...it all falls down.
I'm really, really frustrated.
Migraines are nothing new to me. I've had them my whole life. In high school I was hospitalized with a bad 5-day migraine and, more generally, I missed class up to three times a week.
College hasn't seen much improvement - I have to let my teachers know at the beginning of each semester that it's a problem and I might miss class more than normal.
Well nothing could have prepared them - or me - for this.
20 days. This is the TWENTIETH DAY of this horrible migraine. This morning was the first that I woke up without pain to speak of, but within twenty minutes, I had to take Percocet.
It started with a trip to the ER and hasn't gone away. I've been on a plethora of drugs these past three weeks, including tordal, depacote, percocet, maxalt, and prednisone (among others).
Percocet is the only thing that gives me relief. Problem is, I'm loopy as hell. My pain is gone, but I can't go to class because I'm so dizzy, and any homework that I read goes unabsorbed. And it all comes back after the percocet wears off.
I've had to drop two classes over this. It has set me back to a ridiculous extent. I was slated to graduate early, and I've been banking on that in making plans for the future. If this persists, particularly where Latin is concerned, it could extend my graduation date another FULL year. I can't afford it fiscally, mentally, or in any other capacity.
I don't know what to do. My doctors are not helpful in the slightest. The healthcare system is all bureaucracy and not at all about actually helping people. I need a neurologist, but OOOH no, you have to go to the Headache Clinic first. To do that, you need to fill out a 20 page history about every doctor you've ever seen and every medication you've ever been on, and then wait a month before you can even get an appointment. THEN they only see you once a month and monitor your progress.
I turned 21 on Tuesday, and I was home by 8 o'clock. I can't read. I can't think. I am useless. I need help. NOW. Not a month from now. Right. Fucking. Now.
11 November 2010
25 October 2010
The Culmination of My Studies in Liberal Theory
Ugh.
So, it's almost 4 AM. I've had a headache for three, going on four, days; I've been to the ER and Urgent Care for said headache, and have been prescribed Percocet until I can see my primary doctor for a more permanent solution. My first International Relations paper was due on Friday; problematic in that I was in the ER during most of Thursday evening. BUT, by the awe-inspiring grace of my International Relations professor and likely that of whatever God exists, I got an extension.
Anyway, long story short, here is the paper I cranked out to turn in tomorrow despite my blood turning to Percocet.
Presenting: Jessie's Liberally Theoretical Conception of Why War is Less of a Problem in the Post-Cold War Era than It Has Been in Past Eras.
It has little to do with the Cold War itself, uses World War II more as a reference point than it does the Cold War, and is painfully optimistic. I do not entirely agree with the overall position argued in this paper, but I had to prove that I can think like a liberal theorist. Despite my objections to liberal theory, it's liberal, it's 5.5 pages long, and it's my baby. :) I am very proud of it, although I am well aware that it is probably not my best work, given my current state of mind.
Comments, as always, are appreciated - however, they will have little bearing unless they are submitted before noon tomorrow, when my paper will be turned in.
Enjoy!
So, it's almost 4 AM. I've had a headache for three, going on four, days; I've been to the ER and Urgent Care for said headache, and have been prescribed Percocet until I can see my primary doctor for a more permanent solution. My first International Relations paper was due on Friday; problematic in that I was in the ER during most of Thursday evening. BUT, by the awe-inspiring grace of my International Relations professor and likely that of whatever God exists, I got an extension.
Anyway, long story short, here is the paper I cranked out to turn in tomorrow despite my blood turning to Percocet.
Presenting: Jessie's Liberally Theoretical Conception of Why War is Less of a Problem in the Post-Cold War Era than It Has Been in Past Eras.
It has little to do with the Cold War itself, uses World War II more as a reference point than it does the Cold War, and is painfully optimistic. I do not entirely agree with the overall position argued in this paper, but I had to prove that I can think like a liberal theorist. Despite my objections to liberal theory, it's liberal, it's 5.5 pages long, and it's my baby. :) I am very proud of it, although I am well aware that it is probably not my best work, given my current state of mind.
Comments, as always, are appreciated - however, they will have little bearing unless they are submitted before noon tomorrow, when my paper will be turned in.
Enjoy!
Normative Human Rights: Changing the Face of War
In the history of humanity, war has always existed. At one time, war was indiscriminate and did not delineate between military and collateral casualties. In its progression through human history, war has generally evolved toward the limitation of collateral damage. No overarching legal system in the international realm can monitor and regulate standards of war, but there has been a conscientious effort to establish universal rules of war between states. Since the end of World War II, one issue that has pervaded the international sphere in regard to the regulation of war has been human rights recognition and enforcement. The normative and legal changes in human rights have changed the standards of war, making war less of a problem in terms of casualties and conduct.
A precursor to any successful and lasting societal change is a change in normative standards. Normative change in and of itself is not necessarily legally binding; nevertheless, it is powerful. Norms encompass ideals and values held by individuals and groups within a society. In a free society, those values gain prominence in the population through the influence of “norm entrepreneurs” – advocates who strive for normative change within their communities.[1] The norms that become standards by which the government forms policies and laws are those that have influenced the basis of special interests groups and the resolutions of decision-making legislators.[2] Normative changes can also come about because of war: “World historical events such as wars…in the international system can lead to a search for new ideas and norms. Ideas and norms most associated with the losing side of a war…should be at particular risk of being discredited, opening the field for alternatives. ”[3]
The process of normative change in regard to human rights was inspired by the aftermath of World War II. The First World War made the world realize that humanity was capable of wreaking senseless devastation. In spite of this realization, World War II occurred, showing that the racial hatred on a government level can fester and enable calculated mass genocide. The devastation and cruelty of the Nazi war machine was unprecedented, and the norms that had been established within Nazi society (like the enablement and encouragement of racial superiority) were nothing short of appalling. As the full scale of Nazi intentions and actions were realized, the equal and inalienable rights of humanity became less marginal.
However, the prosecution of the Nazis did not necessarily bring human rights to the forefront. At the Nuremberg Trials, the main indictments against the Nazis were focused on war, aggression, and conspiracy, not crimes against humanity. The paradigm of the laws in place by which the Nazis were tried was that of pre-World War II, when the concept of human rights was neither definite nor fully developed. Thus, human rights considerations in the trial were part and parcel, but not the main focus, because they had not yet emerged as a normative concern within the international community, and they had not been internalized as a standard of adherence in Nazi prosecution.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (herein “Declaration”) exhibits how human rights reached a “tipping point” as a norm. Everyone recognized that the things that happened to the Jews and other racial groups under Nazi influence were things that should never happen again. In an attempt to realize this goal, the General Assembly of the United Nations established the Declaration as an international standard of human rights.
That is not to say that the Declaration is “hard law,” or “…[a] legally binding obligation that [is] precise…and that delegate[s] authority for interpreting and implementing the law.”[4] The UN General Assembly does not have the power to oversee the enforcement of the standards of the Declaration. The members of the General Assembly are encouraged to adhere to the standards it specifies, but they are only effective insofar as the individual members enforce the agreed-upon standards within their jurisdictions. There may be indirect consequences in ignoring international standards. For example, other nations may be hesitant to make alliances with states that are non-compliant with soft-law international standards.[5] However, nation-states are sovereign, and are in no way required to implement the United Nations’ standards of human rights. This makes the Declaration an example of “soft law,” in that it is an expected standard of adherence, but there are no direct, established consequences for those who choose to ignore them.
Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not have the “hard” authority that domestic laws tend to have, its adoption by various international actors is a result of what is called a “norm cascade.” Human rights became recognizable as an emerging norm in cultures and societies across the globe to the point that various sovereign actors used the concept of human rights as a basis for creating domestic laws and taking international action. As more sovereign nations agree to follow human rights standards, their example encourages the compliance of other nations in what can be described as a type of international “peer pressure.” Nations might also receive pressure from their constituents to follow normative standards, although this is not a universal factor, considering the non-democratic natures of many nations.
The final stage of the normative life cycle is internalization, where a norm “…achieve[s] a ‘taken-for-granted’ quality that makes conformance with the norm almost automatic.”[6] In the case of human rights, this process continues to develop. Today, different nations carefully consider the implications of certain actions from a human rights perspective, particularly acts of war. However, that is not true of every action made by every nation. As noted in Jack Donnelly’s ‘The Relative Universality of Human Rights,’ “…in all countries, significant violations of at least some human rights occur daily, although which rights are violated, and with what severity, varies dramatically.”[7] This may be discouraging to those who work for the advocacy of human rights, but the global realization of any standard is difficult, and takes time.
The realization of human rights has had a profound impact on the conduct of war, at least in part. During World War II, the Nazis did not distinguish between civilians and soldiers, which translated into more civilian than military fatalities. Today, technology has advanced to the point that the havoc wreaked during World War II would be seen as child’s play if certain technological capabilities (such as that of nuclear weaponry) were exercised to their full potential. However, the mindset of maintaining human rights compels many nations to target enemy combatants, not entire populations, and they are therefore less likely to use weapons of mass destruction and more likely to use weapons of precision. Human rights standards also dictate a certain level of civility in dealing with enemy combatants during war. For example, the Declaration forbids the practice of torture. According to the Declaration, this is an established expectation in the capture and incarceration of prisoners of war.
Human rights also inspire movements within states, potentially precluding war when those rights are realized. Changes in human rights that emerged from movements such as the American Civil Rights movement may have inadvertently prevented full-scale war. If racial prejudices were the inspiration of Nazi atrocities, could racial prejudices in America during the Civil Rights Era have escalated to the point of war? Although history is in hindsight and “what if” questions are impossible to answer accurately, one might point to the historical example of the American Civil War and its human rights implications as an argument in affirmation of that possibility.
In what might seem like an odd paradox, human rights can also constitute the basis for going to war. The United Nations serves as an institution of legitimacy in situations of warfare in that any nation that belongs to the United Nations must attain the approval of the United Nations Security Council before they can declare war on another nation.[8] The United Nations is more likely to grant the approval of a declaration of war if the nation in question has committed human rights violations. Conversely, the United Nations would never grant approval for war if doing so meant the compromise of human rights.
Today, the casualties of war are considerably less than they were 70 years ago, despite the potential for casualties to be much greater when one considers the greater populations coupled with weapons of mass destruction. The United States is currently waging two wars, one in Iraq, and the other in Afghanistan. The time span of the two wars together has been approximately ten years, and in that time, the approximate casualties of civilians and soldiers have been 100,000 and 7,000, respectively.[9] Compared to the approximate 60 million civilians and soldiers that lost their lives in the Second World War in the same approximate time span, the difference is remarkably steep. That such a dramatic change could be effected in such a short time is stunning, and it would not have occurred without the normative changes that have taken place in the arena of human rights.
Human rights provide a standard of justice that is applicable to every human in every place. It is true that human rights are never fully realized within any one nation, but by definition, their application is intended for every human in every nation. To some, this might seem like an unrealistic expectation, but if sovereign nations continue to cooperate and human progress maintains its current trajectory, then the realization of human rights in its full capacity as a normative standard is not only possible, but probable. Humanity might be flawed by nature, but as international institutions and policies are developed that encourage and advance the cause of human rights, normative human rights will become fully internalized and achieved.
21 October 2010
Interfaith-ing
The other night, I went to an Interfaith dialogue about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and it was the most fulfilling discussion I've had in a long time.
Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others representing other faiths (and then there was me, who couldn't tell you her faith if she tried...) sat down and had a wonderful, beautiful conversation about the thing we can agree on above all - that we all desire Middle Eastern Peace, and that we feel compelled to do our part to make it happen.
Yep. We ALL agreed on it.
Even the Muslims. Which doesn't surprise me at ALL, in the least, but it might surprise some of the more ignorant among those that I have the misfortune of knowing.
Coming from a pretty exclusively Christian background, hearing stupid, ignorant comments about Muslims is basically a daily occurrence. And I HATE it. I don't think anything pisses me off more (please read one of my previous posts on the "Mosque Controversy" for some extra flavor - Freedom of religion means freedom of fucking religion. SHUT UP.)
If you are one of those people that thinks that Islam is all about "honor killings, discrimination against women and violence," please, please, PLEASE read this post right here. It will make you think. You might not like that it makes you think, but having to admit that you might be wrong builds character and it makes you learn something wonderful and freeing - in this case, that Muslims are beautiful, deeply spiritual, God-fearing, God-loving PEOPLE, just like YOU!
It was written by a sister of mine across the globe that I have never met - but my love goes out to her nonetheless, and the courage and eloquence she shows in sharing something like this is inspired.
After you read it, go make friends with a Muslim, and have an honest conversation with them about religion. I promise, you will be surprised.
Thanks a bunch! :)
Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others representing other faiths (and then there was me, who couldn't tell you her faith if she tried...) sat down and had a wonderful, beautiful conversation about the thing we can agree on above all - that we all desire Middle Eastern Peace, and that we feel compelled to do our part to make it happen.
Yep. We ALL agreed on it.
Even the Muslims. Which doesn't surprise me at ALL, in the least, but it might surprise some of the more ignorant among those that I have the misfortune of knowing.
Coming from a pretty exclusively Christian background, hearing stupid, ignorant comments about Muslims is basically a daily occurrence. And I HATE it. I don't think anything pisses me off more (please read one of my previous posts on the "Mosque Controversy" for some extra flavor - Freedom of religion means freedom of fucking religion. SHUT UP.)
If you are one of those people that thinks that Islam is all about "honor killings, discrimination against women and violence," please, please, PLEASE read this post right here. It will make you think. You might not like that it makes you think, but having to admit that you might be wrong builds character and it makes you learn something wonderful and freeing - in this case, that Muslims are beautiful, deeply spiritual, God-fearing, God-loving PEOPLE, just like YOU!
It was written by a sister of mine across the globe that I have never met - but my love goes out to her nonetheless, and the courage and eloquence she shows in sharing something like this is inspired.
After you read it, go make friends with a Muslim, and have an honest conversation with them about religion. I promise, you will be surprised.
Thanks a bunch! :)
08 October 2010
I don't know why I do this to myself...
As you can probably tell from previous posts, I'm not the type that "follows" Glenn Beck. But I do listen to him on occasion. I was listening to him on the way in to school this morning, and he started talking about this "spiritual journey" that he's about to embark on.
This whole journey thing was no doubt prompted by some health problems he's having - something about his eyes, his voice, and a tingling sensation in his extremities. He talked about how his doctors are going to test him for "poisons" - not that he's being poisoned (which may be disappointing to hear, for some...), but that he is somehow consuming/being exposed to poisons due to his environment, something he's eating, etc.
He went on to talk about how he thinks he knows what those poisons are - how he "reads up" on his political, spiritual, etc. competition to "understand" them, and how doing so is affecting him to his very core, how he is not trying to become that which he exposes himself to, etc. but he's failing, because it's "poisoning" him.
And then it hit me. This is no spiritual journey, at all. If the things he disagrees with are somehow "poisoning" him, that's an indication that he's already chosen the destination for his spiritual journey. If he was really, truly open-minded to the things "God" wants to teach him, he'd be really, truly open-minded to the possibility that he's wrong. And he's just not.
That is precisely the reason I can't respect him, or Rush Limbaugh, or any of these other rock-solid, religious righties. Sure, there are people on the Left that are the same way in different respects, but I never hear anyone speak as loudly as these jackasses that are all, "GOD IS MAKING A SPECIAL REVELATION TO ME," when, really, they are just using God as a scapegoat to reinforce the things they already believe to be true, and to make them feel better about the fact that they are getting old, getting sick, and falling apart. They're not learning anything - if they were, they wouldn't insist that they are 100% correct all the time.
Spiritual journeys are about letting go of all of your inhibitions and prejudices and LEARNING something, about yourself, about the world, about spirituality itself. They are about being humble, not exalting yourself to the station of Right Light of the World, and they are about realizing that ALL of this - all of reality - is SO FAR beyond you that your opinion is only that - an opinion - and that opinions can be and often are WRONG.
I don't think Glenn Beck would know a spiritual journey if it danced naked in front of him. He thinks he's here to be a light to the world and make "Right" everything that's "Wrong/Left." Well la de fuckin da, what if your spiritual journey is meant to take you somewhere else, Mr. Beck? Would you let it? Would you let God tell you that you're wrong? Or would you just contort his message to further your agenda? Yes. You absolutely would. That is what you do, every single day.
I hope you can prove me wrong, Mr. Beck. I hope that you learn something valuable - I hope that you can learn to be wrong, and to ADMIT that you are wrong. In what respect? I don't know. I think you're wrong in so very, very many ways. But, the difference between you and me, is that I don't let my opinion become absolute.
Unless you're Pat Robertson, then my opinion on you is that the title "Scum of the Earth" is too good for you.
And, Mr. Beck, you are getting very, VERY close to becoming that same kind of monster. You may already be.
Please, please prove me wrong.
This whole journey thing was no doubt prompted by some health problems he's having - something about his eyes, his voice, and a tingling sensation in his extremities. He talked about how his doctors are going to test him for "poisons" - not that he's being poisoned (which may be disappointing to hear, for some...), but that he is somehow consuming/being exposed to poisons due to his environment, something he's eating, etc.
He went on to talk about how he thinks he knows what those poisons are - how he "reads up" on his political, spiritual, etc. competition to "understand" them, and how doing so is affecting him to his very core, how he is not trying to become that which he exposes himself to, etc. but he's failing, because it's "poisoning" him.
And then it hit me. This is no spiritual journey, at all. If the things he disagrees with are somehow "poisoning" him, that's an indication that he's already chosen the destination for his spiritual journey. If he was really, truly open-minded to the things "God" wants to teach him, he'd be really, truly open-minded to the possibility that he's wrong. And he's just not.
That is precisely the reason I can't respect him, or Rush Limbaugh, or any of these other rock-solid, religious righties. Sure, there are people on the Left that are the same way in different respects, but I never hear anyone speak as loudly as these jackasses that are all, "GOD IS MAKING A SPECIAL REVELATION TO ME," when, really, they are just using God as a scapegoat to reinforce the things they already believe to be true, and to make them feel better about the fact that they are getting old, getting sick, and falling apart. They're not learning anything - if they were, they wouldn't insist that they are 100% correct all the time.
Spiritual journeys are about letting go of all of your inhibitions and prejudices and LEARNING something, about yourself, about the world, about spirituality itself. They are about being humble, not exalting yourself to the station of Right Light of the World, and they are about realizing that ALL of this - all of reality - is SO FAR beyond you that your opinion is only that - an opinion - and that opinions can be and often are WRONG.
I don't think Glenn Beck would know a spiritual journey if it danced naked in front of him. He thinks he's here to be a light to the world and make "Right" everything that's "Wrong/Left." Well la de fuckin da, what if your spiritual journey is meant to take you somewhere else, Mr. Beck? Would you let it? Would you let God tell you that you're wrong? Or would you just contort his message to further your agenda? Yes. You absolutely would. That is what you do, every single day.
I hope you can prove me wrong, Mr. Beck. I hope that you learn something valuable - I hope that you can learn to be wrong, and to ADMIT that you are wrong. In what respect? I don't know. I think you're wrong in so very, very many ways. But, the difference between you and me, is that I don't let my opinion become absolute.
Unless you're Pat Robertson, then my opinion on you is that the title "Scum of the Earth" is too good for you.
And, Mr. Beck, you are getting very, VERY close to becoming that same kind of monster. You may already be.
Please, please prove me wrong.
30 September 2010
My Favorite President and My Complicated Relationship with Lutheranism
Today in Religion and the US Founding, we talked about my favorite president, Thomas Jefferson. And I was reminded today all over again why that is. Also, today in Early Modern Pol Thought, we talked about Martin Luther. If there's one thing you should know about me, it's that I have a complicated history with Mr. Luther and his doctrine.
First, in Rel/US...We had to read three documents by Jefferson today - the Declaration of Independence, a letter from TJ to his nephew, Peter Carr, and "Notes on the State of Virginia." Collectively, he had some extremely powerful things to say about reason, religion, and, obviously, what America should be. My absolute favorite quote of all time came from his letter to Peter Carr:
First, in Rel/US...We had to read three documents by Jefferson today - the Declaration of Independence, a letter from TJ to his nephew, Peter Carr, and "Notes on the State of Virginia." Collectively, he had some extremely powerful things to say about reason, religion, and, obviously, what America should be. My absolute favorite quote of all time came from his letter to Peter Carr:
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
I mean...WOW. This sums me up. This is what I've been screaming internally for my entire [Lutheran] life (you might be able to see where this is going). As my previous post might indicate, I hate hate hate HAAAATE people like Pat Robertson that thrive on...well, hate. People who get off on informing everyone else that there is a God and, wwwwooooah, buddy, are you EVER in trouble with him. [Not ME, though. He SPEAKS to me.]
Everyone (except maybe Pat Robertson) has the ability to reason. To use their head. To look at a situation and say, hmm, something isn't right about this. Perhaps I should investigate it. I agree with my favorite president and think that any God that might exist would appreciate us thinking that way.
Ok, here's where Luther comes in.
My life has been very, very Lutheran. I went to an ELCA Church growing up, an LCMS gradeschool, and a "Free Lutheran" high school (though I'm not entirely clear on what that means). My aunt and uncle are Lutheran pastors. So was my great-grandfather. Both my parents had Lutheran upbringings and mostly brought me up the same way (I say "mostly" because I dabbled in Baptist-ism for a while, which they were pretty supportive about). Anyway, to sum it up, any time any family thing happens, at least one Lutheran church service is involved. And that's totally cool. I love my family, and I love keeping family tradition alive - and I definitely consider Lutheranism to be family tradition. I'm told that my family, way back when, helped found the LCMS. That, for me, is something to be proud of.
That being said, there is definitely some negativity there. Much of the "FIRE BRIMSTONE HELL FIRE BLAAAAAAHHHHH YOU MUST FEAR THE WRATH OF GOD" crap I've heard in my life has either been in my grade school, my childhood church, and my high school (admittedly, there have also been other sources, but we're not talking about them). I have always had a voice (probably my Reason!!) inside me say, hang on, it can't really be all that bad. Whoever, wherever, WHATever God is, he's got to be more understanding than that.
Tonight in EMPT, we went back to the very beginning roots of Lutheranism, and you know, Luther was on the right track. Sola Fide. Faith Alone. Not works - you can never earn God's salvation - but it's ok, because he's chuck full of grace and love for you.
Now, to be clear, I have all kinds of problems with the whole faith thing, which has probably been my problem for my entire life, if only subliminally. I mean, yeah, the Bible says that God is a good God, but if God was a bad God, would the Bible tell us that? No. A bad God wouldn't be obligated or compelled to tell us the truth. That's just part of it - my point is, you just can't KNOW, based on the Bible. And, unfortunately, that's the only real way God (assuming he exists and is the Christian God) has chosen to communicate with us. (DISCLAIMER: If anyone looks at this point and wants to say "Oh but look at the pretty birds and the powerful oceans and the expansive cosmos and you have all the proof you need right there" please, please, PLEASE don't waste your time, or mine).
I guess the basis of what I'm saying is that Lutheranism only demands faith from you - my problem is acquiring said faith.
That's why I so appreciate Thomas Jefferson, and his reasoned reassurance that it is ok to be doubtful, as long as it's rooted in reason. If you're truly, honestly lost (which I TOTALLY am), that's ok. Try your hardest, do your best - whatever God is out there sees it. The way I figure it, if there's not a God, then nothing really matters anyway. If he exists and he's evil, then we're all gonna roast anyway. But if there IS a God, if he is a GOOD God, and if he DID create me just the way I am, if he IS watching as closely as they say - then he'll understand that I'm trying my hardest, and that I'm thinking the way he created me to think. He will not condemn me for that.
29 September 2010
Tell Me...
How does a fuckhead like Pat Robertson get any influence, at all, whatsoever?
I stumbled upon a website of Pat Robertson quotes, and I'd think that only the brainwashed and insane could possibly take him seriously. But apparently, he has quite the following, and I cannot for the life of me understand why!!!
Admittedly, I don't know anything about him. I don't know how he got money, what his educational background is, or what his background is in general. But when I read things like this, the rest is just moot point. The dude is cracked. I thought we got past the whole "God creates natural disasters to punish the gays" and shit like that somewhere around two hundred years ago. It's called science, dipshit. Hurricanes come around the same time of year, just like blizzards and tsunamis - COULD IT BE that it's because there's a YEARLY CYCLE of the Earth, and weather patterns follow it????! The list of offensive-to-reason things he says goes beyond God using weather to get back at the gays, but my point is made. He's obviously not using the brain that his God gave him.
Thank you, Pat Robertson, for reinforcing, nay, PROVING, my theory that those who "hear from God" just SUCK. If God's gonna waste his time talking to you then he's got pretty poor choice in in the company he keeps.
I stumbled upon a website of Pat Robertson quotes, and I'd think that only the brainwashed and insane could possibly take him seriously. But apparently, he has quite the following, and I cannot for the life of me understand why!!!
Admittedly, I don't know anything about him. I don't know how he got money, what his educational background is, or what his background is in general. But when I read things like this, the rest is just moot point. The dude is cracked. I thought we got past the whole "God creates natural disasters to punish the gays" and shit like that somewhere around two hundred years ago. It's called science, dipshit. Hurricanes come around the same time of year, just like blizzards and tsunamis - COULD IT BE that it's because there's a YEARLY CYCLE of the Earth, and weather patterns follow it????! The list of offensive-to-reason things he says goes beyond God using weather to get back at the gays, but my point is made. He's obviously not using the brain that his God gave him.
Thank you, Pat Robertson, for reinforcing, nay, PROVING, my theory that those who "hear from God" just SUCK. If God's gonna waste his time talking to you then he's got pretty poor choice in in the company he keeps.
27 September 2010
Facebook: Showing How Little People Actually Pay Attention/Care
Ok, so I've been off of Facebook for well over a month now. By "off of Facebook," I mean that I had my boyfriend change my account password, installed an application on my computer whereby the actual Facebook site is blocked, had my boyfriend password-protect said application, installed Facebook Mobile Texts for my phone so that I could update my status on the go/receive notifications when people comment on said mobile statuses. The mobile status updates are the only connection I have to Facebook at all whatsoever.
I'm doing this because I've grown to despise Facebook and the way it has changed my relationships with people and the way it utterly absorbs my time "keeping up with people." I just don't care that much, but I can't stop constantly keeping my News Feed updated, stalking people who I never talk to anymore, and participating in the endless meaningless activities that Facebook provides (and no, I don't mean Farmville). I much, much, MUCH prefer updating Facebook on the go, kind of like Twitter, and while I don't have access to what other people are saying unless they directly comment on my status, I've found that, when I'm not on Facebook, I just don't care. It's been refreshing, to say the least, to have such limited contact, and to have more time to do actual important things.
Anyway, it's been this way for, like, a month now. I've made it very clear in my Facebook blog and in that little "say something about yourself" box that I'M NOT HERE. I CAN'T SEE WHAT YOU POST. DON'T EVEN TRY. And yet, people are getting mad at me for "not replying to their messages," or "not responding to their wall posts," or whatever. Yep, there's a good reason for that - I can't see it. I WON'T see it. Not until Christmas vacation, at the earliest, when I'm going to allow myself back on. Even though I've made this abundantly clear, people just aren't paying attention.
It's little wonder why that is. It's because people don't actually take the time to look at your profile - they see what content of yours is being posted on the News Feed, and go from there. I wonder if people would go to my profile at all if I just quit posting via Fbook Mobile Texts. Probably not. Does it bother me? Not in the slightest, until they get mad at me for "not responding" when I'm not even ON. Just goes to show how little people actually care. Kind of like me.
I guess it's not all Facebook's fault - it's largely my own. I can't control myself/manage my time when it comes to Facebook. And that IS my problem. Maybe all of this sounds a tad cynical, but I'm just astounded more people aren't sick of the hypocrisy - "Omg, keep in touch with the people you never see!" Yeah, ok, there's merit in that, but counting on it to consistently keep in touch with the people you DO see all the time? to keep tabs on people you will likely never see again? COME ON. Does no one else think that this is unhealthy, to an extent? Does no one else think it a tidge egotistical?
Facebook has changed the face of communication and even has its own code of etiquette. I say, to Hell with it. I'm tired of my social life being dictated by my participation in Facebook. If that means not having a social life, fine, I have enough actual relationships in my life to keep afloat.
I'm doing this because I've grown to despise Facebook and the way it has changed my relationships with people and the way it utterly absorbs my time "keeping up with people." I just don't care that much, but I can't stop constantly keeping my News Feed updated, stalking people who I never talk to anymore, and participating in the endless meaningless activities that Facebook provides (and no, I don't mean Farmville). I much, much, MUCH prefer updating Facebook on the go, kind of like Twitter, and while I don't have access to what other people are saying unless they directly comment on my status, I've found that, when I'm not on Facebook, I just don't care. It's been refreshing, to say the least, to have such limited contact, and to have more time to do actual important things.
Anyway, it's been this way for, like, a month now. I've made it very clear in my Facebook blog and in that little "say something about yourself" box that I'M NOT HERE. I CAN'T SEE WHAT YOU POST. DON'T EVEN TRY. And yet, people are getting mad at me for "not replying to their messages," or "not responding to their wall posts," or whatever. Yep, there's a good reason for that - I can't see it. I WON'T see it. Not until Christmas vacation, at the earliest, when I'm going to allow myself back on. Even though I've made this abundantly clear, people just aren't paying attention.
It's little wonder why that is. It's because people don't actually take the time to look at your profile - they see what content of yours is being posted on the News Feed, and go from there. I wonder if people would go to my profile at all if I just quit posting via Fbook Mobile Texts. Probably not. Does it bother me? Not in the slightest, until they get mad at me for "not responding" when I'm not even ON. Just goes to show how little people actually care. Kind of like me.
I guess it's not all Facebook's fault - it's largely my own. I can't control myself/manage my time when it comes to Facebook. And that IS my problem. Maybe all of this sounds a tad cynical, but I'm just astounded more people aren't sick of the hypocrisy - "Omg, keep in touch with the people you never see!" Yeah, ok, there's merit in that, but counting on it to consistently keep in touch with the people you DO see all the time? to keep tabs on people you will likely never see again? COME ON. Does no one else think that this is unhealthy, to an extent? Does no one else think it a tidge egotistical?
Facebook has changed the face of communication and even has its own code of etiquette. I say, to Hell with it. I'm tired of my social life being dictated by my participation in Facebook. If that means not having a social life, fine, I have enough actual relationships in my life to keep afloat.
21 September 2010
Sunshine and Puppies.
This is my brother and his girlfriend.
They're so cute, I can hardly tolerate it.
20 September 2010
I can't shut up about my classes, and I'm sorry...
...but I need to get all of these wonderful THOUGHTS down somewhere!!
I just got out of an awesome International Relations lecture session where we discussed the possibilities of global governance and what that looks like today.
I've never thought positively about the possibility of a world order - maybe that's because of my religious background. To me, global gov't has meant what is talked about in the book Revelation, and that = not good. But I'm realizing the difference between global governance and global government - and there really is a world of difference. There is no hierarchical order that supercedes sovereign authority, nor will there ever be - but, as the world gets smaller and communication gets more instantaneous, a global system has indeed begun to take shape. The question is how to make these governmental networks, connections across borders, and state-to-state, organization-to-organization relationships work in a way that promotes our progress.
There are a plethora of problems. So many, that there will never NOT be problems. But that doesn't make it any less fascinating, that in the natural endeavor of human progress, such a leviathan (and I don't mean a Hobbesian leviathan) has taken form and is influencing us in the day-to-day.
Think about it: Facebook and Twitter create connections between people that would never, ever meet under normal circumstances. Last year when shit went down in the Gaza Strip, Twitter was alerting all of us on this side of the world to what was going on through the personal perspective of an actual person who was actually experiencing the chaos. These personal stories resonate with us, and soon, everyone can sympathize one way or another, and there you have a global network of world citizens, pondering the same questions, mulling over the same moral quandaries, thinking the same (if conflicting) thoughts. This is HUGE, and certainly can't be regulated by any one sovereign state, because it touches and affects almost every sovereign nation on this planet.
Facebook and Twitter aren't governments, but there is governance involved - maybe on the higher levels of administration, but also on an individual basis. It's become only natural for this sort of structure to take place.
That's so different from the apocalyptic, world tyranny picture painted in Revelation. This liberal course that the world has set has so, so much potential - it's hard not to get excited about it. While it has its problems, it may also hold some very crucial solutions.
I just got out of an awesome International Relations lecture session where we discussed the possibilities of global governance and what that looks like today.
I've never thought positively about the possibility of a world order - maybe that's because of my religious background. To me, global gov't has meant what is talked about in the book Revelation, and that = not good. But I'm realizing the difference between global governance and global government - and there really is a world of difference. There is no hierarchical order that supercedes sovereign authority, nor will there ever be - but, as the world gets smaller and communication gets more instantaneous, a global system has indeed begun to take shape. The question is how to make these governmental networks, connections across borders, and state-to-state, organization-to-organization relationships work in a way that promotes our progress.
There are a plethora of problems. So many, that there will never NOT be problems. But that doesn't make it any less fascinating, that in the natural endeavor of human progress, such a leviathan (and I don't mean a Hobbesian leviathan) has taken form and is influencing us in the day-to-day.
Think about it: Facebook and Twitter create connections between people that would never, ever meet under normal circumstances. Last year when shit went down in the Gaza Strip, Twitter was alerting all of us on this side of the world to what was going on through the personal perspective of an actual person who was actually experiencing the chaos. These personal stories resonate with us, and soon, everyone can sympathize one way or another, and there you have a global network of world citizens, pondering the same questions, mulling over the same moral quandaries, thinking the same (if conflicting) thoughts. This is HUGE, and certainly can't be regulated by any one sovereign state, because it touches and affects almost every sovereign nation on this planet.
Facebook and Twitter aren't governments, but there is governance involved - maybe on the higher levels of administration, but also on an individual basis. It's become only natural for this sort of structure to take place.
That's so different from the apocalyptic, world tyranny picture painted in Revelation. This liberal course that the world has set has so, so much potential - it's hard not to get excited about it. While it has its problems, it may also hold some very crucial solutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)