A Negated Affirmative: Political Duct Tape

The following video is an excerpt from an interview with Thomas Sowell, a Havard graduate who has, throughout the decades, studied and commented on the effects of different actions taken by the government, especially those of feminism, affirmative action and racialism.

The rest of this post is a paper that I wrote in my freshman English class at Southern Virginia University. I don't remember what grade I got on it, but I do feel that it brings up some excellent points. Sowell discusses several of these points in the video, though he talks mostly about how affirmative actions affects the workplace. The focus of my paper was that of college admission and scholarships. 

 http://youtu.be/JENCxjbARFM  

  

A Negated Affirmative 

by Clark Lindsey

Duct tape offers a temporary, superficial and sometimes damaging solution for holding things together. Likewise, affirmative action as applied in the college application process not only sidesteps the underlying issue of equal opportunity, it injures society on a deeper level through a cruel irony; this attempt to defend the rights of minorities has in a twisted, yet predictable way become the driving force of reverse discrimination by diminishing the value of hard work through unwarranted handouts.
  
Affirmative action is defined as action taken to prevent discrimination (be it against race, gender, religion, etc). At the time of the issue of Executive Order 10925, in which affirmative action is first defined and introduced, the circumstances were rather dire for the minority population, with Jim Crow laws and prejudice saturating the system. This order promised minorities better job security, better prospects of being admitted to state-funded colleges, and more superior career possibilities than previously available. But a hidden, then subtle issue arose: how far should we assist the minorities before it has become too much?

Garret Hardin sheds a little light on the subject in his “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor”. He submits a dilemma in which there are fifty people in a lifeboat with room for sixty total and one hundred more people tread the water around the boat. His query follows as thus: “[W]hich 10 do we let in?” (359) Naturally [according to current attitudes towards affirmative action], the minorities deserve our attention and undying devotion, above love of self and the good of society. As today’s connotation of affirmative action asserts, the part-black, part-Native American woman should be among the first admitted, the others being the Atheist homosexual and the illegal immigrant, regardless of the collective importance of their well being. Furthermore, the children of any Congressmen, former or present should be high in consideration because of the status of their parent. Basically, whether or not they have a family, a job, or prior demonstration of academic and/or societal propensities merits little to no significance in comparison to their other, uncontrollable factors like parental status in society, race or gender. Faulty logic clearly grounds that conclusion.

Admission to higher education deserves no more interchangeability between rights and privileges as the lifeboat quandary. Why should minority students be given a leg up over the stereotypical white male unless they have exhibited a finer proclivity in scholastic abilities? Now, before I delve further into this subject, the reader should understand that I represent what I imagine to be one of the smallest minority groups in existence: Cherokee blood runs through my veins, the Mormon religion characterizes my morals, and my parents adopted me from birth. Yet no monies from schools or random institutions, let alone the government pay for my college education based on any of these aspects because I don’t find it ethically correct to accept such funds. I worked long hours at Wal-mart and the local pool to pay for my college, and I find such subsidies non-compliant with affirmative action, seeing as they discriminate recipients based on the very facets that affirmative action forbids. I mention this because hypocrisy doesn’t bode well in academia, and hard work compensates for shortcomings in faculty.
   
The fact that we have the works of Frederick Douglass proves the latter statement. He worked diligently to achieve his goals, and despite dismal circumstances, he succeeded. He was enslaved and sold as live wares for ill-earned gain, yet he reads and writes. Listen to the heartlessness demonstrated by his master and eventually his mistress:
I lived in Master Hugh’s family about seven years. During this time, I succeeded in learning to read and write. In accomplishing this, I was compelled to resort to various stratagems. I had no regular teacher. My mistress, who had kindly commenced to instruct me, had, in compliance with the advice and direction of her husband, not only ceased to instruct, but had set her face against my being instructed by anyone else. It is due, however, to my mistress to say of her, that she did not adopt this course of action immediately. She at first lacked the depravity indispensable to shutting me up in mental darkness. It was at least necessary for her to have some training in the exercise of irresponsible power, to make her equal to the task of treating me as though I were a brute. (Douglass)

Now, I do not contend that slavery rests among even the remotest of viable methods for teaching the value of being proactive, but it induced his “various stratagems” which exemplify hard work and resolve. He worked in a “ship-yard”, utilizing the other boys to learn how to read by challenging their knowledge, contesting that he knew how to read and write better than they, understanding full well that the four letters he had picked up from the labeled boards he worked with didn’t even hold a candle to the skills possessed by those he confronted. This effort epitomizes how people should move up in society; networking logically yields positive results, and humans have a tendency to work harder in adversity.
   
For example, my peoples, the Mormons and the Cherokee, by this nation alone were murdered and driven from their homes because they were different and in the way. Both established new homes, built new lives and moved on, making their plight a part of their tale and vigor—like Douglass, except on a grander scale. Myself, I am adopted, and I jokingly say that my parents picked me off of the clearance rack, and got a handful to deal with, but I still endeavored to become self-sustaining. On a much more serious note, let us not forget the bombings of Hiroshima and the legitimately hellish environment that ensued. Counter-intuitively, “[e]ven while the smoke still rose from the wasteland of total destruction, human goodwill began to go into action as people made their first moves toward recovery and restoration” (289). People push through and become stronger individuals after tribulation, and many different cultures have developed through hardship; therefore, by eliminating financial hardship because of culture you risk redefining the culture as well as encouraging slothfulness. Affirmative actors, as I call those who hypocritically purport to uphold Executive Order 10925, may not realize that giving true handouts to members of minority groups supports laziness—it removes obstacles, and therefore determination and perseverance. The anecdote about giving a man a fish rather than teaching how to fish illustrates my point nicely because of the implication that if we simply give someone in need money to get to college, they have missed the lesson of how to provide for themselves. They will not only expect more in the future, they will become dependent on their supply of fish, and complain loudly and obnoxiously upon its eradication.
   
To conclude, I have always been bamboozled by the legality of questions on college applications that ask for race, nationality, and religion. It makes sense to gather information on gender for housing and social reasons under the names of dating and marriage, but if the others are denied permission to exist in selective policies, why can admissions officials ask these statistics prior to admission? This information should be gathered ad hoc only.
Construe with me an experiment, undertaken by colleges across the nation, in which the same applicants as years previous are reevaluated, minus the controversial information aforementioned. Should one demographic dominate the acceptance rates, the others can then be offered extra help before admittance to college, meaning that they are denied initially, so that the elite of the academic field can compete with the other top scholars and advance society at a faster rate. “It’s ludicrous to say that a student who has not been given the advanced preparation… should expect to be on a ‘level playing field’ and to expect them to do as well as someone who has had the training and support” (qtd. in Dennis).

Apart from the moral reasons for equality, the issue of fairness surfaces as well. Equality is not a direct synonym of fairness or logic, though they often coincide. The government should not make blanket statements concerning fairness because they can only be judged on a case-by-case basis. The title of this essay refers to how the government has nullified its own law by allowing affirmative action to transform into the mishmash it is today. In context, equality means that students should be admitted on both academic and personal merit alone, not on any factor out of their control.

                                                                      

Works Cited:
Dennis, Raoul. “Supreme Court Decision Turning Down Affirmative Action Case Only a Small Victory.” New York Amsterdam News 92.23(2001): 42. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 12 Oct. 2011.
Doulgass, Frederick. “Learning to Read.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. 2nd Ed. Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2010. 46-50. Print
Hardin, Garret. “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. 2nd Ed. Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2010. 357-67. Print
Oe, Kenzaburo. “The Unsurrendered People.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. 2nd Ed. Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2010. 288-91. Print"

Facebook Haters

Having read of the predicament of the English in the 18th century concerning the amount of poor children running through the streets stealing and begging for food, I have come to appreciate greatly the wisdom of Jonathan Swift in addressing the issue. His "Modest Proposal" in 1729 was to eat the offspring of those who are less fortunate as a delicacy, granting the dregs of society money and cleaning up the public walks for those who are more fortunate.

I wish to follow his example in purporting a solution to hate crimes on the Internet. There are some people out there who post ridiculous comments on their Facebook walls that are just outdated and bigoted. These posts include assertions of genuine beliefs that simply offend the general public because they are not politically correct.

We cannot have people posting thoughts and declarations that go against popular notions and common practices. The emotionally sensitive might have hurt feelings.

In fact, I would l like to thank those who on the Internet have placed themselves on a higher plane than those haters who speak their minds on touchy subjects, or make religious creeds known to everyone. These thought police help to make a non-contentious environment for all others on the Internet. It is likely that if they work hard enough they might be able to achieve that which George Orwell predicted in his book 1984 where even one's own children will turn in their parents for breathing out unintentional blasphemies against the government and currently upheld values in their sleep.

I myself have helped in this great cause at times but found that I do not have the time to constantly patrol the pinboards and Twitter feeds for comments that don't aline with my own. After long internal assessment I have found within myself a lack of courage to continue to attack others for what they believe and have only resorted to recounting what I myself believe.

My proposal is thus: if you ever see post with which you disagree,  please respond in the most inflammatory way conceivable without thinking through the long term consequences. Do not keep in mind the feelings or sentiments of the Facebook haters because they are no longer people. Obviously they always intend only harm and never base any of their perspectives on some sort of truth that they may have picked up through their life experience.

Please refrain from using good communicative skills, or doing any research or deep analysis before replying on your news feed. That would require effort and thought,  sometimes even a reflection of your worldview and might cause an annurism in your brain. Kind anecdotes, or rephrasing what you assume the person might be trying to portray (but has failed to do so) surely couldn't do even the slightest bit of good for internet communities. How outlandish!

These hateful people should also be shunned in public for the spiteful actions of speaking their mind that they think that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, or that abortion is wrong except in very critical circumstances, or that welfare should only be given to those who show work ethic and desires to amount to something in life instead of being a free handout for those who dont want to work. They who scourge the earth with such audacity to say what they think is right should be permanently silenced by none other than imprisonment and the removal of their fingers to never bear false witness about their sickly perceived evils of our culture again. I mean, look at the rude and intolerant nature of this next picture! How can people even say something so arrogant?!

Please join with me by sharing this blog post on your Facebook walls, pinboards and other social networking sites to inform the general population in the fastest means possible so that we can rid ourselves of free speech Nazis that aggravate us by refusing to conform to our wishes. Then maybe we can go back to posting about frivolous things like fashion, professional sports games and comedic performances on American Idol while ignoring important debates and denying the reality of pressing problems that plague our pages with pilfering profanity like traditional values. Cuss words, violence, and pushing pornographic images are much more suitable to our purpose of raising the next generation in peace and understanding. Try to promete those, too. I see that some of us have already caught on to that movement. Keep up the good work!

With an extreme attitude of sarcasm and a prayer that if you have read this you understand what is implied here,

Clark Lindsey, a recovering Facebook Police Expert

Disclaimer: there really are people out there who hate on others using social media. Those people are still human beings, but their actions should not be tolerated. Help put a stop to cyber bullying, but in a nice way. Though three lefts do, two wrongs do not make a right. Often those who harass others are insecure themselves, and as I have discussed in this post, it is possible to go too far on the offensive in the name of justice.

(Scroll down and read my other posts to learn more about my personal escapades and the mistakes of myself and others. Nobody is perfect, but we can all progress if we try! I am amenable to constructive criticism, so feel free to contact me with ideas. If they're messed up I simply won't respond and delete your comments, so please don't waste our mutual time with real hateful remarks. Sarcasm is appreciated to an extent.)

Moral Relativism: Evidence That God Exists

Having studied different moral theories of Kant, Aristotle, John Stuart Mill, and others in my philosophy class, it has astounded me that these incredibly intelligent men differ by such large margins in defining right and wrong. Deontologists like Kant claim that exceptions can't be made on moral laws based on circumstances; if something is not moral in some circumstances it isn't ever moral. Consequentialists like Mill assert that the ends justify the means; sometimes actions that are immoral in some circumstances are moral if they bring about greater happiness when all is said and done.

Most compelling movies and TV shows will present these competing moral claims to make the viewer try to discern for his or her own self good from evil. Often the villain will purport that his actions are only to bring world peace or to grant the people freedom, but his method is to kill millions of innocents in the process. Other times it is the hero that decides to forego killing the villain because they believe that killing is always wrong,  but their mistake also costs the lives of many bystanders or friends as a consequence.

These moral dilemmas,  and the widely variant responses concerning what should be done, often create societal discord about politics and religion or the lack thereof. Our differences as human beings sometimes lead to war or governmental coups, family feuds or neighborhoods and church congregations shunning some members. Obviously humanity is divided over issues such as abortion, gay marriage, guns, animal rights, religion, stem cell research and myriad other topics, and that is only taking into account current national views on the matters,  let alone global views that have changed over time and vary by location. Just think about how chaotic it would be if every human being ever to exist were to sit in a council to decide right and wrong by unanimous vote.  It would never happen.

Despite this idea,  each person generally tries to do what is good, with many exceptions,  but even wicked people tend to justify their actions in side way shape or form. This notion of doing what is right comes from what in the LDS church is labeled as the "light of Christ", or the inner feelings that one has to follow God and be a good person, also known as a conscience to the secular world. Everyone has a conscience even if they chose not to listen to its advice. Even amongst all the arguing and bickering over right and wrong there are some pretty universal constants in the moral world. Lying for the sake of lying is not moral, nor is killing innocent people. Taking that which belongs to someone else is also immoral. However because there are exceptions of people not caring about others and placing personal survival as the number one priority, relying on humanity by itself to truly define right and wrong is not possible. This is partiality due to the fact that when other people place their moral emphasis in a different way it is a man's nature to claim that the other people have used flawed or corrupted logic to reach their conclusions.

Now,  part of God's nature is that He understands everything perfectly and makes no logical errors ever. Let's out it this way: God understands the workings of the entire universe of which mankind through its "science" hasn't even been able to indisputably outline the parameters. He knows a lot more than all of mankind put together and has an eternity of experience using that knowledge and dealing with humans via creation and seeing world's come and go. Granted that His knowledge is without fault, He had the right and ability to discern good from evil perfectly and completely. Man does not have that right,  never had had the right and honestly never will have the right. Therfore, God can instruct man on moral issues and by following His directions man can live a moral life.

Why do I claim that moral relativism evinces the existence of God? Because man does indeed affirm that good and evil exist, but cannot agree upon the line between the two. In order for morality to exist,  there must be a method to define it universally otherwise morality becomes nothing more than opinion, and if that's the case nothing is immoral because someone will always have a different opinion. Since morality and opinion do not equal each other, a party outside of humanity must dictate morality and immorality, and the party must comprehend every situation fully to make the judgement call. The only being ever conceived that can do so is God Himself.

I then approached my professor with this hypothesis and inquired to hear what rebuttals philosophers might give to this question.  His response is that atheists will claim that God doesn't exist, but that only means that atheists do not believe in morality, rather in opinion alone. If that is the case than those that believe in no God could potentially assert that they can do no wrong in their own eyes, which means that laws exist purely as social contracts and not to prevent evil from prevailing in society.

I believe in God for more than rationalizations, but sometimes it is nice to hear logic that supports my convictions. If all of this was worded strangely and hard to understand I will try to sum it up in one sentence. People believe in good and evil but can't agree on the parameters, making morality a matter of opinion. In order for pure morality to exist it would have to be universal and not change based on social acceptability as it tends to do with mankind. God can see all things clearly enough to be able to outline the distinct between right and wrong. Therfore if you believe in morality you believe in God or in the least a supreme being.

Standing Up While Sitting Down

I hold hope for the communicative skills of the rising generation after yesterday's Life and Ethics class discussion about abortion. This topic is heavily debated upon,  and I specifically have not yet posted on it for good reason. The only reason I have chosen to talk about it today is because I was able to see my very culturally diverse class go head to head without being at each other's throats. Opinions clearly differed even amongst those of the same religion, and, as usual, my opinion presented a lonely outlier for the group that certainly sparked people's interest and got some individuals who normally don't speak in class to repeatedly raise their hands to respond to my viewpoint. In fact,  the whole class turned from asking the professor questions to asking yours truly what I believed,  and, to their credit, even why I held my beliefs.

Normally when you hear about this kind of occurrence in a church magazine the writer will portray the discussion as a crucial missionary experience, which in a sense I guess it was, but the church has no official stance on abortion that I am aware of, so I kind of was on my own and representing me myself and I. So was everyone else,  and the battle was indeed for truth's sake. As students presented their individual arguments, other students would call them out for using logical fallacies  such as over generalizations or assumptions on what a person might believe if they belong to a particular faction of beliefs. Then the original student would respond to the refutation with a defense for their argument and the truth of the matter slowly sifted itself out. My standpoint in particular was attacked brutally, but not in an insulting manner. As was I, my questioners only sought to know what was right and what was wrong.

We had ask read three articles on the subject and they all failed to mention abstinence from sex as a preventative measure for abortion. Each in turn laid out why or why not the woman has a moral right to decide to end a potential human life because her financial circumstances are difficult or her mental health isn't where it should be in order to make it through the nine month pregnancy let alone motherhood. This mindset is bright about by the labeling of the two sides of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: either you believe in preserving life or maintaining free agency. This is not the case. Many people fall somewhere generally in the middle of the spectrum on this topic.

For instance, in my case I believe the woman does have a choice concerning how to treat her own body; different in my opinion however is that I believe that choice comes before having a child as opposed to after becoming pregnant. This view was partially accepted but everyone's concern was that people in general enjoy having sex, so they wondered if I thought sex was a bad thing. I appreciated this question because it gave room to eliminate misunderstanding. Very important in clear communication.

I don't believe that it is bad. I believe that it is something to take into consideration that the biological reason we can procreate is to have children. If the only motive for having sex is to have fun and experience enjoyment one must weigh out the risks, just as one must determine if skydiving or riding a roller coaster is worth the risk. Though safety precautions may be in place,  accidentes happen. I love roller coasters, but each time I get on one I have to accept the possible consequences of my decision.

Nobody liked the answer, but no one could refute it either. Morality comes down to the idea of setting priorities: which ideals must be upheld above all others? if physical pleasure is number one and avoiding having a baby is farther down the list, then go ahead and do what you will. If your priority is to have a career and never have children, then to play it safe you may be celibate your whole life. Seeing the question of abortion as such a matter of deciding whether or not to have unprotected sex and dealing with the results makes the debate rest only on cases of rape and severe health threats for the woman. A person always maybe free to choose whether or not to sacrifice his or her life for that of another.

Anyway that was my standpoint and when the class ended five or six students approached me to explain that they disagreed with me but that we had had a very good conversation concerning the matter and today heard things they had not considered before. They expressed to me their wishes not to offend me in anyway shape or form and that I was not a monster in their eyes for holding my ground. This exhibits a rather different human characteristic than what I have seen before when making a stand as my previous posts show. During the whole conversation it was blatant that emotions were high for everyone,  but no one insulted each other or set up strawman arguments. People admitted any flaws that they had in their argument, and I feel that the class grew wonderfully from having the conversation. We were all able to set one priority straight: respecting those around us and establishing healthy relationships (not a dominant and submissive relationship nor a constant battle for it to become such) heavily outweighs being right all the time.

Dealing With Disagreement Like Christ Would

Today I wish to discuss a topic which pains me very much: religious and political disagreement. It is such a touchy thing to talk about, and everyone seems to have their own explanation for our own beliefs. When someone questions our beliefs we become defensive and often don't listen to what the other person has to say. Likewise, when we attack someone the beliefs of someone we know, consciously or not, it can damage the relationship. We often have a greater love for truth than we do for our own friends. That, I believe, is the issue at hand, not necessarily the truths over which the world constantly bickers and squabbles.

Discussion is good, and I encourage it. It will always come to a point where we will have differing opinions on even the tiniest issue, and we can and should seek to enlighten those around us so that we can agree if we choose.

I am a verbally political person in that I am not afraid to state my beliefs loud and clear. I served a mission for the LDS church for two years and endured many extraordinarily difficult things for my beliefs. I was accused of everything under the sun, from being a Satan worshiper, to being a liar, and even to being a spy. These were all people that I had dedicated my time to help have a happier life, but they refused to see it that way. I shared the exact same knowledge with everyone. But many desired that I not so much as converse with them because of my religious affiliation.

Other people really didn't want to listen to my message either, but they did want to feel loved. They would rough it out through my myriad attempts to help them understand the universe in a light more similar to my own and feed my companions and I delicious lunches and snacks in the process, frequently sacrificing their skimpy funds in order to do so. They overcame their prejudices against "los mormones" chasing people down in the streets and found within themselves the great love that we all have deep down one for another, and they acted on it. In return, we would wake up early in the morning and put on grubby clothes to get on their unfinished roofs and help them to lay a cement ceiling for their home. We would go to their shops, give them of our business day in and day out, help them receive shipments and meet new people as we sat on bags of dog food eating sandwiches. They invited us to meet their families, and to this day I hold very precious and sacred those times and people. They are part of my family, now. I learned that by giving of my might, mind, strength and soul to those who affirm that they never will accept my teachings, I can forge lasting friendships with those people, and I wouldn't exchange those relationships for any money or gift possible to receive in this world or the next.

I believe in Jesus Christ, and that the LDS church is His religious organization. I will stand to that belief until I meet Him face to face. It is not a perfect knowledge that this is true, but a firm and steadfast belief indeed (double entendre intended). You don't have to. There is a lot of good in a lot of different organizations that agree to disagree with us. I do expect you to come to grips with one irrefutable truth, however. Brotherly and neighborly love is the most fulfilling of all qualities, especially when it is mutual.

"1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

 4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

 8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."

--1 Corinthians 13

Here, Paul teaches us the same, that charity is even more important than knowledge and the ability to prophesy, more than giving all that we have to the poor without truly caring for them. Charity rejoices in truth, so when a charitable person discovers truth he/she embraces it, and learns to cope with the consequences. Even so, when someone who might be less charitable rejects a truth, he/she will continue to love and cherish that unbeliever because "charity never faileth" and "seeketh not her own".

This is very difficult to do when emotions are high, something that it extremely normal for religious/political discussions because if one is proven wrong it creates cognitive dissonance and large amounts of stress in his/her psyche. It's not fun or easy to deal with, and I am still learning to remember that I love those with whom I disagree. As I do good for them, agree or disagree, we both come closer to Christ because we avoid the spirit of contention, which is not of the Lord.

So today, when you go on to your Facebook or Twitter feed, and you see a post that defiles what you think is true (whether it be political or religious or otherwise,) instead of reacting in the common way of retaliation and spite or arguing, try to find within yourself charity. "Pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love..." (Moroni 7:48). Ask them how they are doing. Spend time wishing them well, and if you live close by, go out and get some ice cream with them and catch up on old times. If they are vegan and don't like to eat ice cream, go out and eat something that they would despite your affection for bacon. Remember that you do love them, and act accordingly. Remember that you love truth as well, and that your mind and body will fight you along the way as you treat with kindness and respect what they will label as an idiot. Their mind and body will do the same. It's a natural defense mechanism.

Though I am totally imperfect in this regard, the times that I have done it I have noticed that it was worth my time and effort. It takes practice. Are you willing to make the necessary change?

How to Fight Negative Perceptions With Tree Nuts And a Stick

Watch this;  I can cause you to feel completely different about the exact same idea simply by mentioning positive or negative statements about it.

Example 1: This product has killed millions of children throughout the existence of mankind. It has sparked wars, land disputes and feuds for generations. It is no good! Why would anyone want a product that is used for torture in such a widespread and well known way?

Example 2: This product can save your life every day. It can help you to lose weight, balance your system and assists in anaerobic exercise. Your children need this product in order to survive. Thank goodness that it is so abundant! What would we ever do as the human race without our beloved WATER!!!!

Yes. All the statements that I have made are true. I didn't lie (except for the "no good" part, but since opinions are subjective it doesn't really matter). What happened? It is the very same substance seen in two extremely contradictory lights. Anything and everything has upsides and downsides as stated by Charles Dickens in A Tale of Two Cities:

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way"

It all boils down to labeling. Advertisers are brilliant as using this technique to influence you to buy a product. Critics use it to tell you whether or not to see a certain movie. Literary geniuses employ this savvy method to shape your view on characters in their books and the morality of their actions. When abused, this tactic can cause job loss, divorce, lawsuits and it can drive people to suicide.

Have you ever felt labeled unfairly? I know that in my life I have felt bullied and attacked personally because of the words of others. It has affected how I view myself. Are the people that label others unjustly evil? Nope. Just misguided. So instead of returning the favor and labeling them back, how about we adopt a different perspective. 

Take Link, for instance. Link is a young Hyrulian kid with the vertical challenges of a leprechaun and the fighting style of a first-grader. All he has is a puny dagger and a wooden shield to begin with. His friends label him as worthless and incapable. The gods beg to differ and send him on an epic quest with awesome music. To commence this intense journey through space and time he kills a GARGANTUAN spider with tree nuts launched from a y-shaped stick.

To all of you who have felt as I have because of the verbal violence of others' mental flatulence, I ask a question: Who do you believe: the gods, or Link's friends? Why? What would have happened if the gamer, upon hearing the negativity of Link's friends, decided that the game wasn't worth his time because his character was worthless? What if we were to adopt the mentality, but not the violence, of course, of video games concerning our self esteem? We have weaknesses, but our strengths are what matter.

While we really do have negative attributes that others are most willing to point out, never fail to remember all the good that you have done in the world. If someone says that you are rude, think of all the nice things that you have said in the past. Maybe what you said or did in that moment was over the top and uncalled for. Instead of assuming that it means that your ARE a BAD person, think of things that aren't evil that you can do and decide to act on them to the best of your ability. Compliment that person on their astuteness and awareness and move on. If they want to label you, it's their issue, not yours. They can learn to treat people differently while you go on to prove them wrong.

Take your stick and tree nuts and use it to be a successful... whatever you are going to be. Don't let negativity bring you down!

"Judge not that ye be not judged"

I had a great lesson from a guy that I met last night at my work where I sell plants in a roadside tent. Right as I needed to go home, a man pulled up in a truck and I immediately went a little tense. At 8 o'clock at night in an empty parking lot, I don't exactly trust a lot of the people that come by. This guy was looking a little rough around the edges. He had obviously been in some sort of a minor accident in the past few days from the cuts and bruises on him, and he didn't speak very proper English, though he was a white guy. I wasn't exactly excited for him to be there, and I sure as heck double checked that everything was locked up.

Though I smelled fish, I decided to listen to him and didn't show this original suspicion based on my prejudice toward him. He began by explaining why he was looking for flowers that night. A friend of his had died a year ago, and he had gone to visit the friend's grave for the week of memorial day. They had grown up together, and it upset him that the family did absolutely nothing for their daughter for memorial day. He wanted to spruce up the overgrown grave site and even was willing to pay for a headstone so that she could rest with dignity.

We talked for a good chunk of time. I offered what little help I could in finding work. I knew of a few job openings and told him where he could apply. He discussed his past work experience and he turned out to be a very amiable person.

Now, I do not believe that I was wrong in pulling up my defenses internally towards a sketchy figure at night. Had something happened, those defenses could have saved my life and a lot of money for the company. My point is, I listened first, and then I spoke, or acted, accordingly. Had I gone off of my initial gut feeling alone, which wasn't good, I might have treated him differently and remained closed to a very noble person. Instead, I received a sweet lesson in humanity, and even could have taken the opportunity to share the Gospel with this good man.

I am very grateful for the progress that I am making in coping with new ideas and people that appear different. It brings me peace to know that I am moving towards a better understanding of people, and my love for God's children increases each time that I make the effort. My love for my own self also increases, and I have a better self-image as I learn that imperfections do not define us, rather goodness.

I close with a quote from the movie that I watched last night with a few friends: Secondhand Lions. Robert Duval says

Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things that a man needs to believe in the most: that people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love, true love, never dies... No matter if they're true or not, a man should believe in those things because those are the things worth believing in.

Amen to that. The challenge that I leave for this week is probably very obvious. Try to listen to someone that you normally would never talk to, and get to know them before metaphorically throwing the first stone at them. You never know when you will find a true friend in someone that appears very different from you.