TO BAN OR NOT TO BAN

Whether you disagree with the executive order or not, please can we stop referring to this “law” as a Muslim Ban. First, neither the words Muslim or Ban (the term temporary pause is the verbiage used) appear in the text of the order. Add in the fact the vast majority (Over 85%) of the world’s Muslims are still free to travel to our country and the Muslim ban argument continues to fall apart. While I understand Muslims are the overwhelming populations that are affected, calling it a Muslim ban is logically equivalent to saying the NBA has a ban on blacks (approximately 80% of NBA players are Black). The NBA has no ban on Black players based on anything other than merit of skill, just as the U.S. is not banning any countries that show values of fighting terrorism within their own borders. Proof of this comes now as Iraq has been removed from the list because their government has worked with the U.S. to thwart I.S.I.S. within Iraq. The idea that innocent victims looking for refuge from this country muddies the water of this discussion, I have written about this issue below. As I know the issue is far more complex, for the sake of simplicity I am only writing about the executive order and its implications for the United States. Countries have borders for a reason. They must be protected and properly vetted otherwise they are useless. As much as I would love to see everyone have the ability to come and take a shot at the American Dream, much like game 7 of a World Series, there is limited availability. The countries under the ban, are not some random decision by Trump and his advisers, they were listed as problem areas under the Obama administration in 2015 and continue to be problems today. The narrative should be about possible ways to help these countries fix the issues they are causing globally so they can become players on the modern stage, rather than how Islamophobic the United States is for being cautious about our borders.

 

 Refugee issue

I am NOT Islamophobic. I have zero problems with letting in suffering refugees, that is a uniquely American value… “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” The issue arises when the extremist can blend in with true refugees because of the homogeneity of their cultures. It is bound to happen and the US would be inept to ignore this probability. The cold truth is that there is an equation between American lives and foreign lives that must be calculated. As much as we should strive to the creed mentioned above, another cold simple truth is that American citizens deserve the first protections from their government, then and only then can we do the best we can for the rest of the world.

 

 

THE OFFICE- THE REUNION

CLICK THE LINK BELOW TO READ THE SCRIPT!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PwOH35ZFuefopgvcbdiCHub5c7sQbs2b618D7uK4NLc/edit?usp=sharing

THE NEW CON

Take a moment and think about the daily duties of your job. Now compare them to an occupation from 200 years ago, which does more for the world? If you are like most people (and honest with yourself) you will most likely find that jobs from centuries ago comprise much more purpose than their modern counterparts. Because they lack purpose, modern jobs are often accompanied by a discrepancy in skills to earnings ratio. During the days of the Colonial American, you had a blacksmith for metallurgy, a seamstress for clothing, and a farmer for food all trading their skills for the common good. Now we have men in suits trading stocks for solely personal gain, doing nothing for the world they live in. Trading used to be the end goal after your occupation created a successful good or service, but somehow we have turned trading items for other items into an occupation itself (and a high paying one at that). Society has gotten to a point where specialization is creating industry of its own, without regard to the benefits of the world. 

While progress in technology is the “devil” to some of these types of work no longer available, there are still a great deal of jobs that do provide value for the world but are no longer paid based on that value. Doctors, nurses, teachers, fire and policemen are all still jobs of great purpose and necessity to our society. Yet because of the modern eCONomy, they receive less than they contribute, while the men in suits sit back and collect 7 figure pay days. Is it such a radical idea to have the worth of an occupation to the world, correlate with compensation? Perhaps in the current state of things, it is.  

The Game

If you are able to read this, you have been playing the game for a long time. Typically when you start a game, you want to know the rules and tips for playing. You may read the instructions to learn, but not for this game. Sometimes you can learn the rules from other players who are more experienced, but not in this game. With most games you want to know the exact goal before you start in order to be successful, but again you can’t in this game. Generally you would like to know how long the game lasts, but not with this game. When you begin other players will tell you of all the different possibilities and guidelines they utilize to play their best game. The most troubling part is this gives you the assumption the other players know how the game is played. It is only after a great deal of playing that you find out no one knows how to win the game or even why we are playing. Some players go with a monopoly strategy, accumulating as much as they can throughout the game. Some form partnerships and allies. Others take an approach more like that of children playing tag, just trying to have fun. Of the thousands of strategies, everyone must find their own unique path to complete the game successfully on their own terms… this game we call LIFE.

NEVER DISCUSS RELIGION OR POLITICS?

 

I do not know when this advice began to be handed down to younger generations but it seems like complete non-sense. Despite what that advice seems to entail, this is the United States, not North Korea.There are some caveats to the phrase, like “not at the dinner table” but if we can’t discuss things with our family and close friends, with whom can we discuss it?  I understand there are times and places where debate is rude and counterproductive, but NEVER? The times where it should be avoided are too few and far between to utter the word never. Even ISIS might view that as oppressive. Exploring religious belief is extremely personal and not solely grounded in the physical world. Because I believe religious faith is inherently different than most personal beliefs, I will focus more on the political aspect of this phrase although most of these points could be ascribed to religion as well.

Without discussion we are left only with our own thoughts, biases, and personal experiences. While those may provide some value, we’re all aware we don’t know everything there is to know. Discussion of ideas is the only way we can separate the wheat from the chaff. Open inquiry is an incredibly valuable tool. Good ideas will gain popularity while bad ones will move closer and closer to the edge of society until they eventually fall off.

For the first time in my lifetime, there seems to be a greater general interest in this election cycle, perhaps for all the wrong reasons. Like his policies or not, everyone agrees Donald Trump is the most entertaining candidate EVER, but not everyone agrees whether or not that is a good thing. As the democratic primary winds down, polls show the unfavorable rating as over 50% of the population, FOR BOTH CANDIDATES. How did we arrive at situation where the majority of Americans do not want either of the major party candidates? Keeping politics out of the conversation, we’ve ended up with choices very few want. As much as people would like to blame big money donors and corrupt politicians, the onus is on us as the populace. If we don’t like the options we have we must realize our civic duties don’t begin and end at the ballot box. The process starts long before and an engaged civil dialogue will create the better options some are so desperate for in this election. We, the people, must keep up with our civic responsibilities rather than keeping up with the Kardashians.

The War of Anxiety and Depression

Life Lessons Abandoned

As a man entering his late twenties, I decided to reflect back on all the advice I have been given over the years from parents, teachers and peers and see how it has helped me arrive to where I am today. Thinking more and more I became shocked and perplexed by all the guidelines I was taught as a child being ignored by not only myself, but most adults in general.

 

Be honest, Don’t lie. Everyone reading this has lied more times than the sun has come up. Some study’s say once every 5 mins. When you ask most of these people they will claim to be very honest. Some justify white lies but every lie has its consequences. Telling someone you love a present they got you can erode a relationship’s trust when they find it in the garbage can. Even if its a minor hurdle to overcome the lie; why jeopardize a relationship on such a inconsequential statement.

Get a good degree.  With the amount of student debt closing in on 1 and a half TRILLION dollars, as well as a lack of applicable jobs for said degrees make this advice ludicrous. Everyone knows the Bill gates and Steve Jobs anomalies but perhaps there would be more stories like those if people stop spouting this “Sage” advice to younger generations. Trade schools and apprenticeships may be making a comeback because their nature is to teach actual workplace skills, rather than things like gender study philosophies.

 

Don’t judge people on the way they look. Don’t judge a book by its cover? In fact this is all we do. There is nothing more telling about a person then their physical appearance in our culture despite the fact we keep pretending its not. Some of it is the human nature of in and out groups and create real problems like racism and sexism. Other judging is based on petty features; A man with dreadlocks is automatically a “stoner”. A blonde is ditsy. We all make these or similar judgments every time we go out in public.

 

You can do anything you dream. This one I am on the fence about. Hard work seems to be an amazing vehicle to take you to the places you want to go, but with some scenarios I am not sure it can take you all the way to your destination. Unfortunately status, timing and even luck may be obstacles that vehicle can not maneuver through.

 

Some advice did stick. Treat people the way you want to be treated is a principle I try (with constant failure) to come closer to achieving everyday. Treat cops the way you did after 9/11; Treat other races and religions the way like you did as a child before you knew otherwise; Treat slow drivers like it is your own grandmother. Help people when they look like they need help. Some refer to this as the “Golden Rule” and I could not agree more. It is the quintessential lesson we must pass on to improve our society. For some of these others, it might be a good time to reevaluate.

I am still young and have many experiences and lessons left to go. If you are reading this and thinking, this kid has ZERO clue what he is talking about, you are probably right. 

Constitutionality

There is no such thing as true “constitutionality” when it comes to laws. There are simply politically popular rulings at the time of the decision that have no real basis on whether they are in accordance or violate the Constitution. Human follies causes many in the legal system to act on political motivation while coming up with convenient reasons as to why they aren’t. People can come up with wild and extraneous ideas explaining why laws do or do not fit within the Constitution. Many inane laws were constitutional until they weren’t. Although some required amendments to the Constitution (e.g.Slavery, Women’s Suffrage) others changed without any altering of the document. In the 1920’s the Supreme Court of my home State of North Carolina ruled 8-1, in favor of a program requiring sterilization of “mentally inferior” citizens. That law remained “constitutional” under North Carolina law for four years. For a more recent example, after an entire campaign about how ObamaCare would benefit the country and not raise any taxes, labeling it a tax was the only way supreme court justices could find a way to squeeze in into “constitutionality.” Other provisions are completely ignored. The document gives full authority to the government for the creation of an Army and a Navy but due to the time of authorship, there is no provision regarding the branch of the Air-force. This provision is simply ignored because there are zero political underpinnings. In reality constitutionality comes down to whether or not an idea is politically viable, not on any basis of the text.

Even the notion to review the document as it was in original form versus as a living document, is politically not legally motivated. When the very basis for reviewing the document is politically divided, how can we expect for a non-partisan ruling to ever occur?

At the time the constitution was being written, our current type of abortion services, stem-cell research techniques and communication systems could not have been conceived, so why would we conclude the Constitution has any chance of producing a “fair” judgement on those subjects or subjects alike. Do we expect tape decks to play the content of CD’s? Of course these subjects must be settled and laws need to be provided to guide the populace on such tricky matters, but lets not get deluded by the notion that the constitution itself, could ever be capable of rendering that decision.

The writers were a bit crafty (to say the least), including a Bill of Rights with the Constitution for a complete document. The tenth amendment states that if a subject is not implicitly directed by the Constitution, it becomes a matter of each state to legislate. This leads me to question the legality of federal decisions on cases like gay marriage and abortion (things that are not discussed within the text), however unpopular that may be. That didn’t stop the Supreme Court from ruling on those issues however, because addressing the issues became politically viable. If we were a nation of legal scholars I believe the climate would have been different regarding judicial review of those subjects. There is one clear cut, unarguable way for the Constitution to provide nonnegotiable guidance on contentious issues, and its happened 27 times. Amendments should (and are the only legal option) for the Constitution to be relevant on issues that arise in the future. The people, through representative democracy actually have the sole ownership to decide complicated unaddressed issues for themselves, not nine men and women in robes. We the people have the only power to deem any law truly “constitutional” or “unconstitutional” by way of democratic process. As citizens we have regretfully handed this duty off to the men in robes. Unfortunately most of us spend too much time keeping up with the Kardashian’s to keep up with our civic duties.

Democratic Process

As eroded and unjust as our legislatures have become, our representative democracy is still the process we must follow to pass laws. Recently, laws under many different names ranging from “Religious Freedom” to simply “House Bill 2” have come under fire for being discriminatory against the LGBT community (Whether they are or not will not be discussed in this article.)

Many corporations have signed letters and begun boycotts on business done in states where these laws have passed. Of the companies standing on the moral high ground, many like Apple have sweatshop type operations overseas. One company, The National Football League is actually listed under non-profit status while raking in over 7 billion dollars of non-taxed revenue . Others like Pfizer mistreat animals in clinical research and gouge pharmaceutical prices. The examples of hypocrisy are endless. While they certainly have the right to participate in commerce they approve of, what those corporations (which were given certain rights as “Citizens” thanks to the Citizens United vs. FEC court decision) are engaging in is a complete abortion of their civic responsibility. These companies are effectively saying because of our financial prowess, we can and will undermine the democratic process. States that pass laws they disagree with pay the price, literally. Imagine the gradient of this slippery slope. Will every state be forced to agree on every issue or face bankruptcy? This is not to say boycotting should be disallowed as mentioned above, they have the right to do business with whomever they like. However because of the large influence these companies enjoy they must be more responsible when it comes to delicate issues. Even if the board members believe a law written is morally wrong does that mean they must conclude all business within the state, even when it has nothing to do with the law they find unreasonable? What if business partners happen to disagree with the law themselves but respect the authority of the legislative branch? To not do business with this hypothetical associate makes no sense and borders on fascism. We have a very important clause in the Bill of Rights called the 10th amendment. It asserts that unless explicitly covered in the Constitution, all other laws remain up to the states.

If corporations with immense clout continue to bully all state laws they disagree with, we might as well abolish the 10th amendment. While I understand the desire for these companies to take moral stances on issues (despite their willful ignorance in other areas of morality), spitting in the face of our Constitution doesn’t feel very virtuous. But hell, corporations have already trampled on our democracy to the point where elected officials answer to big donors rather than their constituency. Expect more bullying until we stand up and show them this democracy is “of the people, by the people, for the people,” not the corporations.

 

Conversing with Myself

Holograms present the idea of reality on two levels. To create a “Hologram” you can use what looks like meaningless patterns of film which are actually carefully manipulated interference patterns that divert light to create a 3-D image. What looks like meaningless lines and dots can morph into a beautiful rose. Can we use this paradigm of duality existence to study neuro-phenomenon? Ever since Plato, philosophers and scientists alike have sought to determine whether the brain operates purely on a physical level, or if the mind is made up of something more. It could be the case that it mirrors holograms and the brain is made up in a specific physical fashion that creates the metaphysical experience of thinking and consciousness when energy passes through it.

Regardless of the true principles of consciousness, another duality of the brain seems to be created during thought; the conversational nature of thinking. I know I am not the only person that continues to have an internal dialogue with my self. Consciousness is a fickle thing to pin down and explain. If I am my consciousness, why do I need to think thoughts such as “You’re doing well in this game?” Since I obviously already know that in order to think the thought, who am I repeating it to?  With whom am I talking?

It may be the case that the use of language creates this phenomenon. It is difficult to think without language. I tend to find focusing on something causes the linguistic section of my brain to activate. When on auto-pilot, I do not think out the words, “Now is a good time to merge” (or at least it is not brain activity I can recall). However if I start thinking about driving those thoughts DO come out. Again who is it I am I talking to? If it seems conversational, are there two entities, one asking and one answering? Which one am I? What is the point of having conversations in your head? This constant internal conversation that makes me wonder (in a non schizophrenic manner) am I actually two selves, a conscious thinker and an autonomous do-er? The answers to these questions are anything but easy. Perhaps like the hologram, the two are actually one in the same and are just differing manifestations depending on the level they are examined upon. What that implies…. I am not sure. Maybe I’ll get a chance to ask my self. 🙂