Another reason that Harry Potter would be banned and the Chronicles of Narnia would not be banned is that C.S. Lewis was a devout Christian who inserted quite a bit of religious allegory into his book. Aslan, for instance, often parallels a Christ figure. Also, C.S. Lewis considered his books, in part, an evangelical effort to teach religion to younger readers. I couldn't see Christian parents wanting to ban these books. Harry Potter, on the other hand, was not written as religious allegory. Therefore, the magic/witchcraft practiced in these books is not the fantasy embodiment of religious miracles but is, to Christian parents wishing to ban the book, black magic the encourages kids to worship Satan.
**Disclaimer: I am neither Christian, nor do I believe any of this hooey. If kids read about magic, it isn't going to turn them away from whatever religion they believe in.
Armed with this foreknowledge, what can we do besides wait and see what happens? One of TFAs stated that there's really nothing we can do to defend against the attack, so what's the point in worrying about it? Either it will happen, and folks in the US and Western Europe will be inconvenienced, or it won't happen, and we'll all have worried for nothing. At this point, it seems like this knowledge, while nice to have, is somewhat useless.
Also, why tomorrow? Wouldn't it send a more powerful message to wait a few weeks and do it on September 11th?
Wil Wright has just finished work on his Money Printer 2.0 (TM). Much like his original Money Printer, this will allow Wright access to enormous sums of money, and all he has to do is insert the monthly "expansion pack" to print even more!
Another thing that I think is really cool is the convergence of cell phone/PDA technology to make something bordering on tricorder functionality. Cell phones are no longer used only as communicators. We have high-res color screens on which we can surf the internet, send e-mail, play games, and take photos. Granted, we don't have all of the functionality of a tricorder, but we're getting there a lot faster than the Star Trek universe had predicted. Also, take a look at the monitors in Next Generation-era ships. They look a lot like the flatscreen monitors we're using today, don't they?
I've been diagnosed with ADD and prescribed Ritalin. I have to tell you, I think it's complete bullshit that I was diagnosed with ADD. The doctor who diagnosed me called me the "posterboy" for late ADD diagnosis.
There, does that help clarify? I'm not saying that ADD is bullshit. I'm just saying that, in my case, my diagnosis was a load of manure. Much the same as if, right now, a doctor were to diagnose me with mono because I feel tired. That isn't to say that mono doesn't exist, it's just that I don't have it, and to medicate me for something that I don't have is wrong. I apologize to the person I called a troll because I was a little ambiguous in my statement. However, anyone replying to this telling me that I have ADD because I was diagnosed with it will be summarily called nasty names.
Yes, but that is exactly my point. Godzilla had a similar "motive" for decades, but he woke up with that motive in the first Godzilla movie. Jaws, on the other hand, just got a motive about five minutes ago, as far as I'm concerned.
Why are they going back and giving Jaws a motive? Back in the day he was just a huge shark with a bad attitude and he just ate people. He was a movie monster. Now, all of a sudden, the evils of technology are the cause of all of the problems of this poor, misunderstood creature. Jaws doesn't need a compressed air cannister in his mouth, he just needs a hug!
Ok, so at what point can I gracefully bow out of an argument, admit I was wrong, and still maintain my dignity? It seems like the facts you've presented are against me here, and the ones I'm looking for either don't exist or have made themselves very hard to find. I'm still in favor of civil disobedience, but I have to admit that forcibly silencing the opposition isn't the right way to go about things. I guess I should've known that I wasn't really right; after all, I was supporting the black-hats, and if westerns have taught me anything, it's that the black-hats are the bad guys. Is there a right way to go about civil disobedience at this point in time? It seems that lawful assembly for protest is difficult, as a group must apply for a permit to lawfully assemble, and often these permits are denied.http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/ 08/11/rnc_protest/index_np.html With the electoral system all but broken (as demonstrated in the last election) and possibly about to be broken more (Diebold voting machines... don't get me started) I'm afraid that the chances of voting unfavorable candidates out of office are slim. What is the right way to voice dissent and be heard?
I wish I could provide you with a link or citation, but I've been searching on Slashdot (where I found the article originally) and I can't find it. However, the gist of it is this: many prominent American scientists, including a few Nobel Laureates, wrote an open letter to Bush decrying the current state of government interference in scientific research that may produce results contrary to current government tenets. These experiments were essentially silenced by the fact that they lost funding due to their controversial nature. I didn't even hear about this open letter anywhere else; to many major news sources, it was as if the letter didn't exist. Not granting exposure to different viewpoints is akin to silencing them. Granted, the government and the media are two different entities, but to believe that there is no governmental control over the media is naive. On a completely unrelated note, I am having an absolute blast arguing with you, CrimsonAvenger. It is really rare for me to be able to have intelligent discourse on a topic without the other side stooping to name-calling. Usually I just hear that I'm unpatriotic, that speaking against the government makes me no different from the terrorists, yada yada yada. Thanks for making me think.
I'm not proposing armed insurrection, if you'll read my post I am proposing civil disobedience. Civil meaning nonviolent. As I recall, civil disobedience did not make Gandhi look idiotic. Further, I take the First Amendment seriously. I believe that everyone has the right to his own beliefs, and to state those beliefs. This, however, is contrary to the stance of the GOP. Read the Patriot Act sometime. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the Sedition Act came back. Simply put, many points of view contrary to the current overlords is censord, mocked, or silenced.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Emphasis mine) What can we do to alter or abolish this form of government? People could turn out in droves to vote against Bush and the GOP and they could still win - remember last election, when Bush won despite the plurality against him? The fact of the matter is that we are stuck with bad government whether we like it or not. Taking steps against this form of government is our civic duty as Americans.
While many people have pointed out that hackers may be shooting themselves in the foot and inviting retaliation by attacking the GOP, I see this somewhat differently. The GOP has been attacking us for a long time now. They've been attacking our basic freedoms and rights, they've been attacking other countries on whims, and they've been attacking the very moral fiber of the world. What's wrong with a little civil disobedience to strike back? While I am not in favor of stifling their free speech or actually causing damage, I am wholly in favor of making their lives more difficult, because that's exactly what they've done to me, and all of you, too, whether you want to admit it or not. While this is definitely not the method that our founding fathers held in mind in the formative years of our country, it is in keeping with the same ideals. In the face of tyranny, we must assert our rights, however possible, and make every attempt to bring about justice and liberty, two words that the GOP seems to have forgotten.
Does originality really sell games? Look at some killer apps, games that were a reason to buy the requisite system. Super Metroid for the SNES, Zelda and Mario for the N64, Final Fantasy VII for the PSX, Final Fantasy X and Gran Turismo A-Spec for the PS2, and Halo for the XBox. Is any one of these games original? No! They were, however, huge steps forward in the evolution of their genres. I would argue that what gamers want isn't originality; we want the application of a familiar concept in the ideal way, with everything fine-tuned to perfection. That isn't to say that originality is wasted, however. Originality has its place, but generally an original concept lacks the extra layer of polish that a game in an established genre (or series) has. Look at FPS games, for instance. Doom was good, but Duke Nukem 3D took the concept and ran with it, offering countless innovations and expansions of the concept that just wouldn't have worked in the genre's infancy. Quake evolved on the Doom concept by making it truly 3D, but then Half-Life came around and took the FPS concept to new levels. The new generation has Halo, which hones the concepts familiar to FPS players with a new layer of polish and balancing. Each of these games did original things in their genres, but they managed to stay within well-defined boundaries, and that's why they were able to evolve the concept so well. True innovation requires a generation or two to work out all of the kinks, and therefore the really innovative games are very rarely top sellers, but such innovation is required to lay the foundation for the evolution of gaming.
It's really sad that there is such an emphasis on winning that people would even consider cheating for it by altering their body chemistry and possibly shortening their lives. The spirit supposedly embodied by the Olympics is one of international cameraderie and competition for competition's sake, not competition to win. Granted, the lucrative endorsements that a gold medalist receives are a large cause of this, as is nationalistic pride. It just depresses me that people would go so far to win - and that it is even conceivable that they would change their genes in the pursuit of victory. Competition is no longer about talent and training, it's about who can keep their doping habits concealed well enough to test negative.
Guaranteed 100% Bug-Free!
Until a week after it's released. Then some script kiddy will find a huge hole in the back of the ant farm that MS just happened to overlook. Soon bugs will be escaping, anyone with a modem and a brain will be able to open the back door to your ant farm, and MS will have to start releasing glue-on vinyl patches every couple of days. Don't worry, though you can always opt to auto-update, so that a Microsoft employee will break into your house at odd hours and install the patches himself. Of course, that won't stop the bugs from escaping, but that's because there are only so many patches that can be applied.
Do people actually expect this to be released without a hitch? Look at all of the controversy currently surrounding TiVo and other PVRs. Now consider the fact that the RIAA will be fighting this flash memory tooth and nail. The Bug will allow people to listen to what they want, when they want. No more inane DJ banter, no more 10-minute commercial breaks between every song, no more screeching pop tarts (unless that's what people want to hear.) There is no way to secure this device against copying, no matter how hard they try. There's a way around every copy protection. This will allow flawless, portable, digital recordings off of the radio. Granted, it's what consumers want, but since when were consumers in control? I have a feeling this will incur the wrath of the RIAA and, therefore, the US government. Just wait, these Bugs will be banned within a matter of days.
Firstly, how far in the past does something need to be before we can say, "I'm sorry, I made a mistake, but it's in the past"? I notice that we don't hear many people apologizing for forcibly relocating Chinese people to work on the railroads in the 1800s, or Japanese internment camps during the 1940s. That doesn't mean that these things have been forgotten, it means that America, as a society, has made what reparations it can and wants to move forward rather than continuing to look backward. Or maybe it's because people of Chinese and Japanese descent have been doing better on the whole, economically and educationally, than African-Americans. Also, you argue that we should treat Jamaal the same as Walter. That doesn't mean affirmative action, that doesn't mean hiring him to maintain some ridiculous racial quota, that means treating him the same. That means that if Jamaal is more qualified than Walter, Jamaal should be hired, and vice versa. That is what equality means, no more, no less. Equality means that no matter what happened in the past, people are treated as equals now, without attempts to rectify the past by oppressing the former oppressors. Is it right to gain civil rights by infringing on someone else's? Is it right that I have to suffer for mistakes made nearly 150 years ago, mistakes that I had nothing to do with, mistakes that my ancestors had nothing to do with? I am arguing against racial discrimination, one way or the other. Racism works both ways, and you are arguing the cause of racism.
Are you arguing for black equality, or for oppression of other races to make up for things in the past? The fact of the matter is, there is no equality in programs like Affirmative Action or in the UNCF. Were there to be a UWCF, blacks would cry foul and rail against being excluded and oppressed. Black students often get into colleges based on lower standards than those that other students have to meet. Credentials are credentials, regardless of skin color, but when skin color is taken into account there seems to be a difference in the credentials expected for a certain position. I have seen some of my (white) friends rejected from colleges and jobs in favor of (black) people who are barely able to read at a sixth-grade level. Now, please don't misconstrue this as a racist comment, as I know many intelligent black people and many stupid white people (and intelligent and stupid members of every race, creed, etc. etc.) However, I have seen more intelligent white people passed over in favor of deficient black people than any other racial discrepancy. I am simply arguing for equality, nothing more, nothing less. Treat everyone as equal regardless of the color of that person's skin. I am arguing that any program that attempts to make reparations by allowing less-qualified black people advantages over better-qualified white people is a seriously flawed program and is only furthering the cause of racism and inequality. Is that so wrong?
Actually, it's like calling a Pepsi or a Coke a "cola." Duck tape, the original name for "duct tape," refers to the fact that it was made with a type of fabric called cotton duck. This fabric was called duck because it was water-resistant. However, folks in the electrical and mechanical businesses used this super-durable tape on ducts, thus giving rise to the name duct tape, and the gradual replacement of duck tape in our lexicon with the now accepted, but incorrect, duct tape.
Hey troll-boy, calm down. I said that Ritalin turned me into a zombie. I didn't say, "Ritalin will turn you into a zombie, it's wrong for everyone and ADD is bullshit." Read the post before you give a kneejerk response to it. I said that in many of the cases in which Ritalin is prescribed, it is either unnecessary or improperly prescribed. This is true. Doctors hand it out like candy. That doesn't mean that it doesn't help people, it simply means that in many cases, people with a prescription for Ritalin shouldn't have one. Look at the constantly rising number of prescriptions to Ritalin and tell me: are we breeding more and more children with attention deficits, or are we growing more and more eager to correct any perceived difference in learning style, no matter how small, by prescribing a catch-all drug that may not even be the correct prescription?
I knew I should have added this to my original posting:
I've been diagnosed with ADD and prescribed Ritalin. I have to tell you, I think it's complete bullshit. The doctor who diagnosed me called me the "posterboy" for late ADD diagnosis. Yes, sometimes I have trouble finishing what I've started. My room is constantly a mess, and I lose things easily. However, I am an engineering student at a good university, and I get pretty good grades, too. I can buckle down and study when I need to, and I can finish my tasks if I put my mind to it. When I take Ritalin, I feel, for lack of a better word, zombified. Yes, I can focus on anything, but my personality changes. My friends can tell when I'm on my Ritalin, and because of the way it makes me feel, I've pretty much stopped taking it. It had no effect on my grades, it didn't make my room any cleaner, and it didn't help me find things. I really do believe that there are people who need Ritalin, and who are much worse off than me in their ADD. However, that doesn't stop Ritalin from being a trendy drug, and it doesn't change the fact that doctors are quick to diagnose ADD. I just believe that in many cases there are better solutions than drugs (or gene therapy) to problems, but as a society we are very quick to take the easy way out that a drug like that can provide.
Cue all the parents of kids with "ADD" to start another Ritalin trend. When are people going to learn that, to some extent, we are the way we are. People learn differently from each other. People work differently from each other. Just because one person doesn't like to sit down and read from a textbook for two hours straight doesn't make him a deviant in need of drug (or gene) therapy, it means that he doesn't learn that way. While I wouldn't consider myself a slacker, I also wouldn't consider myself a workaholic, but the contributions that I make around my office are valuable because they are different from the contributions of those around me, and one reason for that difference is that I think and work differently. If everyone thought and learned the same way, as the current generation of attitude-changing psychiatrists is attempting to cause, we'd have a nation of mindless, workaholic zombies with few differences between one person and another.
Slashdot Mirror
Another reason that Harry Potter would be banned and the Chronicles of Narnia would not be banned is that C.S. Lewis was a devout Christian who inserted quite a bit of religious allegory into his book. Aslan, for instance, often parallels a Christ figure. Also, C.S. Lewis considered his books, in part, an evangelical effort to teach religion to younger readers. I couldn't see Christian parents wanting to ban these books. Harry Potter, on the other hand, was not written as religious allegory. Therefore, the magic/witchcraft practiced in these books is not the fantasy embodiment of religious miracles but is, to Christian parents wishing to ban the book, black magic the encourages kids to worship Satan.
**Disclaimer: I am neither Christian, nor do I believe any of this hooey. If kids read about magic, it isn't going to turn them away from whatever religion they believe in.
Armed with this foreknowledge, what can we do besides wait and see what happens? One of TFAs stated that there's really nothing we can do to defend against the attack, so what's the point in worrying about it? Either it will happen, and folks in the US and Western Europe will be inconvenienced, or it won't happen, and we'll all have worried for nothing. At this point, it seems like this knowledge, while nice to have, is somewhat useless.
Also, why tomorrow? Wouldn't it send a more powerful message to wait a few weeks and do it on September 11th?
Wil Wright has just finished work on his Money Printer 2.0 (TM). Much like his original Money Printer, this will allow Wright access to enormous sums of money, and all he has to do is insert the monthly "expansion pack" to print even more!
Another thing that I think is really cool is the convergence of cell phone/PDA technology to make something bordering on tricorder functionality. Cell phones are no longer used only as communicators. We have high-res color screens on which we can surf the internet, send e-mail, play games, and take photos. Granted, we don't have all of the functionality of a tricorder, but we're getting there a lot faster than the Star Trek universe had predicted.
Also, take a look at the monitors in Next Generation-era ships. They look a lot like the flatscreen monitors we're using today, don't they?
I've been diagnosed with ADD and prescribed Ritalin. I have to tell you, I think it's complete bullshit that I was diagnosed with ADD . The doctor who diagnosed me called me the "posterboy" for late ADD diagnosis.
There, does that help clarify? I'm not saying that ADD is bullshit. I'm just saying that, in my case, my diagnosis was a load of manure. Much the same as if, right now, a doctor were to diagnose me with mono because I feel tired. That isn't to say that mono doesn't exist, it's just that I don't have it, and to medicate me for something that I don't have is wrong. I apologize to the person I called a troll because I was a little ambiguous in my statement. However, anyone replying to this telling me that I have ADD because I was diagnosed with it will be summarily called nasty names.
When did it become the duty of a government to spy on its own citizens and force them to pay for the privelege of being spied on?
Yes, but that is exactly my point. Godzilla had a similar "motive" for decades, but he woke up with that motive in the first Godzilla movie. Jaws, on the other hand, just got a motive about five minutes ago, as far as I'm concerned.
Why are they going back and giving Jaws a motive? Back in the day he was just a huge shark with a bad attitude and he just ate people. He was a movie monster. Now, all of a sudden, the evils of technology are the cause of all of the problems of this poor, misunderstood creature. Jaws doesn't need a compressed air cannister in his mouth, he just needs a hug!
Ok, so at what point can I gracefully bow out of an argument, admit I was wrong, and still maintain my dignity? It seems like the facts you've presented are against me here, and the ones I'm looking for either don't exist or have made themselves very hard to find. I'm still in favor of civil disobedience, but I have to admit that forcibly silencing the opposition isn't the right way to go about things. I guess I should've known that I wasn't really right; after all, I was supporting the black-hats, and if westerns have taught me anything, it's that the black-hats are the bad guys. Is there a right way to go about civil disobedience at this point in time? It seems that lawful assembly for protest is difficult, as a group must apply for a permit to lawfully assemble, and often these permits are denied.http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/ 08/11/rnc_protest/index_np.html With the electoral system all but broken (as demonstrated in the last election) and possibly about to be broken more (Diebold voting machines... don't get me started) I'm afraid that the chances of voting unfavorable candidates out of office are slim. What is the right way to voice dissent and be heard?
Howdy, Mr. Troll. Haven't seen you around here in a while. Read the Patriot Act. Then tell me I have all the rights I did four years ago.
I wish I could provide you with a link or citation, but I've been searching on Slashdot (where I found the article originally) and I can't find it. However, the gist of it is this: many prominent American scientists, including a few Nobel Laureates, wrote an open letter to Bush decrying the current state of government interference in scientific research that may produce results contrary to current government tenets. These experiments were essentially silenced by the fact that they lost funding due to their controversial nature. I didn't even hear about this open letter anywhere else; to many major news sources, it was as if the letter didn't exist. Not granting exposure to different viewpoints is akin to silencing them. Granted, the government and the media are two different entities, but to believe that there is no governmental control over the media is naive.
On a completely unrelated note, I am having an absolute blast arguing with you, CrimsonAvenger. It is really rare for me to be able to have intelligent discourse on a topic without the other side stooping to name-calling. Usually I just hear that I'm unpatriotic, that speaking against the government makes me no different from the terrorists, yada yada yada. Thanks for making me think.
I'm not proposing armed insurrection, if you'll read my post I am proposing civil disobedience. Civil meaning nonviolent. As I recall, civil disobedience did not make Gandhi look idiotic.
Further, I take the First Amendment seriously. I believe that everyone has the right to his own beliefs, and to state those beliefs. This, however, is contrary to the stance of the GOP. Read the Patriot Act sometime. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the Sedition Act came back. Simply put, many points of view contrary to the current overlords is censord, mocked, or silenced.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Emphasis mine)
What can we do to alter or abolish this form of government? People could turn out in droves to vote against Bush and the GOP and they could still win - remember last election, when Bush won despite the plurality against him? The fact of the matter is that we are stuck with bad government whether we like it or not. Taking steps against this form of government is our civic duty as Americans.
While many people have pointed out that hackers may be shooting themselves in the foot and inviting retaliation by attacking the GOP, I see this somewhat differently. The GOP has been attacking us for a long time now. They've been attacking our basic freedoms and rights, they've been attacking other countries on whims, and they've been attacking the very moral fiber of the world. What's wrong with a little civil disobedience to strike back? While I am not in favor of stifling their free speech or actually causing damage, I am wholly in favor of making their lives more difficult, because that's exactly what they've done to me, and all of you, too, whether you want to admit it or not. While this is definitely not the method that our founding fathers held in mind in the formative years of our country, it is in keeping with the same ideals. In the face of tyranny, we must assert our rights, however possible, and make every attempt to bring about justice and liberty, two words that the GOP seems to have forgotten.
Does originality really sell games? Look at some killer apps, games that were a reason to buy the requisite system. Super Metroid for the SNES, Zelda and Mario for the N64, Final Fantasy VII for the PSX, Final Fantasy X and Gran Turismo A-Spec for the PS2, and Halo for the XBox. Is any one of these games original? No! They were, however, huge steps forward in the evolution of their genres. I would argue that what gamers want isn't originality; we want the application of a familiar concept in the ideal way, with everything fine-tuned to perfection. That isn't to say that originality is wasted, however. Originality has its place, but generally an original concept lacks the extra layer of polish that a game in an established genre (or series) has. Look at FPS games, for instance. Doom was good, but Duke Nukem 3D took the concept and ran with it, offering countless innovations and expansions of the concept that just wouldn't have worked in the genre's infancy. Quake evolved on the Doom concept by making it truly 3D, but then Half-Life came around and took the FPS concept to new levels. The new generation has Halo, which hones the concepts familiar to FPS players with a new layer of polish and balancing. Each of these games did original things in their genres, but they managed to stay within well-defined boundaries, and that's why they were able to evolve the concept so well. True innovation requires a generation or two to work out all of the kinks, and therefore the really innovative games are very rarely top sellers, but such innovation is required to lay the foundation for the evolution of gaming.
It's really sad that there is such an emphasis on winning that people would even consider cheating for it by altering their body chemistry and possibly shortening their lives. The spirit supposedly embodied by the Olympics is one of international cameraderie and competition for competition's sake, not competition to win. Granted, the lucrative endorsements that a gold medalist receives are a large cause of this, as is nationalistic pride. It just depresses me that people would go so far to win - and that it is even conceivable that they would change their genes in the pursuit of victory. Competition is no longer about talent and training, it's about who can keep their doping habits concealed well enough to test negative.
Guaranteed 100% Bug-Free!
Until a week after it's released. Then some script kiddy will find a huge hole in the back of the ant farm that MS just happened to overlook. Soon bugs will be escaping, anyone with a modem and a brain will be able to open the back door to your ant farm, and MS will have to start releasing glue-on vinyl patches every couple of days. Don't worry, though you can always opt to auto-update, so that a Microsoft employee will break into your house at odd hours and install the patches himself. Of course, that won't stop the bugs from escaping, but that's because there are only so many patches that can be applied.
Do people actually expect this to be released without a hitch? Look at all of the controversy currently surrounding TiVo and other PVRs. Now consider the fact that the RIAA will be fighting this flash memory tooth and nail. The Bug will allow people to listen to what they want, when they want. No more inane DJ banter, no more 10-minute commercial breaks between every song, no more screeching pop tarts (unless that's what people want to hear.) There is no way to secure this device against copying, no matter how hard they try. There's a way around every copy protection. This will allow flawless, portable, digital recordings off of the radio. Granted, it's what consumers want, but since when were consumers in control? I have a feeling this will incur the wrath of the RIAA and, therefore, the US government. Just wait, these Bugs will be banned within a matter of days.
This is obviously because Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are girly-men.
Firstly, how far in the past does something need to be before we can say, "I'm sorry, I made a mistake, but it's in the past"? I notice that we don't hear many people apologizing for forcibly relocating Chinese people to work on the railroads in the 1800s, or Japanese internment camps during the 1940s. That doesn't mean that these things have been forgotten, it means that America, as a society, has made what reparations it can and wants to move forward rather than continuing to look backward. Or maybe it's because people of Chinese and Japanese descent have been doing better on the whole, economically and educationally, than African-Americans.
Also, you argue that we should treat Jamaal the same as Walter. That doesn't mean affirmative action, that doesn't mean hiring him to maintain some ridiculous racial quota, that means treating him the same. That means that if Jamaal is more qualified than Walter, Jamaal should be hired, and vice versa. That is what equality means, no more, no less. Equality means that no matter what happened in the past, people are treated as equals now, without attempts to rectify the past by oppressing the former oppressors.
Is it right to gain civil rights by infringing on someone else's? Is it right that I have to suffer for mistakes made nearly 150 years ago, mistakes that I had nothing to do with, mistakes that my ancestors had nothing to do with? I am arguing against racial discrimination, one way or the other. Racism works both ways, and you are arguing the cause of racism.
Are you arguing for black equality, or for oppression of other races to make up for things in the past? The fact of the matter is, there is no equality in programs like Affirmative Action or in the UNCF. Were there to be a UWCF, blacks would cry foul and rail against being excluded and oppressed. Black students often get into colleges based on lower standards than those that other students have to meet. Credentials are credentials, regardless of skin color, but when skin color is taken into account there seems to be a difference in the credentials expected for a certain position. I have seen some of my (white) friends rejected from colleges and jobs in favor of (black) people who are barely able to read at a sixth-grade level.
Now, please don't misconstrue this as a racist comment, as I know many intelligent black people and many stupid white people (and intelligent and stupid members of every race, creed, etc. etc.) However, I have seen more intelligent white people passed over in favor of deficient black people than any other racial discrepancy. I am simply arguing for equality, nothing more, nothing less. Treat everyone as equal regardless of the color of that person's skin. I am arguing that any program that attempts to make reparations by allowing less-qualified black people advantages over better-qualified white people is a seriously flawed program and is only furthering the cause of racism and inequality. Is that so wrong?
Actually, it's like calling a Pepsi or a Coke a "cola." Duck tape, the original name for "duct tape," refers to the fact that it was made with a type of fabric called cotton duck. This fabric was called duck because it was water-resistant. However, folks in the electrical and mechanical businesses used this super-durable tape on ducts, thus giving rise to the name duct tape, and the gradual replacement of duck tape in our lexicon with the now accepted, but incorrect, duct tape.
Hey troll-boy, calm down. I said that Ritalin turned me into a zombie. I didn't say, "Ritalin will turn you into a zombie, it's wrong for everyone and ADD is bullshit." Read the post before you give a kneejerk response to it. I said that in many of the cases in which Ritalin is prescribed, it is either unnecessary or improperly prescribed. This is true. Doctors hand it out like candy. That doesn't mean that it doesn't help people, it simply means that in many cases, people with a prescription for Ritalin shouldn't have one. Look at the constantly rising number of prescriptions to Ritalin and tell me: are we breeding more and more children with attention deficits, or are we growing more and more eager to correct any perceived difference in learning style, no matter how small, by prescribing a catch-all drug that may not even be the correct prescription?
I knew I should have added this to my original posting:
I've been diagnosed with ADD and prescribed Ritalin. I have to tell you, I think it's complete bullshit. The doctor who diagnosed me called me the "posterboy" for late ADD diagnosis. Yes, sometimes I have trouble finishing what I've started. My room is constantly a mess, and I lose things easily. However, I am an engineering student at a good university, and I get pretty good grades, too. I can buckle down and study when I need to, and I can finish my tasks if I put my mind to it. When I take Ritalin, I feel, for lack of a better word, zombified. Yes, I can focus on anything, but my personality changes. My friends can tell when I'm on my Ritalin, and because of the way it makes me feel, I've pretty much stopped taking it. It had no effect on my grades, it didn't make my room any cleaner, and it didn't help me find things. I really do believe that there are people who need Ritalin, and who are much worse off than me in their ADD. However, that doesn't stop Ritalin from being a trendy drug, and it doesn't change the fact that doctors are quick to diagnose ADD. I just believe that in many cases there are better solutions than drugs (or gene therapy) to problems, but as a society we are very quick to take the easy way out that a drug like that can provide.
Cue all the parents of kids with "ADD" to start another Ritalin trend. When are people going to learn that, to some extent, we are the way we are. People learn differently from each other. People work differently from each other. Just because one person doesn't like to sit down and read from a textbook for two hours straight doesn't make him a deviant in need of drug (or gene) therapy, it means that he doesn't learn that way. While I wouldn't consider myself a slacker, I also wouldn't consider myself a workaholic, but the contributions that I make around my office are valuable because they are different from the contributions of those around me, and one reason for that difference is that I think and work differently. If everyone thought and learned the same way, as the current generation of attitude-changing psychiatrists is attempting to cause, we'd have a nation of mindless, workaholic zombies with few differences between one person and another.