Ok I need to make a post
Damn it, when I delay making posts then all these thoughts build up and I want to express them in words but it's hard to do it without forgetting.
First thing that comes to mind is this strange type of hypocracy I am seeing with the feminists. A current topic of discussion in my New York City history class is how women were viewed in late 1800s society by both the upper and lower class. The men of both classes saw women as property, the upper class as showpieces and the lower class as toys with which they could play. HMMMMMMMM...have things changed? Absolutely not. Most guys I know tell me they only want to "fuck girls and otherwise what else are they good for?" To rich guys a good looking girl is a demonstration of their wealth, just like a shiny new car (another concept I don't like). I will consider the gangster rappers as poor members of the lower class. They may be rich now but they're not fooling me. Without their rap they would be useless criminals. Just look at these rap videos. What's a good rap video without 50 sluts gathered around a pool? The difference is obviously that the rich guys expect a certain amount of class from their women where the rappers would prefer not as it would make things more difficult. Both positions are bad (Obviously that of the rapper is the ultimate evil, but what else is new?) My point though after a long introduction is that despite the feminist movement opposing this, girls continue mostly to go for the guys with either wealth, or if the girl is a worthless whore, a certain degree of overconfidence. Don't get me wrong, guys should be confident, but equally important is RESPECT. Aretha Franklin will tell you.
So ladies, let me ask why you do this? I recently watched a video of a fanatic preacher at a University pissing off women left and right by saying that a woman's place is in the kitchen and to be provided for by their husband. I bet the vast majority of women today would be offended by this statement based on the grounds that they should be independent as well and these roles shouldn't be set in stone. This is a great point, but please live by it. Don't go out saying this and then go to the bar suckering men into getting you free drinks.
Ok, now with that off my chest I move onto the freedom of speech being destroyed by fascist liberals. What was that? Fascist liberals? How can that be? The far-left might fool you by repeadidly calling conservatives fascists, but lets be fair here. If you get too extreme on any side, fascism is a possibility. Fascism DOES NOT equal national socialism. The far-left's problem with fascism is the attempt to destroy freedom of speech. Hypocracy again. Often times, this is the very thing liberals fight for, however say something they disagree with and look out. My basis for these claims comes from a few cases found in universities (Listen up students). Recently, at Columbia University, an advocate for the minuteman program against illegal immigration was forced off the stage by a rioting mob of protestors. Even more recently, an extremely anti-illegal immigration republican representative was forced off the stage by rioters at a Michigan University. Liberals are resorting to becoming unruly mobs in order to suppress alternative points of view. There should be punishments by the university against those who wish to impede on people's rights. Unruly mobs need to stop. The problem is, universities aren't very good at offering students the freedom that the US constition ensures. Brown University is trying to suppress an Evangelical Christian group. Now there's a marine at Columbia complaining that there should be something done about students calling him stupid for joining the marines because the marines are tricking minorities such as himself. While I disagree with this point of view, why should they suffer for disrespecting troops? As low as that is, it should be a freedom.
Onto my next topic that ties right in with the freedom of speech/expression. Hate crimes. Why do we have them? Why do we make crimes worse when race or religion is involved? All crimes should be judged the same. Here are some examples. First, there's a big to do here at Pace about the desecration of the Quran in toilets. They really want to get whoever is doing this. I agree that there should be respect of others' relgious faith, but if someone wishes not to respect it, they have that choice. This has nothing to do with the actual crime. To me, the only actual crime is that public property was destroyed. (The Quran was from a library and obviously littering in restrooms and scratching things on the wall is vandalism.) Let us point out that nobody is investigating who recently punched a hole in the wall of one of the dorm halls. However, theoretically speaking, if a note was left that said "This wall was smashed because black people live on this floor!", what would happen?
The next thing in this issue is Michael Richards. He recently used a lot of racial slurs against hecklers in one of his audiences. They were bad generalizations and he will pay the price with his reputation. But now there are talks of maybe having Michael pay the people he insulted! This is ridiculous and presents us with a totalitarian type stance that reminds me of Hugo Chavez. If you say anything that disagrees with what is currently established as being socially acceptable, you better watch out. So the moral of this story is that we already know very well about conservative attempts to squash the freedom of speech by trying to stop protests and such thanks to the loud mouths of the far-left. The quieter conservatives though don't bring the equal troubles the liberals have to our attention. That's why I have to do it. I'm a centrist, but it may seem like I am sympathetic to the conservatives. I just have to speak for what is less well known. Also, realize that I am not generalizing. There are of course the reasonable liberals and reasonable conservatives, just not too many of them. People take extreme stances to make themselves more clear and get things done easier.
My final political issue will be about materialism and rap. I talk about rap all the time, because this I believe is the least known problem. As a musician, I know more about it because I know how far from good music it is. I mean even in the rare occasion that rap has a good message, musical talent is lacking. Even less common is proper grammar. Destroy the English language and you are headed for trouble.
Materialism and rap go hand in hand because the most popular rap is materialistic and materialism along with rap is our nation's largest problem. Here is what I don't understand. People feel the need to get a ton of shit they don't need. You don't need a shiny car, you need a reliable one. You don't need 10 pairs of pants, you need 10. You don't need a certain brand name, you need a shirt that keeps you warm and I guess covered. If you are concerned about fashion, stop trying to achieve uniqueness through inademate objects. Achieve it through a colorful personality. If your sneakers do not have holes in them you don't need new ones. This really came to me when my mother and grandmother were asking me what I wanted for Christmas and making suggestions of their own. My Christmas list this year consists of a microphone I don't have yet that will benefit my music, some DVDs I have not yet seen, and some CDs I have not yet heard. My mother is also going to help pay for my lifeguard course. My low budget list consists of little things that I either "need" (all my basic needs are met unlike some in third world countries) or that I don't have another of. Being anti-materialistic doesn't mean I'm a socialist though. Socialism is dangerous because it relies on a benevolent government. You may not like President Bush now, but you don't depend on him to PROVIDE for you. This is the point Bill O'Reilly made in his newest book. Socialism requires the government to provide for its citizens so they don't have to provide for themselves. Sweden might look pretty nice right now, thanks to a responsible government. However, as soon as the citizens make the mistake of electing poor leadership, they could suffer. It would be like having an abusive mother. Plus, money would be distributed from the rich to others, at a higher rate than the taxes of others because "they have the responsibility to support the cook who makes their breakfast at a restuarant, the farmer who stocks the supermarket." I think that's a good point, but why is it more of a responsibility to the rich than anyone else? Surely the middle class worker also should support the farmer who stocks the supermarket. That's what makes this flawed and unfair. In capitalism, everyone helps the farmer at the same rate, and the best farmer (or corporate harvesting machine blah blah blah) should come out on top. The best succeed. It doesn't always work that way, but it often does. It would be a great and prosperous time when the nation is capitalist, but not so damn materialistic. The shoe company that makes the most durable shoes should survive, etc. All that extra cash you no longer waste on bullshit like rims (ahem rappers) could be given to charity.
So I haven't covered the rap part of this yet. Rap culture makes us more materialistic and lazy (Ultimate doom). The lazy part is what separates my argument from the old guy complaining about rock and roll. The bands the cranky old man hates spend time and effort mastering musical instruments and playing them. Rappers do not. In fact, they rely on their producers to do the work of creating the synthetic sounds, they simply speak over it. Some rap attempts to at least be labeled as poetry IF the rapper uses good grammar. Bastardizing the English language will only lead to more laziness and failure amongst their followers.
Now I'd like to dispel a common saying. That is, "rap is actually good for society because it gives inner city kids goals and aspirations and gives them something to keep away from crime!" Well isn't that great, I'm glad we now have an alternative to crime. If some kid says "gee I'm glad I have rap because otherwise I'd have to resort to crime," that's fucked up. The thought of crime should never enter his mind and that's what we have to teach. So rappers, when you're glorifying crime, you're not helping the situation. If you think you're so good for children then why are you instilling such terrible values into them? Now, to my other point. While this may get inner city kids out of crime, it only brings suburban kids into it! Rap is like socialism in sound. Slightly improve the bad neighborhoods, and worsen the nice ones, we get a balance of questionable neighborhoods! I see this from experience. In my small home town full of white kids in Rhode Island, teens are becoming gangsters, obtaining weapons, and making the neighborhoods more dangerous. This is because most people are sheep and follow some sort of philosophy taught by another. Now they follow the philosophy of evil. The result? No one is safe. I was once with friends and some white gangstas thought I said something bad about black people (which I wasn't even speaking about in reality). They proceeded to threaten me because they thought I spoke badly of their people. First of all, they're not your people you sanctimonious asshole! Second of all you can just see this gang mentality. No violence happened in that event, but the situation is only getting worse. Violence has occured elsewhere and will grow under the current trend. Once harmless teenage punks are now creating gangs and obtaining weapons because they're not a cool part of their culture unless they do. So I am asking society not to destroy their freedom of expression, but to frown on this behavior. That will make it disappear legally. It worked with OJ Simpson's show getting kicked off the air.
Sweatshops, they're not good. They shouldn't be legal here. However, now people are bitching about sweatshops in China and such. Here is my opinion. Would you rather have a sweatshop, or the people who would be working there dying of starvation because of a poor Chinese government we can't control?
So those are my issues of concern today.
First thing that comes to mind is this strange type of hypocracy I am seeing with the feminists. A current topic of discussion in my New York City history class is how women were viewed in late 1800s society by both the upper and lower class. The men of both classes saw women as property, the upper class as showpieces and the lower class as toys with which they could play. HMMMMMMMM...have things changed? Absolutely not. Most guys I know tell me they only want to "fuck girls and otherwise what else are they good for?" To rich guys a good looking girl is a demonstration of their wealth, just like a shiny new car (another concept I don't like). I will consider the gangster rappers as poor members of the lower class. They may be rich now but they're not fooling me. Without their rap they would be useless criminals. Just look at these rap videos. What's a good rap video without 50 sluts gathered around a pool? The difference is obviously that the rich guys expect a certain amount of class from their women where the rappers would prefer not as it would make things more difficult. Both positions are bad (Obviously that of the rapper is the ultimate evil, but what else is new?) My point though after a long introduction is that despite the feminist movement opposing this, girls continue mostly to go for the guys with either wealth, or if the girl is a worthless whore, a certain degree of overconfidence. Don't get me wrong, guys should be confident, but equally important is RESPECT. Aretha Franklin will tell you.
So ladies, let me ask why you do this? I recently watched a video of a fanatic preacher at a University pissing off women left and right by saying that a woman's place is in the kitchen and to be provided for by their husband. I bet the vast majority of women today would be offended by this statement based on the grounds that they should be independent as well and these roles shouldn't be set in stone. This is a great point, but please live by it. Don't go out saying this and then go to the bar suckering men into getting you free drinks.
Ok, now with that off my chest I move onto the freedom of speech being destroyed by fascist liberals. What was that? Fascist liberals? How can that be? The far-left might fool you by repeadidly calling conservatives fascists, but lets be fair here. If you get too extreme on any side, fascism is a possibility. Fascism DOES NOT equal national socialism. The far-left's problem with fascism is the attempt to destroy freedom of speech. Hypocracy again. Often times, this is the very thing liberals fight for, however say something they disagree with and look out. My basis for these claims comes from a few cases found in universities (Listen up students). Recently, at Columbia University, an advocate for the minuteman program against illegal immigration was forced off the stage by a rioting mob of protestors. Even more recently, an extremely anti-illegal immigration republican representative was forced off the stage by rioters at a Michigan University. Liberals are resorting to becoming unruly mobs in order to suppress alternative points of view. There should be punishments by the university against those who wish to impede on people's rights. Unruly mobs need to stop. The problem is, universities aren't very good at offering students the freedom that the US constition ensures. Brown University is trying to suppress an Evangelical Christian group. Now there's a marine at Columbia complaining that there should be something done about students calling him stupid for joining the marines because the marines are tricking minorities such as himself. While I disagree with this point of view, why should they suffer for disrespecting troops? As low as that is, it should be a freedom.
Onto my next topic that ties right in with the freedom of speech/expression. Hate crimes. Why do we have them? Why do we make crimes worse when race or religion is involved? All crimes should be judged the same. Here are some examples. First, there's a big to do here at Pace about the desecration of the Quran in toilets. They really want to get whoever is doing this. I agree that there should be respect of others' relgious faith, but if someone wishes not to respect it, they have that choice. This has nothing to do with the actual crime. To me, the only actual crime is that public property was destroyed. (The Quran was from a library and obviously littering in restrooms and scratching things on the wall is vandalism.) Let us point out that nobody is investigating who recently punched a hole in the wall of one of the dorm halls. However, theoretically speaking, if a note was left that said "This wall was smashed because black people live on this floor!", what would happen?
The next thing in this issue is Michael Richards. He recently used a lot of racial slurs against hecklers in one of his audiences. They were bad generalizations and he will pay the price with his reputation. But now there are talks of maybe having Michael pay the people he insulted! This is ridiculous and presents us with a totalitarian type stance that reminds me of Hugo Chavez. If you say anything that disagrees with what is currently established as being socially acceptable, you better watch out. So the moral of this story is that we already know very well about conservative attempts to squash the freedom of speech by trying to stop protests and such thanks to the loud mouths of the far-left. The quieter conservatives though don't bring the equal troubles the liberals have to our attention. That's why I have to do it. I'm a centrist, but it may seem like I am sympathetic to the conservatives. I just have to speak for what is less well known. Also, realize that I am not generalizing. There are of course the reasonable liberals and reasonable conservatives, just not too many of them. People take extreme stances to make themselves more clear and get things done easier.
My final political issue will be about materialism and rap. I talk about rap all the time, because this I believe is the least known problem. As a musician, I know more about it because I know how far from good music it is. I mean even in the rare occasion that rap has a good message, musical talent is lacking. Even less common is proper grammar. Destroy the English language and you are headed for trouble.
Materialism and rap go hand in hand because the most popular rap is materialistic and materialism along with rap is our nation's largest problem. Here is what I don't understand. People feel the need to get a ton of shit they don't need. You don't need a shiny car, you need a reliable one. You don't need 10 pairs of pants, you need 10. You don't need a certain brand name, you need a shirt that keeps you warm and I guess covered. If you are concerned about fashion, stop trying to achieve uniqueness through inademate objects. Achieve it through a colorful personality. If your sneakers do not have holes in them you don't need new ones. This really came to me when my mother and grandmother were asking me what I wanted for Christmas and making suggestions of their own. My Christmas list this year consists of a microphone I don't have yet that will benefit my music, some DVDs I have not yet seen, and some CDs I have not yet heard. My mother is also going to help pay for my lifeguard course. My low budget list consists of little things that I either "need" (all my basic needs are met unlike some in third world countries) or that I don't have another of. Being anti-materialistic doesn't mean I'm a socialist though. Socialism is dangerous because it relies on a benevolent government. You may not like President Bush now, but you don't depend on him to PROVIDE for you. This is the point Bill O'Reilly made in his newest book. Socialism requires the government to provide for its citizens so they don't have to provide for themselves. Sweden might look pretty nice right now, thanks to a responsible government. However, as soon as the citizens make the mistake of electing poor leadership, they could suffer. It would be like having an abusive mother. Plus, money would be distributed from the rich to others, at a higher rate than the taxes of others because "they have the responsibility to support the cook who makes their breakfast at a restuarant, the farmer who stocks the supermarket." I think that's a good point, but why is it more of a responsibility to the rich than anyone else? Surely the middle class worker also should support the farmer who stocks the supermarket. That's what makes this flawed and unfair. In capitalism, everyone helps the farmer at the same rate, and the best farmer (or corporate harvesting machine blah blah blah) should come out on top. The best succeed. It doesn't always work that way, but it often does. It would be a great and prosperous time when the nation is capitalist, but not so damn materialistic. The shoe company that makes the most durable shoes should survive, etc. All that extra cash you no longer waste on bullshit like rims (ahem rappers) could be given to charity.
So I haven't covered the rap part of this yet. Rap culture makes us more materialistic and lazy (Ultimate doom). The lazy part is what separates my argument from the old guy complaining about rock and roll. The bands the cranky old man hates spend time and effort mastering musical instruments and playing them. Rappers do not. In fact, they rely on their producers to do the work of creating the synthetic sounds, they simply speak over it. Some rap attempts to at least be labeled as poetry IF the rapper uses good grammar. Bastardizing the English language will only lead to more laziness and failure amongst their followers.
Now I'd like to dispel a common saying. That is, "rap is actually good for society because it gives inner city kids goals and aspirations and gives them something to keep away from crime!" Well isn't that great, I'm glad we now have an alternative to crime. If some kid says "gee I'm glad I have rap because otherwise I'd have to resort to crime," that's fucked up. The thought of crime should never enter his mind and that's what we have to teach. So rappers, when you're glorifying crime, you're not helping the situation. If you think you're so good for children then why are you instilling such terrible values into them? Now, to my other point. While this may get inner city kids out of crime, it only brings suburban kids into it! Rap is like socialism in sound. Slightly improve the bad neighborhoods, and worsen the nice ones, we get a balance of questionable neighborhoods! I see this from experience. In my small home town full of white kids in Rhode Island, teens are becoming gangsters, obtaining weapons, and making the neighborhoods more dangerous. This is because most people are sheep and follow some sort of philosophy taught by another. Now they follow the philosophy of evil. The result? No one is safe. I was once with friends and some white gangstas thought I said something bad about black people (which I wasn't even speaking about in reality). They proceeded to threaten me because they thought I spoke badly of their people. First of all, they're not your people you sanctimonious asshole! Second of all you can just see this gang mentality. No violence happened in that event, but the situation is only getting worse. Violence has occured elsewhere and will grow under the current trend. Once harmless teenage punks are now creating gangs and obtaining weapons because they're not a cool part of their culture unless they do. So I am asking society not to destroy their freedom of expression, but to frown on this behavior. That will make it disappear legally. It worked with OJ Simpson's show getting kicked off the air.
Sweatshops, they're not good. They shouldn't be legal here. However, now people are bitching about sweatshops in China and such. Here is my opinion. Would you rather have a sweatshop, or the people who would be working there dying of starvation because of a poor Chinese government we can't control?
So those are my issues of concern today.