It's late at night and my mind is buzzing. I have to talk, so I'm going to make a blog post. I won't think any less of you if you decide to turn back now. This will be hard to follow, confusing, and quite possibly offending as I've noticed my brain tends to get a little weird late at night.
As I write this, I'm writing a book report in another tab, and my thoughts might overlap a bit which will be confusing. Well, I don't mean I'm writing them simultaneously. I've only got two hands and one keyboard and can only write one thing at a time. You know what I mean.
So! That movement to make Idaho a "Christian State"... what's up with that? Let's mock them mercilessly for a little bit.
...No, I can't do it. The knowledge that a single religion is so certain of its dominance in our country that it believes it can simply claim a state as a "Christian State" is just depressing. I mean, honestly, unless every single person in Idaho is Christian, they can't do that. Naming something a "Christian State" automatically excludes anyone who isn't Christian as being unrepresentative of that state, of not being a true... er... Idaho-ian. As I'm almost certain there's at least one person in Idaho who's atheist, agnostic, or a member of any religion other than Christianity, naming Idaho a "Christian State" would not be representative of it.
Imagine 83% of Canada's population consisted of huge rabbits. Would it make sense to call Canada the "Land of the Rabbits?" Actually, that's a bad example. Imagine 17% (83 - 100) of the population is huge rabbits and the rest are humans. That's more accurate. Would it make sense to call Canada the "Land of the Humans?" No, because (a) not all of the population is human and (b) a majority of humans in the population is not unusual or especially noteworthy. The same is (unfortunately) true of Christianity.
I'm not insulting Christianity, by the way, just saying that a bit of variation in religions would be better... no, screw it, I am insulting Christianity. I'm tired and on a roll, I don't have time for religious niceness. Alright, fine, Voice In My Head, being tired doesn't excuse being a jerk, but... never mind.
I've added a lot more to my little Life Goals thank-you note. I think I've mentioned it before -- it's a little blue thank-you note that I've been writing life goals and fun things to do inside. Assuming I don't accidentally send it to some relative in place of the intended thank-you note, I hope to use it in the future to remind me of both what I prioritize(d) at the ages of 13 to 14 and also as inspiration.
I will, of course, keep it private. It's possibly the most secret thing I possess. Well, with the exception of the private folder in my Google Drive. But I will say two things I've written in:
- Make real-life friends
- High school & college
I'm not sure what to talk about next, so I'll explain each of them.
Make Real-Life Friends:
I was thinking about this and looking at the Life Goals thank-you note tonight and I realized something: my life is kind of empty. I have a thriving online life, with lots of online friendships, but it's not the same as being able to call someone, to hang out, to play games with someone, to be able to actually talk face-to-face with a person. And with the exception of my best friend George, I'm pretty lacking in that department.
I'm going to high school next year, and that'll be my chance to make friends and to mend my social life. And that actually leads into my next point...
High School & College:
The next seven or nine years of my life (four years of high school, one year break, two or four years college) will be pretty crazy. I haven't decided which college I'm interested in yet; I've decided on my career, but not on any sort of steps to get there. I'll have to think about that, work towards that, and achieve that. I know I can do it.
I could probably keep talking, but it's been a long blog post already and I've got a report to write. So long, internetz!
Showing posts with label Opinions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinions. Show all posts
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Torture in the US
Alright, I'm going to branch out with this blog. It's going to include my opinions now!
So I only discovered yesterday... or possibly today, I don't really remember... that torture has actually been happening in the United States? Since when is this a thing, and why did I not know until today? Or yesterday, I don't really remember?
Here's one of the most fundamental ideas our supposedly-moral society is based on: torture is bad. It's a horrible way of extracting information. Sure, it's effective, but it's a violation of basic human rights. And we like those, we're supposedly a country that supports them (even though it often seems quite the opposite).
This article is a brilliant look at Dick Cheney's defense of torture -- even saying those words makes me want to cry. The fact that we can even consider defending torture, this horrible practice, and that we tolerate people defending it, says a lot about society.
Now, that article shows a little bit of Dick Cheney's discussion with Chuck Todd, whose Wikipedia page informs me is a journalist. He asked some pretty good questions, but in my opinion he was much too gentle.
The time has come and gone to talk about this gently. We talked about it gently when torture in the U.S. was merely a suspicion some people had. We let the Dick Cheneys sidestep our questions. But now, now that we know that the U.S. has tortured people, it is time to stop being gentle. When they try to sidestep a question, you should grab them and hold them in place. These are important questions and we can't let them go unanswered.
Let's look at what he didn't. What if another country captured a U.S. soldier? What if ISIS captured a soldier and waterboarded him? Even though this is apparently "unlikely" - which to me doesn't make sense either - what would the U.S. do? If they're taking the stance that Cheney is taking, then they'd say "oh well, they're torturing him, that's perfectly fine so we'll allow it to happen." We cannot allow that to be the U.S's stance toward torture. It is not an okay thing. It is not a useful tool. Torture is a cruel but, alas, increasingly usual punishment.
They even admit they may have tortured innocent people.
What the hell is this? Is he saying it's alright if you torture a few innocent people if it helps you get to the actual terrorists? Submitting people who have done nothing wrong to horrible torture just because you have a slight hunch that they may have had something to do with it?
That's like someone shooting everyone in a town because he knows that a few of them are criminals. Can the man be justified? No! The answer is obvious to us. Why isn't it in this case?
So I only discovered yesterday... or possibly today, I don't really remember... that torture has actually been happening in the United States? Since when is this a thing, and why did I not know until today? Or yesterday, I don't really remember?
Here's one of the most fundamental ideas our supposedly-moral society is based on: torture is bad. It's a horrible way of extracting information. Sure, it's effective, but it's a violation of basic human rights. And we like those, we're supposedly a country that supports them (even though it often seems quite the opposite).
This article is a brilliant look at Dick Cheney's defense of torture -- even saying those words makes me want to cry. The fact that we can even consider defending torture, this horrible practice, and that we tolerate people defending it, says a lot about society.
Now, that article shows a little bit of Dick Cheney's discussion with Chuck Todd, whose Wikipedia page informs me is a journalist. He asked some pretty good questions, but in my opinion he was much too gentle.
Chuck Todd should have pursued that further. He should have pressed Cheney to give a real answer. Instead, he didn't. He let it slide and moved on to other things.CHUCK TODD: So if an American citizen is waterboarded by ISIS are we going to try to prosecute for war crimes?DICK CHENEY: He's not likely to be waterboarded, he's likely to have his head cut off. It's not a close call. ...CHUCK TODD: If another country captures a U.S. soldier, the Iranian regime, water boards--DICK CHENEY: Chuck, he--(OVERTALK)CHUCK TODD: --is that going to be an accepted--DICK CHENEY: --you're trying to come up now with hypothetical situations.
The time has come and gone to talk about this gently. We talked about it gently when torture in the U.S. was merely a suspicion some people had. We let the Dick Cheneys sidestep our questions. But now, now that we know that the U.S. has tortured people, it is time to stop being gentle. When they try to sidestep a question, you should grab them and hold them in place. These are important questions and we can't let them go unanswered.
Let's look at what he didn't. What if another country captured a U.S. soldier? What if ISIS captured a soldier and waterboarded him? Even though this is apparently "unlikely" - which to me doesn't make sense either - what would the U.S. do? If they're taking the stance that Cheney is taking, then they'd say "oh well, they're torturing him, that's perfectly fine so we'll allow it to happen." We cannot allow that to be the U.S's stance toward torture. It is not an okay thing. It is not a useful tool. Torture is a cruel but, alas, increasingly usual punishment.
They even admit they may have tortured innocent people.
Please, allow me a moment to mourn the death of morality.Where are you going to draw the line, Chuck? How are -- ...I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent….I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective. And our objective is to get the guys who did 9/11.
What the hell is this? Is he saying it's alright if you torture a few innocent people if it helps you get to the actual terrorists? Submitting people who have done nothing wrong to horrible torture just because you have a slight hunch that they may have had something to do with it?
That's like someone shooting everyone in a town because he knows that a few of them are criminals. Can the man be justified? No! The answer is obvious to us. Why isn't it in this case?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)