Last night, after 11, I heard my dad laughing - loudly. I went to his office to see what was going on. He had found this video on youtube. Children, in a public school, singing in praise of Barack Hussien Obama.
So, why was my dad laughing?
He lived the first 12 years of his life in Moscow and he NEVER had to sing in praise of the premier (prime minister). All his classmates, along with himself, had to sing in praise of the party and the glorious nation, of course.
My dad laughed at how, in a 'free' country, public-school children are taught to praise the Great Ruler, while in the U.S.S.R. that didn't even last after Stalin.
After watching this disturbing clip, my dad and I watched Glenn Beck's and Sean Hannity's reaction-clips. Neither of us like Republicans any more than we like Democrats, which is not at all, but we agreed with most of what they each said, nonetheless. Beck and Hannity also brought to our attention the school principal's response to the outrage surrounding the video. She allegedly said that she "would do it all again". This is a principal of a public school. Just like with religion, she and the other staff are not supposed to demostrate their bais and indoctrinate the students concerning political beliefs.
It is my personal opinion that she should be fired effective immediately, especially because, according to Beck and Hannity, this was not the only praise-Obama themed activity she had the students do. Do you think she should be fired? Or should she be let off the hook because, after all, he is our President. (Hail Obama! *salute*)
Note: This post was not made with the intention of being anti-Obama.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Reality
In class today, I asked about how we were going to define 'fact'. The ensuing discussion/explanation starting me thinking, what is reality?
How do we know what is real if both history and memory are constructs? Every memory and each piece of history changes a little everytime we look at it, examine it. While pursuing this train of thought, I was reminded of something I have a memory of a friend telling me, or rather, asking me. What if what we think is reality, is all a dream? What if none of it is real? How do we know? I believe some people suffer from existential crises upon contemplating these question. This leads me to believe that I am out of the ordinary in being unbothered by the question of reality. (a.k.a. I am weird.)
Mr. O'Conner, if I understood him correctly, said that fact is what is strongly corroborated and/or agreed upon as fact by the majority of people. I believe that a similar definition can be used for reality. However, if that argument/definition does not work, I return to my standby explanation to myself whenever I wonder baout reality. "What does it matter? If everything is perception, then that is my reality, per definition and for the sake of my sanity"
My question: how do you define reality?
How do we know what is real if both history and memory are constructs? Every memory and each piece of history changes a little everytime we look at it, examine it. While pursuing this train of thought, I was reminded of something I have a memory of a friend telling me, or rather, asking me. What if what we think is reality, is all a dream? What if none of it is real? How do we know? I believe some people suffer from existential crises upon contemplating these question. This leads me to believe that I am out of the ordinary in being unbothered by the question of reality. (a.k.a. I am weird.)
Mr. O'Conner, if I understood him correctly, said that fact is what is strongly corroborated and/or agreed upon as fact by the majority of people. I believe that a similar definition can be used for reality. However, if that argument/definition does not work, I return to my standby explanation to myself whenever I wonder baout reality. "What does it matter? If everything is perception, then that is my reality, per definition and for the sake of my sanity"
My question: how do you define reality?
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Criminals as good guys
Earlier today I read an on-line article on Comcast news about a missing Yale student and it got me thinking. Who would best know how someone could have disappeared without anyone or any surveillance camera seeing her? Professional criminals, the more successful ones, anyway. Now, I am not suggesting that Ms. Annie Le, the missing Yale student, is a criminal. Rather, I am wondering how useful former fugitives-of-the-law could be.
An art thief, for instance, would definitely be able to spot a number of ways to get out of a building without being seen. At least, a thief that's good at what he/she does. What if former criminals, who already did their time or paid their fine, could be hired to help solve missing persons ,and other, cases? A criminal would have an easier time thinking like a criminal than a police officer would. In addition, it would give them a legitimate job, and thus, perhaps, lessen the likelihood of a return to crime.
Obviously, there are a large number of objections that could arise to such an idea, some of which are very legitmate worries that would have be addressed before police begin relying on ex-criminals. For one, how can you trust someone who made their living breaking the law? Using an ex-theif to find stolen merchandise may just be tempting them to steal it for themselves. Nevertheless, I think this could be a useful proposition the should be taken into serious consideration.
An art thief, for instance, would definitely be able to spot a number of ways to get out of a building without being seen. At least, a thief that's good at what he/she does. What if former criminals, who already did their time or paid their fine, could be hired to help solve missing persons ,and other, cases? A criminal would have an easier time thinking like a criminal than a police officer would. In addition, it would give them a legitimate job, and thus, perhaps, lessen the likelihood of a return to crime.
Obviously, there are a large number of objections that could arise to such an idea, some of which are very legitmate worries that would have be addressed before police begin relying on ex-criminals. For one, how can you trust someone who made their living breaking the law? Using an ex-theif to find stolen merchandise may just be tempting them to steal it for themselves. Nevertheless, I think this could be a useful proposition the should be taken into serious consideration.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
The Condescending Guilt Complex
Today in American Studies, we spent most of our double period talking about the diction and bias of an excerpt from a apparently popular textbook - popular as in often used by U.S. History teachers around the country. Most of our focus was on whether the author was expressing a pro-Indian bais - which I believe he was - or another bias. The idea of the textbook as an apology to the Indians was brought up. To that I added the notion of condescension. The idea of a condescending apology is one I would like to expand on here.
It is something of a complex, the American tendency to blame everything on the whites and coddle formerly, and sometimes currently, oppressed and/or damaged minorities. (At least in words) In the excerpt we read in class there were particular words/numbers that made the bias quite clear. "Indians are Cheated" as a subtitle is a perfect example. Indians here are clearly the victims, being cheated by the horrible whites (because cheaters are always bad people). So, writing it this way can be viewed as a "self-humbling' apology. However, the fact that the Indians were cheated (not robbed, for instance) implies that they are stupid enough to be fooled, a downright condescending notion.
The "self-humbling" apology is in itself incredibly condescending. As Golda Meir, a former prime minister of Israel, is quoted as saying, "Don't be humble. You're not that great." Humbleness suggests that there is something to be humble about. Giving Indians a "self-humbling" apology can be viewed as blatently rude, more sophisticated and subtle, but similar to a child pointing and saying "ha ha, I beat you, dumbie!"
My question is why Americans accept this kind of thinking, frequently agreeing with it? (Though I doubt after reading this anyone would admit to that point blank.)
It is something of a complex, the American tendency to blame everything on the whites and coddle formerly, and sometimes currently, oppressed and/or damaged minorities. (At least in words) In the excerpt we read in class there were particular words/numbers that made the bias quite clear. "Indians are Cheated" as a subtitle is a perfect example. Indians here are clearly the victims, being cheated by the horrible whites (because cheaters are always bad people). So, writing it this way can be viewed as a "self-humbling' apology. However, the fact that the Indians were cheated (not robbed, for instance) implies that they are stupid enough to be fooled, a downright condescending notion.
The "self-humbling" apology is in itself incredibly condescending. As Golda Meir, a former prime minister of Israel, is quoted as saying, "Don't be humble. You're not that great." Humbleness suggests that there is something to be humble about. Giving Indians a "self-humbling" apology can be viewed as blatently rude, more sophisticated and subtle, but similar to a child pointing and saying "ha ha, I beat you, dumbie!"
My question is why Americans accept this kind of thinking, frequently agreeing with it? (Though I doubt after reading this anyone would admit to that point blank.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)