Peace On Earth, Good Will to Men

Over 400 years ago, Shakespeare (through Shylock) asked these immortal questions:

"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.”

Now, replace “Jew” with “man” and “Christian” with whatever ethnicity, race, culture, religion, etc., that you like and Shakespeare is presenting a pretty valid and convincing argument for today. If everyone walked around without skin on, could you tell whom to hate? If they wore no signs of religion or culture, could you still single the supposedly “wrong” ones out? No, you couldn’t. And that is the point. Everyone, every sex, every race, every religion, is made equal because we are all human. There is no separation; we are all of the human race.  What we look like, what we believe, how we behave socially, may make us distinctive but it does not take away from our equality.

The only time one man is unequal to another is when that man commits a crime against humanity, when he degrades and destroys the very thing he is a part of. Violence towards another being is never justified, no matter what cause you fight for or which flag you fly. You cannot hide behind religion; all the major religions teach peace. You cannot hide behind your country; your servitude to their ignoble cause is even more degrading then the cause itself. Violence breeds more violence. It is one thing to take down one vicious man, a man like, say, Hitler, a man so evil that his very existence makes peace an impossibility. It is quite another to kill with out distinction for a vague cause championed by men who lie for their own gain, on grounds material rather than moral. No cause, no matter how convincingly justified by propaganda and fabrication, is worth killing innocent humans for. Violence will never prove a point. It will only succeed in making others fear you and create a stronger violence among them that will destroy you. The only way to truly convince others of the strength and righteousness of your beliefs is by peaceful use of reason and logic, and to show them the passion you feel for your cause harnessed by respect for your fellow man.  Then, and only then, will you truly be heard. A respect earned by fear is not respect at all. 

The world will never be at peace until all of these things are truly understood. By loving your fellow man you learn to love yourself, which in-turn begets more love. And is by loving that the world will know a tomorrow far better than its yesterdays. Borders cease to matter in love; differences will be embraced rather than feared. Nationalism will not disappear, but it will be of a different, better sort. A true love of one’s country, rather than a shared fear of its enemies. This may sound Utopic, but it is within reach. Once people stop giving in to fear and hatred, emotions so easily felt and inflamed, and start to feel the subtle glow of love and compassion, then the world will know peace. 

Modern Day McCarthyism

       Another thought that has been rolling around my brain as of late is: what is with all the brandishing about of the word "patriotism"? I mean, patriotism tests? I guess it all started with 9/11 when extreme patriotism came into fashion. Please, please don't misunderstand me. 9/11 was terrible and horrible and it was reassuring to see the country band together. But, news flash, pasting the American flag on everything from car stickers, to T-shirts, to boxers is not patriotic. Having a flag on everything does not make you a better person or mean that you love your country more. Actually, I feel that having the flag on things like boxers is pretty disrespectful. The flag is supposed to be a symbol of our country, not a design to cover your derrière. Yet again, I digress. Back on topic:  Living in America these past eight years we have had the idea that criticizing your government or the choices it makes is “unpatriotic”.  Speaking out against your country’s actions is not, let me repeat this, NOT unpatriotic. In fact, that’s kind of like more patriotic. Our founding fathers’ envisioned a country where you could speak your mind, not one that condemns criticism and controls media coverage. That’s called fascism, folks. You cannot hide behind the flag. You have the choice, the right, to burn that flag if you so choose. I may not agree with what you do in reading or writing or demonstrations (& I defiantly do not agree with flag burning) but, to paraphrase Voltaire, I would defend to the death your right to do it. And that is what patriotism is all about. So next time you hear someone going on and on about how this candidate or the other is unpatriotic, ask yourself “would they defend my right to burn the flag, or write controversial material, or even speak up for myself?” and then you’ll have an idea of how patriotic they truly are.

 

“Our purpose now is to reclaim democracy itself. We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism.”

--Sen. John Kerry

The Moral Majority is (Surprise!) a Minority

  Minnesota (that snowy, cold, northern state) is right now embroiled in a nasty, no holds barred Senate race. So is Oregon, and Florida, and Wisconsin. As far as Senate Races are concerned, these are some of the nastiest in US History. But, I digress. The point I was trying to make is that in races as close as these are, you have to watch very carefully what it is that you say. Very, very carefully. One slip of the tongue, and it could be all over for you. For example:  A nominee from a certain state claimed that they think those running for a national public office should have to face a board to determine their "patriotism". Overnight their opponent received thousands in donations. Moral: Don't let your extremist, right-wing views push your voters away. That seems to be a problem as of late. Right-wing extremists, that is. The ultraconservative, hate mongering, dyed-in-the-wool red type. Nothing against Republicans, and not saying the opposite is good either, but these people are the types of people that are really hurting the country and the world. Extremism in any way is never productive. It stalls progress and glorifies ignorance, not exactly ideal for politics. I think the so-called moral majority needs to take a good hard look at itself, and realize that it's representing a very thin slice of the population. 

Wipe off that smirk Sarah, it's starting to give you wrinkles

Wow, what a debate. Maybe there weren't any real knock outs, but to me that made it even more tense. Personally I think Joe Biden outperformed Sarah Palin. She usually did not answer the question and kept talking about Alaska. Now, I like Alaska. My family has a town named after it in that great state and it is truly beautiful but, I really really don't want to constantly hear about it. To me, Sarah Palin's weakness (besides her obvious stupidity) is her total lack of experience at the national level. Oh and how she speaks like she never made it past the eighth grade. Not that Joe Biden is perfect. He tends to have his history facts like majorly wrong (for example, FDR was never on TV talking about the stock market crash). He's prone to long winded responses that never really get him anywhere. But tonight he was able to show us why he's been a senator for six terms, the guy knows his stuff. Compared to Biden, Palin came off pretty petty when she tried to take jabs at him. He was incredibly restrained and it made me respect him more. So Sarah, please stop smirking. We weren't laughing with you, we were laughing at you.

McCain, Palin and the names in the hat theory

Something that has been on my mind borderline obsessively is the presidential election coming up. I’m sure this comes as no shock seeing is it is constantly rammed down our throats by the media. But the issue that has taken center stage in my mind is not the presidential candidates themselves but their running mates. Now, I have no certain party affiliation. I prefer to think of my self as a common senseitarian. Meaning that I vote by my personal beliefs, not those of some larger party. That being said, what exactly was John McCain thinking? I have a pet theory that he drew names out of a hat. It is the only thing that makes sense when considering his choice. Now, I know he was trying to please a lot of people by selecting her, but seriously? I think you could’ve done better Mr. McCain. I’m sure there are much stronger, more qualified women for the position.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for women in power. But we need the right kind of women. Not gun toting former beauty queens who spew ignorance and don’t know when to stop having children (44’s kind of pushing it lady). In the time since her candidacy was announced she granted 3 interviews, 3. Joe Bidden has given something like 90(he sticks his foot in his mouth repeatedly, but he still gives them). Hm, wonder why they’re shutting her up? Probably because the woman doesn’t have an intelligent thought in her supposedly beautiful head. But the media is eating it up, or at least they were. They’ve kind of tired of Ms. Palin’s antics, and rightfully so. This is America, we still have free speech (sort of) and a right to interview someone that may one day end up president (McCain’s not looking in peak condition). But God forbid someone mentions her family life. That’s “personal”, not something up for discussion on the national stage. Because that’s what we did for Hilary, right? Now there was the right kind of woman. Smart, articulate, experienced; yet the media slammed her left and right. No family issues were off limits. Why should Sarah Palin have all this special treatment? She shouldn’t. As Americans we should not stand for it. But hey, look at what we’ve sat and watched happen for the past 8 years. Standing up for injustice hasn’t really been our strong point lately. It’s time to get out of that slump and demand equal treatment in this race. Because we cannot afford a repeat of the last 8 years. Something has to change, and it needs to be us.

An Introduction to Who I Am, What I Stand For & Why I Would Like You to Read Me

I realized a few days ago that I have something to say, something that I would like more people than those just in my personal circle to hear. I have an opinion and I want the world to be aware of it, just as I want to be aware of the opinions of others. I believe that in open communication we can achieve peace. That being said I have a few things I would like to make clear before I start writing this and having it read. That being:

A) I will not preach to or at you. The purpose of this is to share my opinions, and they may not necessarily be correct. That’s why it’s called an opinion. I reserve the right to not be judged if in return I do not judge you.

B) I realize that I have led an extremely sheltered life. Being 19 and living in one place in Ohio my entire life, my life experience is almost nonexistent. But, that does not mean I do not know what I am talking about or that I do not have the right to talk about some things. I am always open to hearing about your experiences as they pertain to certain subjects I may mention. I am always open to the advice of those wiser and more worldly than myself.

C) I encourage whoever reads this blog to leave comments, even if it is just read in passing. I am truly interested in what people have to say.

Reading this over it seems to me that I might come off as a little egotistical. Why should you particularly care what I think? Well, maybe you don’t. But as I stated before I believe that in open communication peace can be achieved. So, give me a chance. What have you got to lose?