Tag Archives: United States

I don’t feel sorry for “minorities” in America

Are you a victim? Have you been judged worthless by someone based on your skin color, religion, gender, sexual preference, height, eye color, shoe size, haircut, or fashion sense? I’m sorry to hear that. That’s tough, and it sucks, but let me let you in on a little secret-discrimination is everywhere.

You see, there are two problems with our society I’d like to address here. One is discrimination. The other is personal responsibility.

Discrimination is bad for everyone. It limits the opportunities of those who are discriminated against without so much as considering the individual capabilities of the person. It limits the opportunities of the person discriminating against someone to have access to another individual and their input, when that individual may be the best humanity has to offer to help them in life or business or whatever, simply because of some unrelated factor.

It’s sort of like saying,”I don’t like books. Somebody wrote a book that was boring and a waste of someone else’s time, so I’m never going to read a book because there are no good books and I am not going to waste my time on them.” If you agree that this is a good way to think… I have no idea where to go from there with you. I suspect, however, that you don’t think this is a good and logical way to think, and in that case, read on.

Now, let’s consider personal responsibility. We live in a country that is defined as “The land of the free”. Freedom, at it’s ultimate core, is the ability to make a choice. The followers of Caligula, Nero, Hitler, Pol Pot, every one of them chose to follow that person. Everyone who commits a murder makes the choice to do so, just as everyone who adopts a child with special needs makes the choice to do so. Choices are what define us, and show our character to the world.

Personal responsibility is the simple concept of “owning” your choice. You made the choice. There was a consequence. You accept the consequence because you made that choice. Simple.

Now-as to why I don’t feel sorry for minorities.

In our country, what is supposed to happen, if you face discrimination, is that you make the choice whether or not to lie down and be a victim or stand up and fight it. Susan B. Anthony made a choice. Rosa Parks made a choice. It’s a choice.

Today, we don’t face the same things that Susan B. Anthony or Rosa Parks faced. The last “Jim Crow” law faded into antiquity when they were declared unconstitutional in 1967. I was born in 1977. I have never owned a slave, nor did my father or his father. I choose to assume every individual I meet is a decent human being until they show otherwise. That is my choice.

Minorities do face discrimination. It happens. I have faced discrimination. It happens. People make bad choices and decide that they should judge a person based on something besides the person’s shown actions and learning something about the person.

This is where freedom and personal responsibility come into play. Anyone who faces discrimination has a choice, at this point. You can lie down and give up, accepting the idea that you are a victim of circumstance and that you have no real control of your life, or you can take the experience and let it become a drive. A drive to become more, to show that you are far better than the image that has been thrust upon you by some incompetent, unthinking individual.

Anyone(including minorities) has legal recourse if they face discrimination. If you face discrimination, you go to court. If you are smart, and do what you need to do to get evidence to support your claim, then you will get compensated. It’s the perfect revenge, forcing the company at fault to now pay you for no return whatsoever. It doesn’t stop there, though. The individual who wins or loses such a suit has the opportunity to go on, to try again, to refuse to serve up some discrimination of their own, and go to another individual or company and shine as an example of how the discriminators are “missing out” on an opportunity to have had such a person on their side.

This is where the government, the media, and all those out here with good intentions pave the road with obstacles. Someone, somewhere, decided that it was ok to choose to be a victim. That victims should lie down and be taken care of, and basically give up trying to compete in a harsh world. This madness is pushed upon us constantly by the government, media, and even by those who claim to be “staunch supporters” of minorities.

You have the freedom to lie down and give up and submit to this persona of being a “victim”. If you choose to do this, then so be it. You should realize, though, that you are trampling on your own freedom by making this choice.

You also have the freedom to turn right around and take a college course, to get a new job, to do whatever it takes to show that you are not defeated. Everyone that lies down in this pose of “woe is me, I am a victim” encourages discrimination, because those who have discriminated against you have won. It may cost them some money or prestige, but they have won because now they can point at you and call you a part of the stereotype and to look at how you gave up and lay down. That it was all a ploy to avoid having to contribute to society.

No, it may not be true, and your motivations for giving up are approved of by many in our culture, but that doesn’t matter a bit. You just became a part of the problem.

I don’t feel sorry for minorities. I don’t feel sorry for people who choose to lie down and give up their hopes and dreams because life was ‘hard’. Life is hard. Everyone faces some kind of adversity, some from the world, and some from within themselves. It is freedom that not only allows, but encourages us to overcome the adversity we face. It allows us to be tempered by it, into something stronger, sharper, better than we would have been without it.

People who face discrimination: Make the choice to stand up and show how awesome you are. Make the choice to defy being a victim. I don’t want to be “sorry for you”, I want to envy you. Make me envy your courage, your strength, your resolve to overcome.

Be the person, the individual, that outshines every stereotype. If you do this, you will have overcome, and will be put forth as an example of why discrimination is madness and pointless. If you do your part, maybe, just maybe, our kids and grandkids can groan over the history lesson about how stupid people were to discriminate in the first place.

Leave a comment

Filed under Social ideas, Thoughts

I’m not a fan of the NRA, but…

I don’t like the NRA. Don’t get me wrong, they’re supporting the 2nd amendment, they’re well funded, organized, blablabla. I guess that’s all a good thing. I want to take a walk down memory lane with you, though.

In the 90′s, we had background checks* come up. The NRA came out as supporting them. The leader said in a hearing they were all for “instant” background checks, something pointed out as being a political masterstroke, binding up congress with a technological impossibility, at the time.

Now, they have reversed their “position”. Why? Because “things like that won’t help anything.”

I’m all for the 2nd, and totally against registration and background checks as a tool that could be easily wielded by a tyrant to illegally move to take people’s firearms. I suppose the position “it won’t help” works, but I can poke a giant hole in it with no thought involved at all. “How will we know until we try?”

This is why I don’t like the NRA. They take a weak position to engender the most political support possible, offering politicians a position defensible to the public should they face reelection, but it puts them in a constant state of trying to cause congress to dither.

If they take the strong position, then I’ll be all for them. Until then, though, I can’t help but wonder if they are not an “agent provacateur” working WITH the government.

The knowledge that you send the NRA your money tends to make people think,”Well, I don’t need to do a thing as an individual. That’s why I pay them.” Thus, if they turn around and give the government an “in” to gun control, then you are caught unaware until they show up at your door to take your firearms because of the deal they struck with “NRA support”.

Do I think you should send your money to them? If you got the money to send, then go ahead. But never think they should be your ONLY advocate. YOU are your best advocate. Send your money, but make sure you drop a line to your government representative, congressman, sheriff, president, and whoever else you can. Think of them as one of your pawns in this maddening game of political chess, so that they do not make you a sacrificed pawn in a play of their own to maintain their own position, power, and income.


*-This was written some time ago, and I used “gun registration” instead of “background checks”, something which caused people to focus on the idea that the NRA had never supported direct “registration” rather than what I was trying to get across-the idea that being a pawn for one entity was as dangerous as being the pawn of another.


Filed under Social ideas, Thoughts

On the concept of “freedom”


Freedom is just a word, to many people, with no real attached meaning. To others, it is an ideal worth dying for. What is freedom, then?

At it’s very simplest, freedom is the most basic state of being. A man on a deserted island is about as free as a human being can get. That freedom comes with a price, though, as the man is responsible for everything that is involved with his day to day survival. He has to find or produce his own food, his own water, he has to defend himself from predators. He may be “free”, but it’s not a freedom many would seek. The freedom most desire is also free from these worries. This requires a society, and no society can function that allows freedom to go without limits. Each individual must be reigned in so as not to trample on the freedom of their neighbors. The society has to come to some agreements on what is best for the society. Murder must not be allowed, obviously, but most other concepts are really up for debate. Thee are plenty of ideas out there on what works and what doesn’t.  Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy, Oligarchy, Theocracy, Republics… All of these are different ideas on how to make a functioning society, and freedom is more important to some, less to others.

The United States, the country I live in, was based upon the idea that individual freedom was the most important concept of all. It has not always applied this idea equally, and after nearly a quarter of a millenium, is still working to flesh out the concept.

Discrimination and security appear to be the two major issues which seek our attention. The government is placed in a position of trying to balance the importance of individual freedom with the security of the individual and society. It has to decide how best to ensure that groups within the society are granted equal freedom and are safe from discrimination. Human nature itself acts against our desires for freedom, as every act of bad behavior is held up as a reason to reduce individual freedom in the interests of overall security.

Part of this problem is that people tend to forget that freedom comes with certain responsibilities, that in order to have freedom yourself, you have to allow those same freedoms and expect the same responsibilities to be upheld by others.

At the same time that all of this is an issue, we face a state of societal decay. Our values are not what they once were. Honesty, honor, compassion, justice, humility, valor, all of these things are portrayed by our society as great things, but generally unattainable. We are told these are the virtues for which we should strive, yet we watch as those who are ruthless liars and cowards proceed to the forefront of society, gaining fame, power, and riches while any that strive for these virtues are used as tools by the unscrupulous.

We expect deceit, cowardice, avarice, bigotry and hatred from the people we place at the helm of our nation. We laugh it off, it’s all a joke. We pay to watch people who follow these “anti-virtues” and encourage them. Our children watch these things and absorb them as “the way people are”. We watch, and through our own titillation we absorb these concepts as “the way people are”.

The problem-simplified-is that we want to have individual freedom, but no society can maintain itself and allow these strong aberrations to exist within it and still allow individual freedom. Legislation is enacted. The people cry out for the government to step in and limit activities, limit freedoms, and are then surprised when the government does exactly that, reducing individual freedoms in the process.

This all brings us to the question,”What is this freedom that we value, and is it something we should have?”

I’m sure there are many answers to this. Being a simple man, my answer to the question is this: Freedom, the idea we value, is an idea that must be first applied at the cultural and individual level, before it can be ensured by a government. Freedom within a society requires that there be a level playing field. All of the individuals must act in certain ways, acceptable to the rest of the society. Freedom can then be secured at different levels.

One level of freedom is the freedom of your thoughts and actions-whatever one person wishes to do, so long as they harm no one else, they should be allowed to do. This works until we bring people into closer contact with each other, and protects individual freedom at it’s most basic.

The next level of freedom is freedom of the household or family. A step up from the individual, the same concept applies, but with one further stipulation. Whatever a household or family wishes to do, they should be allowed to do, so long as they harm no individual or other family in the process. This covers religious acts, choices in child-rearing, marriage equality, noise ordinances, and pretty much anything else you can think of.

These are simple things, and require some further oversight. For example-the acceptable noise level a family makes which lives miles from a neighbor will be different from the acceptable level within an apartment complex with paper thin walls.

These are the things that legislation should be built around. The very highest levels of government should be seeking to protect these things first, and severely punishing those who act against them. The federal government should not be legislating marriage, abortion, recreational activities, because these things should fall within the protection of the individual and the household and family. These things should not be taxed, but the federal government should be taxing the states themselves, and having the states tax the individual and household.

States, counties, cities, and towns should be making slightly more restrictive laws, refining and defining the freedoms of people to create the society they wish to have within their borders. If the people within a state want something to not occur in their state, such as recreational drug use, then the state should pass legislation to make it more difficult to do, while offering encouragement to find other choices. This protects the freedom of the individual and the household, while allowing there to be variation within the national boundaries.

In protecting these freedoms, however, comes the part most overlooked. In order to have these freedoms, the individual and the household have responsibilities they must seek to uphold before all else.

The individual must contribute to the household, and the household to the greater society in some way. They must deal with other individuals and households on the “level playing field” mentioned previously. When two groups deal with each other, they must both be honest, seek to honor contracts, humbly do what is necessary, be compassionate within the group and with those they deal, act justly within their group to uphold these ideals, and valiantly assault any actions that go against these things.

If the individual and group cannot do these things, then the government finds itself in an awkward position. It has to act to limit the freedoms of these groups and individuals. Unable to selectively apply these limitations, they must apply them across the board, and the higher the level of government, the greater the amount of freedom is reduced.

All of this brings me to another question. Do we, as individuals, as households and families, have the ability today to act with these responsibilities in mind? In other words, is individual freedom something that our society can successfully have, or will the acts of the few aberrations require greater and greater control from the government? Can the government be trusted with such powers, or will it, like a beast at the first taste of fresh blood, seek greater power at every turn?

This brings me to another question as well, has our government gotten to the point where it’s lust for power and control has overcome it’s desire to protect individual freedom? Is it now a mad beast that needs to be controlled? Or are we the mad beasts that it is forced to attempt to reluctantly master?

Can YOU be free? Can you act honorably and honestly, expecting other individuals to do so? Do you need a master?

Leave a comment

Filed under Social ideas, Thoughts

How the 2nd Amendment benefits everyone…

Do those who commonly call for gun control and an end to the 2nd amendment think that the second amendment doesn’t afford them rights and protections as well? I hear this most commonly from liberal minded people, so let me toss out a scenario: 2016-A backlash against Obama leads to a far right candidate being elected to President, as well as far right candidates gaining control of the congress. 2017-Christian values are legislated, homosexuality is declared illegal, speech is censored, and liberals are placed “under watch”. 2018-An alleged terrorist act is committed on Washington DC at the Supreme Court. The justices are wiped out. The President passes a new act-the “Keep America Safe” act, and moves to register and investigate anyone who speaks against the government. The congress and president bring in a new set of S.C. justices who are all Extreme far right, who become a “rubber stamp” for the Pres and Congress. 2020-During the election, many candidates who appear to be doing well against the far right people in office are charged with sedition or are killed in “random acts of violence”. The Far right leadership leans further right, requiring that anyone who can not prove their citizenship either leave the country or be jailed. Abortion is declared illegal, and mandatory sentences for all crimes becomes hard labor. 2021-After another “heinous act” committed by an unstable individual, the far right leaning government declares begins registration of firearms and confiscation, with the media declaring(by government issued mandate) that they are only collecting the firearms of those who are “deemed a security risk”. 2022-Anyone who speaks against the government-in any way is deemed a “security risk”, and they are collected for psychiatric evaluation and “reconditioning”.

Consider this: With the second amendment, all of those whose rights are trampled throughout this are able to get firearms and fight all of this-and would have support from those “unreasonable” gun owners who want freedom and liberty before anything else. Without firearms, nothing can stop this freight train, and the United States becomes a one-party system, and effectively an oligarchy. Paranoia? Perhaps. Read up on the rise of the third reich and get back to me-this sort of thing HAS happened before. The second amendment is for EVERYONE and protects EVERYONE. So long as the government has to fear armed insurrection, extremism cannot come to power successfully.

Leave a comment

Filed under Social ideas, Thoughts

On Gun Control…

I am on to say something, and I want you to know where I’m coming from on this. I am mentally ill. I will never own a firearm personally. That’s ok with me, and I totally understand the reason for this.

The problem I see right now is that people are focusing on the tool used to commit atrocities-but it is not “socially acceptable” to point out the other thing that is always the same. Those who commit these acts are mentally ill.

As a person with mental illness, I want to say that I believe that we should be dealing with the issue of regulating the mentally ill, not firearms. There have been huge changes in the world of psychiatry over the past 30 years or so, and long term stays in the hospital have gone from being common to almost nonexistant. However, during my personal times of crisis, I NEEDED to be somewhere safe, for a longer period than a week, so that I could be watched and cared for until I came out the other side.

People with mental illness should be registered and monitored more carefully and thoroughly. There needs to be a requirement that I speak to someone from the mental health industry with an eye toward my stability on a monthly basis, I should not be allowed to own a gun, and if someone I live with owns a firearm, they should be required to show that they are taking steps to keep it out of my hands. Whether a gun lock, a class on gun safety, whatever.

You see, I have thought about the efficiency of delegalizing assault weapons and firearms, if I were to decide to become destructive and kill people on a large scale. Simply put, if I wanted to kill people, a ban on firearms would not stop me at all. Shall we next ban bleach and ammonia(mixed they make a potent poisonous gas)? How about hammers? I could kill someone with those, even a large group, should they be unarmed. How about cars? Give a person a car and a desire to commit an atrocity, and large crowds should beware.

This is all said to illustrate-banning a firearm in no way will protect people from the acts of the criminal or the mentally ill. If you want to “protect the public” from the acts of this minority, then keep close watch upon them. I would understand being registered as mentally ill, regular check-ins and even being sent to a long-term care facility in the event I refused to take care of myself. This is called holding me responsible for my own actions and choices.

Mental illness is not a license to act badly. If you have a mental illness and act badly, you should be incarcerated. Perhaps away from the “criminal” element, but you should still be away from society. Why on earth would you, instead, if a person acts poorly, hold everyone else responsible?

I do not believe the government wants to take your firearms to keep you “safer”. Being “safe” is an issue of personal responsibility, and if that is what the true desire is, then gun ownership, gun training, should be things we encourage as a society. If everyone is armed, then the power of the “scary assault rifle” gets quite a bit weaker.

What if the principal had been armed? What if there had been an armed guard or two in the halls of sandy hook? What if there had been a few audience members in CO that had been armed?

Even better, what if ALL of the responsible, law-abiding adults had been armed with a firearm during any one of these atrocities?

The government wants to disarm the people for a reason besides public safety, and it’s time we looked that fact in the face and called it for what it is. It’s time people started publicly seeking the truth of their motives.

I am mentally ill, and I say we need to watch the mentally ill more carefully, and encourage gun ownership by the public. These are the solutions to prevent “atrocities” by the mentally ill, while allowing the citizens to defend against any moves toward tyranny.

I’m not ashamed of being mentally ill, but I recognize it for what it is. Hold me personally responsible for my behavior and well-being, don’t hold everyone else responsible for it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Social ideas, Thoughts