I Should Know This By Now...

Today was yet another reminder that it is not what you know, or how well you perform, but who you know and what gratuities one may expect from that. **SIGH** I'm sure I'll get suckered in again in the not-too distant future.

Who Will Mourn Me?

When I leave this world, who will mourn me?
     The children who never call?
     The siblings who never write?
     The parents who never held me?

When I leave this world, who will mourn me?
     The friends who have lost touch?
     The acquaintances who will most assuredly find other things with which to occupy their minds?
     The co-workers I did not impress, or maybe even outshined?

When I leave this world, who will mourn me?
     The zealots who speak of eternal damnation?
     The philosophers who speak of wasted opportunity?
     Those who know not themselves, thus, know not me?

When I leave this world, who will mourn me?
     Who will mourn me?

Of Hemmingway, Rogers, and Atheism

"All thinking men are atheists."--Ernest Hemmingway.
(Paraphrasing) "When expounding your beliefs, be respectful of others'."--Carl Rogers.

          I really do not care for Ernest Hemmingway's style of writing. He took (perfected?) the notion of minimalism and applied it almost to the point of absurdity in most of his stories. That being said, I must offer kudos in his statement concerning atheism.
          Carl Rogers was a noted psychologist who is credited with the "Rogerian Arguement" (named after him), the overall point of which being that as one expresses their beliefs, they must remain respectful of the beliefs of others. I had done this several times in my life, ignorant of the fact that there was even a name for it.
          Approximately nine months ago I made public the fact that I am an atheist. The more I look to the sciences to explain life as I know it (in this way I differ greatly from the Deists), the more I am convinced that science provides the answers. I do not need the figurehead of any religion to substantiate my existence; I was created when a sperm cell entered an egg. At that point the genes from my parents were passed on to me, and as I grew older social and cultural influences helped shape me into the being I am today. I am an extremely analytical person, so Hemmingway's quote holds true for me.
          I am a Rogerian atheist in the sense that the motto "Live and let live" applies to my philosophy concerning this topic. I do not try to cram my belief(s) down anyone's throat, and I certainly do not get angry when someone expresses their belief in a faith or religion, or even attempts to tell me I am wrong for believing the way I do. No one has to like what I believe, but I do ask that they give the same amount of respect for my views that they want for theirs.
          So what is the point of this newest entry into my blog? Quite simply, it is to inform--and hopefully change--the mindset of the faction of hostile atheists that have made atheism their religion. These individuals are not content to allow anyone to have their own beliefs. No, they ridicule and aggressively pursue Christians (and why Christians only I do not know. There are several belief systems in the world) to the point of "being offended" by the Christian belief and way of life.
          On any given day I read one story or another on how atheists are offended by a cross in the middle of a desert, or on a municipal building, so they protest until the cross (or other religious symbol) is removed. Then there is the rumor that Pepsi will not include the words "under God" on their products that will display the Pledge of Allegiance for fear of offending someone, when in reality they will have offended several religious organizations by omitting it, and as a sidebar to that, as one individual pointed out, "...they certainly don't mind accepting money that says 'In God We Trust' when the item is purchased." The ideology of not offending anyone is ridiculously out of hand, for, as the saying goes, you cannot please all of the people all of the time, and organizing a crusade against someone or something for the simple reason of having something to argue over ("Rebel Without a Cause" syndrome, perhaps?) should not be viewed only as an exercise in futility, but a complete and utter waste of time as well.
          These hostile atheists are fanatics in their own right, and just like all fanatics, give a bad name to those of us who wish peace, prosperity, and happiness among all. I certainly do not get caught up in the game, and I never go elephant hunting with a B.B. gun. There is no injustice in allowing someone to believe in the god or gods of their choice. I am reminded of a scene from "Corina, Corina" where the daughter of Ray Liotta's character mentions that she has been "...talking to Mommy in Heaven." Liotta's character says (paraphrasing), "Honey, Heaven is a made-up place that people convince themselves is real so they can feel better about things." The little girl then says, "So? What's wrong with that?" That is the question I now put forth to all atheists who feel it is their obligation to keep stirring the pot: What is wrong with that? If it gets someone through the day, why should you be offended? If it is your contention that Christians or any other religious group are too weak-minded to see the truth, just allow this to substantiate that belief. Live and let live. Believe me, when all is said and done, none of this really matters anyway.

Musings From A Cigarette Smoking Man: The Socialist Agenda in our Institutions of Higher...

Musings From A Cigarette Smoking Man: The Socialist Agenda in our Institutions of Higher...: My class is given an assignment. Being the person that I am, I research the topic to ensure I provide fact to substantiate my claims. I...

The Socialist Agenda in our Institutions of Higher Learning

     My class is given an assignment. Being the person that I am, I research the topic to ensure I provide fact to substantiate my claims. I spend hours editing and re-editing my paper to make it as perfect as possible, because I know that not only am I being graded on my essay, but my presentation as well. With that in mind, I practice the speech over and over again to ensure my timing and delivery are within the parameters set by the instructor. The day the assignment is due, I choose to go first, not only to get my turn out of the way, but to set the standard by which all others must follow. Let's face it: I am that damned good. This isn't boasting; it's just a fact. I give my speech without flaw, submit my paper, and am confident I will receive the 100 that I deserve. The next five people stumble over their speeches, clap their hands together while speaking, rock back and forth on their heels, read from their papers without ever looking up to establish eye contact, "UM...Uh...You know...Right?...Know what I mean? Know what I'm saying?" is more of what they say than actually informing us of their topic. Their essays are less than the 1000 words required by the instructor (I know this because I do socialize with my classmates. I do look at their papers and see they are filled with opinion substantiated by nothing). How in hell does someone who waited until the last minute to do their project, then delivers a lackluster presentation, make the same 100 I did? Quoth the instructor, "They tried. That's all I can ask for." I remind this instructor (later, in a one-on-one discussion) that the sign outside of the institution says "College," and by simple virtue of that one immutable fact, that in and of itself sets the standard by which all students should be judged. If this was a single occurance, I would not be writing this right now. I have faced this scenario in four different classroom environments. Socialism. Only the weak and unimaginative could embrace such a concept.

Goin' Retro!!!!!

I have been playing a lot of PSOne of late. Parasite Eve, Legend of LaGaia...Think I'll do Lufia II next. It seems to me that the best RPGs were on PS1. Oh, I just "upped" and forgot how to log onto twitter. I remember my passwprd, I just can't recall my user name, and I have tried EVERYTHING! Oh, well. Guess my twiggas will have to do without my tweets from here on out. Long weekend, but have four different papers to do before Tuesday. No rest for the weary.

Ask The Wrong Question, Get The Wrong Answer

Over the past few months I have encountered a...phenomenon isn't the correct word. Dichotomy, perhaps? in the thinking and expressed views of several people: I have listened to self-proclaimed liberals and/or socialists espousing racist beliefs. I will not lie; this has troubled me immensely, not so much because in this day and age racism exists and continues to run rampant through the minds of the ignorant (especially here in the south), but because it exists among those students with whom I interact on an almost daily basis. Aren't we--those seeking higher education--supposed to be of open minds and tolerance? Apparently not. A socialist who is a racist. I cannot fathom this. I spoke with my psychology and sociology instructors concerning this, and both agreed something was wrong in the thought process of the individual(s) who adheres to such pabulum. With the SOC instructor, the reality that racism will never truly die was countered by the telling of her former instructor's prophecy: "By the year 2100, everyone will be a bi-sexual mullato." This, of course, was said in jest, but does such a reality await us all? My PSYCH instructor, on the other hand, stated that he believed a socialist could be exclusive in to whom the proleteriat should benefit. I did not accept this. I COULD not accept this, because by definition, the proleteriat seeks the equality of the working class as a whole, not "rationalized" factions of said. This was really beginning to bug the hell out of me. I didn't lose sleep over it, but it irked me that I could not get past this hurdle of how a socialist or liberal could be a racist. Then it dawned on me: The reason my PSYCH instructor's answer made no sense to me is because I asked the wrong question. I thought back to the end of the Civil War: Blacks were given their freedom from enslavement, but their inclusion into the newly-formed Socialist Party as well as the many worker unions that sprang up was nil, even though by definition they eventually became eager and willing candidates (and for the record, all blacks were Republicans initially, as they paid an homage to Abraham Lincoln for his efforts in setting them free [and for the record, the Civil War was never about ending slavery {The Emancipation Proclamation took care of that}, it was about "...preserving the Union.]. Was it not the Republicans who facillitated the change from oppression of the black man to making him an economically viable citizen in the south in the aftermath of the war? But this is not meant to be a history lesson). This brings me to today, and my poorly-phrased question. How can a socialist be a racist? (S)he cannot. It is impossible for such an entity to exist. We, as human beings, tend to define ourselves by grouping. There are many groups, some more important than others, that we latch onto in our quest to identify ourselves. I am analytically driven, I am a conservative, I am open-minded, and I am athiest. At any point, these and the host of other traits and qualities I exhibit can become my primary group, with the others falling into secondary groups. I like to think that what defines me best is that I am analytically driven, but the others are equally important as well. I have already shown how a socialist racist cannot exist. The proper question, then, is: Can a racist exhibit socialist tendencies? Undoubtedly. The person in question must be grouped according to their strongest belief, or that which best defines them. In this case, they must be racist above all else (inclusion of the specific group) with a feeling of entitlement toward (the exclusion of others in matters of) socialist doctrine. So there you have it. I have hypothecized, theorized, and formed a cognitive, logical explanation to this most perplexing enigma, no doubt given power by the fact that I asked the wrong question to begin with.