Monday, November 29, 2010

There is nothing new about hume

Someone in philosophy class decided that there is nothing new about Hume.
Could it be because hume is essentially the foundation of all mainstream western philosophy. If you were born in america, hume should be pretty familiar to you by now.

Why does everyone think Einstein is so smart, anyway?
Everyone knows that E equals MC squared.

Anyway, we had to write a stream of consciousness bable. So, here it is, fresh off the press.

Never apologize run backwards thru the time of the endless falldown the absolute question about uncontroversial explosions. You can't limit the endless buddha nature being rejected by heathens,

you can't get me in or out of the jail, my leaders set precedents

the season is spring, and it's snowing?!

You lost yourself too late, it seems

Murder

Arson

Arse

Arsony.

I think you need to calm down,

Listen,

maybe it's best if you go one way

and i go nowhere.

Fine, I'll go up, you go to hell.

Smoke a blunt.

Break the door down, bass, boom! endless, infinite,

phrasing, reed, pipe, flute, brass, glass

paper

Fall quickly, now, you don't want to get left behind.


Free fall quickly, it's sick how you tricked me,

picked me, kicked me, and threw me a frisbee

disc is turning, catch it with my hands, my fingers are sticky

breathing is wispy, I'm blissed, b,

did'ja miss me? green trees are pretty,

laughing gets giddy, and silly,



For whatever that's worse.


Two minutes left in class, time to shut down.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

English One Oh One

Apparently my school doesn't allow anyone to place out of level one english comp, regardless on what they got on their AP tests.

Fuck that.
So how do i respond to assignments geared toward a class of high school graduates writing at a level which i surpassed by ninth grade?
Sarcasm, and arrogance, apparently.

To the editor,
I get frustrated easily. The reason I generally do not read the paper is because I tire of the ceaseless back and forth banter, arguing over problems whose solutions are painfully obvious to me. Yes, I am aware that I’m an arrogant asshole, but if a man does not think himself above the mindless drivel which pours out of our presses in this day in age, I do not think he has very much at all. In David Blankenhorn’s “Protecting Marriage to Protect Children” he makes the case that a ban on gay marriage is necessary to protect the future generations of Americans. I am completely dumbfounded that it could be unlawful, criminal even, for two people to wed. The Supreme Court long ago ruled in favor of equality in freedom and opportunity, (something called the civil rights movement, you may have heard of it.) Yet somehow it is still not clear to all Americans that there is no legal basis for granting rights to a certain group of people and not others.
I shall outline a few basic arguments against gay marriage in David Blankenhorn’s piece, and attempt to demonstrate why they are completely absurd.
Marriage is a license to have children (Blankenhorn 1).
Oops. You don’t need this “license” to have kids; as of 2006 there are twelve point nine million households being led by a single parent, according to the US census bureau (Families and living arrangements 2006). Clearly, there is no such thing as a license to have children. How can you say that a one night stand which results in a child being raised by a single mother is more legitimate than a child being raised a married gay couple, yet how can you deny these people the right to reproduce and raise the children of their loins? Furthermore, gay couples could provide shelter and raise the children whose biological parents either can’t, or won’t, take proper care of them.
“Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one (Blankenhorn 2).”
I must admit, I’m perplexed by that one. Will “legalizing” gay marriage suddenly give LGBT couples the right to whisk children away from their biological parents in the night? Will otherwise eager and willing parents throw up their arms, drop their babies, and declare “What’s the use anymore!? It’s all meaningless now, why don’t we just let our children be raised by some fucking queers or something!?” I think not. Few people would argue that the best way for a child to be raised is by their biological parents who love each other and the child very much. Blankenhorn sets up the conflict of one of good versus good (Blankenhorn 2). On one hand the goodness of giving proper dignity to LGBT couples, and on the other, the goodness of children being raised in an ideal atmosphere. This is not the case. As I’ve already stated, “Legalizing” gay marriage will not take any children away from their biological parents and place them instead in the care of homosexuals. Rather, concerning the children, it is a conflict of good versus bad. The good of giving loving couples the same rights, the same opportunity, and the same dignity to marry, create a home, and raise children regardless of their sexual orientation. Versus the bad of children either being told that their parents aren’t accepted and respected by the state, or even worse, growing up in an orphanage.
Opponents to gay marriage argue that marriage is a sacred and ancient institution. They will say it is not a question of rights, but a question of definition. Marriage is between man and woman, and has been an integral part of our society for centuries. Gay couples can be given equal rights thru civil unions, without undermining the foundation of traditional marriage. The doctrine of separate but equal does not work. It is impossible to segregate between two institutions; granting a certain group entrance into one of them, and another group to the other. There has to be a way to grant complete equality to all citizens without offending people’s religious sensibilities.

We have this concept in America of separating the church and state. It’s about time we use it. Here’s what I propose: We protect the sanctity of marriage and the rights of LGBT by separating the two. We have no need for a legal institution of marriage; all of the social and monetary benefits should be made available under the umbrella term “civil union.” This would no longer refer only to gay couples, but to any two people who live together and are mutually dependent on each other. Take for example two elderly siblings, whose spouses have both passed away, who are both retired, and who decide to move into a single apartment and support each other. Should they not be given the same benefits as a young couple with the same living arrangement? Let the Church define marriage, and let the government concern itself with what is relevant to it, without encroaching upon an institution which people hold to be sacred.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Long overdue

It is probably very clear to anyone reading this that i am a terrible blogger.

I really do not update this thing very often at all, which i guess not only makes me a terrible blogger, but a terrible author and PR man. Ahhh well.

Anyway, upon insistence from my publishers, I'm going to try to update and post (slightly) more often.


Here is an exercise called a "mini saga."

I think, it needs to have exactly fifty words, a character, and a twist. Or something.


At Thirty, I still live in my parents basement. It’s not that

I’m such a big loser, or can’t afford to move

Out or anything like that. It’s just that this way

I don’t have to sell my place when they die.

Besides, it’s only for a couple of months