Imprisonment or the Easy Life?

Now in an ideal world there would be no such thing as criminals and therefore no need for prisons. HA. We all know that's a complete and utter lie. As humans, we are prone to our fallacies and thus, crime will always exist. The problem with this is that we decide it is necessary to throw every single person who commits the most basic of crimes into a prison cell. Thus, there goes your tax money for Joe Schmo who sold a little weed. Note, weed is just a misdemeanor and is in no means a felony that should even be given jail time. What's ironic is that there is proof that there have been more deaths caused by tobacco and alcohol yet those two substances are legal. As humans, we are inclined to indulge. There is always some sort of substance that we might find ourselves more acclimated to. Whether it be tobacco, alcohol, meth, marijuana, or even a food addiction, our drug of choice varies per person. So when someone possess marijuana or sells marijuana are they truly harming anybody else? I would say in most cases no. Out of any sort of substance abuse out there, I firmly believe that it is the most tame. So why do people find it necessary to waste our prison cells by throwing in people who commit the most basic of misdemeanors?

I guess the logic is rather simple. You do something wrong, you should be "punished" for your wrongdoings. Ok, that logic is rather simple and easy to follow, and I'm not going to disagree with it. In this case though, who is the ones paying for someone's wrongdoings? Us loyal tax paying citizens are.

To me, prison time should be given to those who commit felonies if not more. Why are we wasting good taxpayer money on some guy who should probably just be given a fine and call it a day? It's completely unnecessary!! Furthermore, does jail time really rehabilitate a person? I'm not saying throw these lunatics loose and let them commit more heinous crimes, but according to what I've been told and how jails are run, they really are not doing much to change them for the better. If rehabilitation is not the biggest concern in jail then why even bother housing them? We're just providing free shelter and food for people who are the most undeserving of such. Of course, I would have to say that this is dependent upon the crime committed. I'm sure that someone convicted of stealing is not as big of a threat to society as a serial killer.

Which brings me to another point.. I am a firm believer of the death penalty for those deserved of such. The question is what is deemed as deserved of death? Well, the most heinous of crimes such as rape and murder are probably the most deserving of such. If someone has the audacity to take an innocent person's life, if not more than one life, then they do not deserve to have their life. I'm not gonna be the one to inject the killer, but if someone else is willing to get paid to do so, then by all means go ahead.

So stop wasting my money... Seriously... Stop wasting it on people that do not even deserve the time and attention..

The Rhetoric of Religion

The idea of religion to this day still baffles me. I understand why it would be a necessity hundreds of years ago, and to a degree, I understand the necessity of it even today, but as a whole, it is completely illogical. The only reason I bring up this topic is because according to religious zealots, the rapture is suppose to occur this Saturday, which in my opinion, is a lie. As a forewarning, if you are reading this and you are a religious sort, I do not mean to offend and this is merely my own opinion. Take it with a grain of salt. We are all entitled to our own thoughts and this happens to be mine.

My biggest issue with religion is the believers themselves. I am adamant about my belief that the most popular religions in the world today were more than likely created with the purest intentions. Whether or not the believers of said religion are pure is another question entirely. First and foremost, believing in your religion is one thing, but religious fervor to the point of hysteria is on another realm. I personally hate it when a believer decides to shove their opinions down my throat and feels the necessity to say that whatever I believe in is wrong, or that what I'm doing is wrong. Fine, it may be, and I may be going to so called "hell" for doing so, but what business is it of yours? I understand that their whole purpose of doing so is for our own salvation and thus in the end, they would be "helping" me out, but really, I didn't ask for said help. Second of all, who's to say that your beliefs about the divine and the afterlife are the end all? There's so many other religions out there in the world, and no one knows which one is the absolute truth. We all know that there is no way of finding out what actually occurs in the afterlife, so why shove something down my throat that has no concrete answer?

My second biggest problem with these religious zealots, and more importantly, missionaries, are their headstrong attitudes about conversion. If one recalls from history books, when European colonists attempted to conquer other countries, they also imposed their religions upon them. Here's the problem with that, when imposing said religion, you also lose out on their native religion and culture. This, in my opinion, is a complete travesty. With conversion and an adherence to the new culture, one will forget about their old ways and their old beliefs. It is my belief that, as humans, we must always cling to our past and our cultures. It is what defines us as unique. Thus we lose our definition of self and hundreds of years of history among that culture. To me, that is quite possibly one of the worst things that could happen to a native group. Your background and culture is what makes you unique, and it's beautiful in its' own way. No one should push them in another direction.

In addition, with forceful conversion also comes war. I doubt that the original writers had intended for violence to be committed on behalf of their beliefs. In fact, I thought they adamantly preached against violence in these holy books. So, if that is the case, why fight these holy wars if it goes against the ethical codes of your religion? I see no point. Again, this is probably due to the fervor that comes with religion, and thus purely a human error. I suppose we can't help our "human" faults but we should also realize that they are what they are, a fault.

Another problem with these beliefs is interpretation of holy books. Most of these holy books were written so long ago that there is no clear interpretation of the writer. This is all based upon the reader. As such, interpretation varies between persons and will probably never be exactly identical to the original intention. We, as humans, have a tenacity toward fault, and I'm sure that many interpretation is completely askew from its' original intention. So really, what is right then? There is no clear cut answer. This specifically ties into the supposed oncoming rapture. Somebody interpreted the bible into saying that the rapture is supposed to occur on the 21st, but who really knows? It's just another interpretation isn't it? There have been plenty of interpretations of the rapture, none of which has actually happened. Personally, I do not believe in the rapture at all, but if it does happen (which I doubt), then I rescind everything I have said.

Lastly, I do think religion is kind of a necessity in some ways, but in others, a complete waste of time. The reason I do believe that religion might have been a necessity hundreds of years ago is because we had no explanation for many of the things out there in our world. Now, due to technology, we do. Of course, not all has been explained, and I do believe that there are definitely unexplainable phenomena that does occur in this world, but regardless, most phenomena now has an answer . In this sense, what use would religion serve? Back then, it was an excuse to explain something that was illogical or unexplainable, now it still serves that purpose, but to a lesser degree. Furthermore, with our lifestyles now, it is hard to even fit the idea of religiosity into it. This modern era brings about a new slew of stresses that humanity has never experienced before. Religion is just another weight to add to our list of burdens. I am not a proponent of how we live our lives today as it is extremely detrimental to us as a whole, but religion can be as well. Interpretations of religion have gotten out of control, and not because of religion itself, but mostly because of the people that believe in it. It's a unique human fault that will remain as such.

Monetary Selfishness

If you might recall, a few weeks ago, the government was on the verge of a shut down in midst of a fiscal battle in our nation's capital. For awhile, those politicians could only come up with an agreement for the current fiscal year thus pushing the inevitable to September. What good would that have done? To me, that's procrastination on a large scale. But I digress... I wanted to bring about the issue of the economy because it is on all of our minds. I am not claiming to be a economic genius or in any way able to solve this issue, but as always I would like to put in my two cents.

As we all know, the last couple of years have thrown us into a economic whirlpool. We are trillions of dollars in debt, people are losing jobs left and right, and the economy as a whole has gone down the drain. As of right now, we are slowly starting to recover. The job rate has been at its' highest since the beginning of the crash. Regardless, our deficit as a country is completely out of control. Analysts do say that it will probably take ten years or so, if not longer for us to fully recover from our deficit. I do not think that any country in this world is not suffering from some sort of deficit, which makes me wonder how we rank among all the countries in the world that are in debt. Yet again, I digress.

If you recall, both sides of the right and left spectrum could not agree upon a way to help our deficit and establish a proper budget for the next fiscal year. Of course the biggest problem was the cut backs. Clearly, cut backs must be made in order to alleviate our problem with the deficit. Here's my thought, stop being so selfish everyone. We have brought ourselves at this point so clearly many things must be eliminated. It does not necessarily mean that such programs will be forever eliminated, but until our deficit is clear, non essential programs SHOULD be reduced if not eliminated.

There's all these dilemmas regarding medicare, medicaid, planned parenthood, etc... Those are pretty much the top three that appear to be constantly debated about. Guess what people of America?? THEY SHOULD BE CUT IF NOT ELIMINATED!! If you know my views, I am for planned parenthood, I'm totally for medicaid, I'm totally for medicare, but guess what folks, we're on the verge of bankruptcy and such luxuries are unnecessary. I think that the one thing that both sides can agree on is higher taxes for the rich. Well of course, that doesn't affect the masses but will it solve our deficit? Not even close.

Here's a way to solve our deficit, stop being so selfish about programs that are apparently "essential" because in reality are they essential? We could be living in way worse conditions and yet we whine and complain about what we have. In my opinion, as a country, we have been handed the silver platter. These so called "essential" programs are not really essential at all and are merely just an added bonus to what we have already been given.

So here's my thought, let's stop being selfish, eliminate unnecessary spending on these so called "essential" programs for the time being. If elimination is impossible, scale back on it. When our country no longer has a deficit and is back in its' full force, bring these programs back. Then again, that's just my two cents.

The Business of War

Events in the past twenty years or so have often focused around the Middle East. Today is of no difference. If you want to talk about the most current of events, then of course Libya would be the main topic of discussion. It seems that the people of the Middle East tire of their dictators and wish to overthrow such tyrannical rule. What started in Tunisia has spread like wildfire throughout the Middle East. Perhaps an appreciation for the Western standard has got them believing that democracy is what is necessary, or perhaps they tire of their old regime. Regardless, Islamic states such as those in the Middle East do hold a higher regard in terms of regulations than those such as ours.

The biggest event as of late, was the bombing of Tripoli by the Allied forces. Now this in my opinion is ridiculous. My problem with this issue is in fact with US involvement. Why must we as a country stick our nose in almost everything that occurs within the world? More importantly, why must it be with violence? If it was among diplomatic terms that is somewhat more understandable but shooting rockets into Tripoli?? To me, that is almost unacceptable. I can see why the Allied forces would want to take Qaddafi down. Clearly, he is not sane of mind, but regardless what can one do in this scenario?

The biggest qualm I have with this declaration is that we are already amidst a war and yet now we might be on the verge of another. Bombing a city is obviously an aggressive attack that could lead to negative consequences. We, as a country, are already severely in debt. Our military spending is already out of control, and to add this on top of everything else is completely unnecessary. Furthermore, Obama executed this order without the permission of Congress, a clear violation of our nation's system of checks and balances. According to the constitution, only in times when are actual nation is in danger may the president supersede Congress and sign off on a military initiative. Last time I checked were we in any sort of immediate danger from Libya?? I think not.

I guess what they were thinking is that being a premiere nation of the world, we could not just stand idly by and watch as a tyrant killed his own people. More importantly, being involved with UN, NATO, all of those organizations almost makes us "obligated" to so called be involved. Other European nations are considering bringing troops into Libya while we stand idly by. Thank god. We should not waste more money and lives than necessary. Last I heard, we have already sunk in approximately $600 million into the bombings in Libya. That is a ridiculous amount for a war that we are not even directly involved with.

Maybe it's just me, maybe I'm wrong, but as an allied country, I say we vote not to help out Libya. Aid is one thing, but bombing is another. Our country is already in massive amounts of debt and trouble and yet we seem to only want to escalate it even more so? War it seems is a profitable business.

Stagnation

Upon listening to this incredibly interesting interview on NPR, I was automatically stricken with thought. Later on that night, I actually read the article in which the NPR interview was based upon. Now, one must be wondering, what exactly am I ranting about? The article can be defined simply as the social science bias of liberalism. Among the community of Social Scientists, it appears that most take a staunchly liberal stance and thus for the most part, offer the same opinions as each other without any protest. Thus, how is one to propagate knowledge when only one point of view is put forward and agreed upon on an almost unanimous basis? The author termed this the "tribal moral community," which I personally think is a great term to define this idea.

I personally can contest to the idea of prevalent liberalism from a Social Scientist point of view. Coming from a Social Sciences background, I was clearly raised with a liberal point of view. I can attest to the ideology that most universities especially thrive under this so called liberal base. Academics alike tend to think on a liberal basis and when spreading their knowledge, so comes their political stances and ideologies. As such, a so called "tribal moral community" is created in which one and all agree upon said stances and therefore no argument will be brought up against it. Doesn't this whole idea go against what our forefathers wanted us to do? Instead of passively following the crowd, they wanted us to challenge each other intellectually to bring about varying points. If all were in consensus on a said topic then no one would bring about contradictory points to explore said topic and thus a whole world of knowledge could quite possibly be lost. I might be exaggerating the point, but regardless, a completely differentiating view is thus ignored and never even explored in the first place. Where does that leave academia?

In this sense, academia thus becomes a stagnant pool, at least among the social sciences.