their political affiliation and their news sources. Please reference the link to see that the majority of viewers of biased news sources consist of like-minded individuals whose ideas and desirable outcomes are being reinforced by the biased sources they seek out. There seems to be no desire to digest ideas contrary to their own beliefs, only for affirmation. There doesn’t seem to be a serious application of logic. People are fine with their stagnant selves.

The good majority of the people I have encountered who can furnish a political opinion, regardless of political preference and/or affiliation, have furnished them without proper grounds, lacking both logic and evidence to ultimately justify those opinions. In such cases, one may pull out the trump card: “Well, this is my opinion”. Yes, this is true. It is just your opinion … an unintelligent, unsubstantiated opinion. This disengaged mentality is quite common. Aside from the perception that most people tend to abort the thinking process rather than analyze and digest incoming information, it seems that most people can’t detect opinionated, biased news sources while, at the same time, not caring to detect such a thing, just as long as the news coincides with and reinforces their own already held beliefs.

In the end, I believe that national healthcare could work if implemented correctly as a public option and not a mandate. It seems that it would put more money back in the hands of American people while taking away the already grotesque influence corporations have over our government.


Struggles in Haiti, Struggles Toward Truth

It has often been my observance that it is amidst the back drop of strife that truth becomes more readily divined. Though what has happened in Haiti is really a horrible thing and regrettable (to put it very mildly), it has provided an opportunity to look at the nature of the world’s response.

My heart swells with my pride in humanity as I have seen the world congregation unite to help it worldly sibling, Haiti. Whether motivated by empathy or political endeavors, the world is manning up to a higher responsibility, possibly showing signs that the supposed 2012 events may turn out to be positive cultural revolutions. The United States has rightfully taken this opportunity to help their neighbor. Not only does this sew the seeds of friendship in the Western Hemisphere, but it also may help to repair the US’s damaged image on the world stage in obvious ways.

However, strategy aside, this is ultimately a moral issue. These people should be helped by those who are able to help because it is the good thing to do. Such a culture of benevolence should be promoted because, next to being the right thing to do, it promotes a culture of brotherhood which is a further step towards a more peaceful, enjoyable environment.

I’ve heard many people voice their disapproval of the role these countries are taking in helping Haiti. Such reasons include:

“We have plenty of people who need help right here!”

“There are plenty of other countries with people who need help! Why them?”

“It’s not our duty to help every needy country! Why should we help them?”

My first response would be, “Because it’s the right friggin’ thing to do! Take a look on your idiot box and tell me you’d deny assistance to the distraught child in the Port Au Prince who was just orphaned by the earthquake. It’s our duty as humans of luxury to help those without the luxury to think of things beyond survival. Logical reasoning or not, it is this sort of behavior that separates humans from the beasts. This, our humanity, is rooted in our aim to strive for a higher, more honorable existence.

Now, why should countries help Haiti while their own people have troubles? If one must explain, then I fear the receiver is already too dense to receive. However … it is because of the degree and imminancy of the situation. Even those who are in tough situations in the US cannot compare to that in Haiti at this point. To illustrate, if a man in Haiti was starving, he could not even resign himself to steal at this point because of the state of the situation. Besides, this helping hand does not take away from the constant daily efforts made by many to help our local needy.

Finally, in defense of the classic welfare question, “Why can’t these damn third world countries just get off their ass and help themselves?” Well, to whatever moron would pose that, try switching skin pigment, inherent capital, social history, and natural resources and walk a mile in those shoes before you answer that question. Or just go take some college classes because this passage is too small for the extent of such understanding needed to endow empathy.

Vive l’Haiti.


A Badass Educational Institution

It is sometimes my personal wish that I could implement a nationwide program to socialize all citizens of a certain age for a small duration of time. As is often the seed of tyrannical rule, my desire with such a goal would be to imbue the US population with an education that the schooling system does not provide. While current mandatory schooling aims to teach people how to think effectively, my fantasy institution would seek to give them other tools which the other doesn’t stress. Such imparted tools would fall in the realm of mind, body, and soul.

The inspiration for such a school has come from my general impression that people are lacking in a great deal of knowledge, understanding, and power to operate closer to their potential. In other words, I feel most people are severely under-equipped to handle their way society.

For illustrative purposes, imagine a country full of nothing but citizens possessed with an unquenchable desire to become the best people they can be, ready to take advantage of all opportunities that come their way and the knowledge to do so. Overall economic output and efficiency would rise. Government costs on welfare for the homeless, poor and sick would decrease as people would be making wiser financial and health decisions. However, stress may rise as well as amorality in dealings with others for the sake of personal gain. This may be counteracted if people in general were more ready to deal with stress and more empathetic towards their fellow man. Such an understanding could be approached in my fantasy school!

In one year, I feel I could endow American citizens with a common, mandatory and practical education.

Classes would consist of a variety of sorely overlooked topics such as finance, horticulture, martial arts, spiritual well being, field medicine, and automotive repair. These classes are important, as many people are, for instance, unaware of how to financially navigate themselves through life or how to take basic care of an automobile. While not in class, there would be no television or access to mindless websites, simply literature and constructive endeavors, such as music and physical activities. During meal times, people would be educated on the importance of eating healthily. Responsibilities would be shared by all so as to maintain a sense of common worth and empathy.

At the end, these people will have change from flabby maggots of mind and body into exemplary human beings with the confidence and energy to actually go out and make something of themselves and their environment besides sitting on the frigg’n couch all day.

There would be no way to opt out, no private institutions existent in order to avoid this. It will never be tried though, unfortunately. However, at its most hopeful, it could have the potential to create a more capable, healthy, and productive population more capable of identifying with each other because of such an intense share experience.


Stupid Political Talk Show Hosts Teach A Wise Lesson

Wisdom trumps knowledge!

Once again, my car ride has provided a juicy thought to chew on …

I’ve been fortunate enough to listen to political commentary on the radio during my recent commutes to and from my current place of employment. Their banter is geared towards goals similar to those of many bloggers (and news, for that matter) of current day: content that is controversial, determinedly biased, and sensational. This has been obvious since my earliest days of listening to such foul crap. For an aspiring member of the intelligentsia such as myself, it has served as nothing more than fodder, representative of my common enemy, ignorance, for my mental digestion. But it wasn’t until recently that I was able to derive real wisdom from a show.

It was 96.9 FM talk, with an overly opinionated host who was spitting judgments late at night in regards to the horrible shooting that occurred at the Fort Hood military base. He was quick to suck the cocks of his ignorant listeners by reaffirming their own opinions time and time again. One such opinion included his belief that Islam should be a red flag for danger due to its apparent prevalence in terrorism and that sensitivity training in the army is unnecessary because hurt feelings shouldn’t be the army’s concern. Three obvious logical points on this matter:

1. Terrorism is an ambiguous term that has grown in scope, capable of including quite a few people guilty of a violent or terrorist act. See this Princeton definition of terrorism: ( Once recognized, this definition includes many people of non-Islamic faiths.

2. Islam should be a red flag, but not because of Islam itself but because of a commonality it shares with most terrorist acts:  the hurt feelings of society’s marginalized. I mean, really, aren’t the sources of most violent acts due to somebody being sensitive and getting their feelings stepped on? Those who aren’t accepted into ‘the group’ can often have built-up frustrations and pain, leading them to abandon loyalty to the majority of their society. They may seek a cause to give them pride or meaning.

3. To denounce sensitivity as a necessary component of the U.S. Army is to be a hypocrite by spitting in the face of respect. General respect is something that every soldier should practice as the Army is an instrument of peace and respect is at its roots. It doesn’t take an exorbitant amount of energy to simply be respectful to comrades and colleagues.

And the overall lesson that has been so graciously forced through the disgustingly degenerate behavior of media personalities is that experience and knowledge count for little in terms of real solutions without polished LOGIC and REASON. I’m less than half the age of many opinionists (with less than a fraction of their experience and knowledge) and I’m still confident that I’ve better judgments than they. With this in mind, the best way to have a respectable opinion on such matters as politics, international affairs, or society, is to prime your reasoning and logic by THOROUGHLY digesting material which challenges one in such a manner.


An Ode to American Gods of Yore

As time goes on and families descend, it seems that the character of our ancestors is gradually diluted with every successive generation. It’s as if some great power is continually being weakened with each scattering of spawn that humanity produces. One need only look at our grandmothers and grandfathers to see the remnants of the powerful creatures that preceded us and their vanishing way of life.

Ignorance aside, our ancestors were greater than we. As the lifeblood of America, they possessed characteristics that made this country great and strong. Such traits included strong social skills, discipline, responsibility, honor, integrity and a hunger for success, things which are withdrawing from the forefront of society. But, of course, this is understandable …

The environment had been ripe for the propagation of such a divine people. The nature of the times and the goals of people drew the best out of them. And even if that best were misguided and negative, it was better than the likes of today’s society could produce. Tough economic, political, and social obstacles plagued our nation but we were guided through by heroic figures in government and on the streets. The world was much crueler then. Evil people were more potent because of a lack of government oversight and enforcement while the threat of destitution was much greater because of a lack of social supports. The world was a rough play-pen to be in.

But, as is generally understood, tough times produce tough people. Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not any more or less deluded than the rest of my generation about the horrific prejudices and great violence that was present back then. There were most definitely bad, evil, terrible people who were much worse than any we could hope to produce today. However, heroes of equal proportion were produced, in both the movies and in real life, who were giants in terms of todays brand. Their idols were truly magnificent beings of integrity as pure as nature itself and an indomitable will. Today, the stars of the screen are weak and senseless, reflective of the direction of common era youth.

In the end, it is overall strength that is lacking as America shoulders on. What can one expect of people when there is no longer a need for the strong-willed gods of our past? It’s very cushy in today’s world and we have enough time to linger and stare at our hands and feet. But, perhaps, this is best for the world. With a population that’s degenerating and becoming duller, perhaps we’ll finally find ourselves in a state of world peace because of a lack of strength and effort to do much of anything.