Have you been keeping up with The Greatest American on Sundays? I really haven't, though my wife and I look it up from time to time on AOL just to see who has been chosen thus far and maybe make a quick vote. I must question whether or not people in our country are thinking rationally. It seems like we, as a nation, have little to no long-term memory; no ability to consider things of the past as relevant to our current lifestyle. Granted, I know that not everyone falls in this boat; it is a generalization, and in general, we are way too narcissistic. I say this because we seem too focused on what is current, and it comes out in these top countdown lists. I've seen it in other lists where the voters are the general public and Brittany Spears ends up being considered a better artist and more important to music than the Beatles. Seriously. Stop and think rationally for just a moment, people.
The reason for this rant is the top 25 on the Greatest American list. It included people like George W Bush, Lance Armstrong, and Billy Graham. Well-known individuals in our current society. However, what great things have they done as Americans that benefit us as a nation and possibly the world? Susan B Anthony wasn't in the top 25. Bush, Armstrong, & Graham haven't done anything equivalent to getting women the right to vote. Jonas Salk wasn't up there. They haven't created a vaccine saving thousands of people from paralysis or death. Harriet Tubman wasn't in the top 25. They haven't saved thousands of Americans from slavery and death. I know that my examples are a little off, because things like slavery do not (to my knowledge) occur in our country today. Nonetheless, thinking rationally, does one really think that in 50 years our nation will still be praising how Bush "bravely" sent thousands of Americans to die and gave us and extra $200 back on our taxes? I would like to say that we will still know about and teach about Susan B Anthony. At least, I thought it was important that women got the right to vote...
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Thursday, June 16, 2005
The Infallibility of the Closed Mind
I was watching Trading Spouses on Fox(?) the other night. I don't watch it regularly, but have caught some episodes here and there. It is actually an interesting show, giving us an intimate peek into the inner workings of families different from our own. In case you haven't seen or heard of it, they take two families with seemingly opposite ideals and ways of life and switch either the mothers or the fathers for a week.
I would think it would be an interesting situation: you spend a week someplace new with some new people and you get to experience their life a little and get to show them your life a little. In the end, you get $50,000 for doing it. Not bad...actually, it sounds fun. If I had children (they seem to only choose families with children, which is understandable), I would probably sign up. I wouldn't be chosen though, because I wouldn't make for interesting TV.
There is one thing this show makes clear, though (at least to those who pay attention). What it makes clear is the fact that a large part of our society incredibly closed-minded. In fact, most, if not all, of the closed-minded individuals their way of life and their ideals are the only way, end of story. Why? What makes one person's lifestyle the best thing for everyone? Why must they force it on everyone? It seems that so many people come on that show determined that they are going to change the way the other family lives. Some try to force others to go to church and prayer groups, while others try to force families to become vegan. Let the child drink soda: if his parents let him drink it and you come in for a week trying to force him to quit, do you think you'll make a positive impression on his life? No. These people are given a wonderful opportunity to share their culture (and it is amazing how many cultural differences there are throughout our nation) and experience another, but instead they turn into missionaries.
This current episode seems to be the most interesting yet, with the vegan woman joining a Cajun family in Louisiana. She seems unwilling to take in any of their incredibly rich culture; instead choosing to complain about their cruelty to animals, the fact that they eat meat and little vegetables, and attempt to force them to eat healthier. It's sad: she has a good message, but goes too extreme. Everything is best in moderation; when you go too far, you annoy people and they become less interested in your side than they were before you began speaking.
Well, that was a bit of a rant that didn't really follow a logical path. Therefore, in summary: be open-minded, don't force your ways on others, and appreciate the opportunities to share your lifestyle with others in exchange for a taste of their lifestyle. Also, a tip for being open-minded: always assume you are being closed-minded and that you can work a little harder to be open minded. Doing that makes it harder (though not impossible) to fall into the trap of closing our mind and assuming ourselves to be infallible.
I would think it would be an interesting situation: you spend a week someplace new with some new people and you get to experience their life a little and get to show them your life a little. In the end, you get $50,000 for doing it. Not bad...actually, it sounds fun. If I had children (they seem to only choose families with children, which is understandable), I would probably sign up. I wouldn't be chosen though, because I wouldn't make for interesting TV.
There is one thing this show makes clear, though (at least to those who pay attention). What it makes clear is the fact that a large part of our society incredibly closed-minded. In fact, most, if not all, of the closed-minded individuals their way of life and their ideals are the only way, end of story. Why? What makes one person's lifestyle the best thing for everyone? Why must they force it on everyone? It seems that so many people come on that show determined that they are going to change the way the other family lives. Some try to force others to go to church and prayer groups, while others try to force families to become vegan. Let the child drink soda: if his parents let him drink it and you come in for a week trying to force him to quit, do you think you'll make a positive impression on his life? No. These people are given a wonderful opportunity to share their culture (and it is amazing how many cultural differences there are throughout our nation) and experience another, but instead they turn into missionaries.
This current episode seems to be the most interesting yet, with the vegan woman joining a Cajun family in Louisiana. She seems unwilling to take in any of their incredibly rich culture; instead choosing to complain about their cruelty to animals, the fact that they eat meat and little vegetables, and attempt to force them to eat healthier. It's sad: she has a good message, but goes too extreme. Everything is best in moderation; when you go too far, you annoy people and they become less interested in your side than they were before you began speaking.
Well, that was a bit of a rant that didn't really follow a logical path. Therefore, in summary: be open-minded, don't force your ways on others, and appreciate the opportunities to share your lifestyle with others in exchange for a taste of their lifestyle. Also, a tip for being open-minded: always assume you are being closed-minded and that you can work a little harder to be open minded. Doing that makes it harder (though not impossible) to fall into the trap of closing our mind and assuming ourselves to be infallible.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
It's 2005, not 1865
So, have you heard about the latest resolution from the Senate? Our senate, in the year 2005, has finally passed a resolution to formally apologize for the lynchings of African Americans that occurred up to the 1960's and for not making lynching a federal crime sooner. Better late than never, I guess.
But wait, it gets "better"!
Not all senators co-sponsored the bill. Some senators (approx 20) actually refused to sign this bill for fear that they would not receive the votes pro-lynching racists when re-election rolls around. There is an effort on blogs such as Daily Kos to identify these Senators who feel that receiving racist votes are more important than apologizing for allowing the deaths of innocent Americans. The senate even voted on this late at night so a roll call vote would not be required and those not in support of the measure could be hidden. Those individuals need to be identified and held responsible. Why would any reasonable person not support such a resolution? Perhaps these people aren't reasonable...all the more reason not to allow them to be re-elected.
Unless these individuals have a good reason for not signing (hospitalized, held captive by the evil monkeys in their closet), they are making clear to the voting public that they care more about 'political points' and making niche groups happy than doing what is best for our country. Therefore, those who did not support this measure should not be re-elected at any cost.
But wait, it gets "better"!
Not all senators co-sponsored the bill. Some senators (approx 20) actually refused to sign this bill for fear that they would not receive the votes pro-lynching racists when re-election rolls around. There is an effort on blogs such as Daily Kos to identify these Senators who feel that receiving racist votes are more important than apologizing for allowing the deaths of innocent Americans. The senate even voted on this late at night so a roll call vote would not be required and those not in support of the measure could be hidden. Those individuals need to be identified and held responsible. Why would any reasonable person not support such a resolution? Perhaps these people aren't reasonable...all the more reason not to allow them to be re-elected.
Unless these individuals have a good reason for not signing (hospitalized, held captive by the evil monkeys in their closet), they are making clear to the voting public that they care more about 'political points' and making niche groups happy than doing what is best for our country. Therefore, those who did not support this measure should not be re-elected at any cost.
Friday, June 03, 2005
Don't like me? You are therefore wrong!
I am an avid watcher of the Daily Show. In fact, it is probably my primary source of news since I don't listen to the radio or watch the news on TV on an everyday basis (I check the newspaper the most often). Maybe that's sad, or maybe it's a sign that I just like stuff that's funny and/or ironic. Anyway, I am digressing from my original thought...
On the Daily Show last night, they had a segment about how Amnesty International reported on alleged prisoner abuses at Guantanamo Bay. They then showed the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and a high-ranking general speaking out against AI's report. One thing really stuck with me though. It was when Rumsfeld stated that because of what AI reported, they can no longer be considered a credible source of information (the funny and ironic part was showing Rummy citing information from AI a couple years ago). So what's the big issue behind what Rummy said? Basically, his comment stated that if you don't agree with, support, and speak only nice things about the Bush Administration and their deeds, you are not a credible source of information. In short, only listen to those who speak nice about Bushco.
Freedom of speech, my ass. It's more like our country is being turned into one big biography, scripted by Bushco. Even if you have evidence that events transpired differently than his script states, if he doesn't like it, it didn't happen.
On the Daily Show last night, they had a segment about how Amnesty International reported on alleged prisoner abuses at Guantanamo Bay. They then showed the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and a high-ranking general speaking out against AI's report. One thing really stuck with me though. It was when Rumsfeld stated that because of what AI reported, they can no longer be considered a credible source of information (the funny and ironic part was showing Rummy citing information from AI a couple years ago). So what's the big issue behind what Rummy said? Basically, his comment stated that if you don't agree with, support, and speak only nice things about the Bush Administration and their deeds, you are not a credible source of information. In short, only listen to those who speak nice about Bushco.
Freedom of speech, my ass. It's more like our country is being turned into one big biography, scripted by Bushco. Even if you have evidence that events transpired differently than his script states, if he doesn't like it, it didn't happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
