Sunday, May 11, 2014
Implementing Technology into a 21st Century Classroom
The Philosopher:
These articles just confirm to me that we can't teach all kids the same way. Not all kids are the same and therefore we can't teach them the same. While most teachers use differentiated instruction, that doesn't mean that is the most effective tool for all students. In Dan Pink's article he states, "The idea that you treat everybody the same way is foolish, and yet the headwinds in education are very much toward routines, right answer, standardization" (Rose 2013). Both articles show that there needs to be a shift in education. As teachers, we need to learn right along with our students. They need to see that learning doesn't stop when you finish high school or even college, but it is something that should be done until the end of life. While people use the idea, "You can't teach an old dog new tricks," that is showing our students that one never has to change. But we, as teachers, need to show that change helps one progress and grow. Both of these articles talk about how we need to model to our students how to learn. Yes, teaching a subject is important but what is even greater than that is teaching a student how to learn. Once a teacher can master that, then that is a measure of true success. Education is a business and while it has its flaws, teachers need to show students how to work with those flaws to make them better. I try to show my students how to learn by applying what I teach them and apply it to real life situations. I try to give them a real problem and let them use the tools they have learned in class as well as their own knowledge to figure out and solve the problem. That is making them use their brains rather than me just giving them the answer. Like Chris Lehmann said, "we don’t teach subjects, we teach kids. And I’ll add to that: we teach kids to learn" (Richardson 2010). That is our ultimate goal: to teach kids to learn. If we can do that, then we have given them valuable tools that will help them the rest of their lives.
The Idealist:
Oh what would it be like to have no hurdles to jump as a Science teacher! My classroom would be one that all others would envy. Once you walked into my class, it would be the most high tech class. The Internet would never crash, the computers would always work and the printers would never run out of ink or break down. Each student would be equipped with their own laptop with access to all the great science stuff on the Internet. Let's not forget the laptops would be touch screen. My classroom would look more like a lab rather than a classroom. There would be the latest and greatest science equipment (robotics, beakers, chemicals, animals to dissect, telescopes, etc...) You would almost think you were in a mad scientist's laboratory. You would see kids in lab coats and goggles, taking notes on experiments they were conducting. You might have other students recording their findings on the Internet or even researching their results to possible other results they have found. You would see amazing student work electronically displayed on the walls and you would see their scientific research displayed proudly. You might walk in on a day where students would be presenting their works via prezi, the Internet, power points etc. Kids would be taking notes on the the presentations and really learning from each other. My real role would really be just to give them the starting point/prompt or idea and from there, they would take the idea and run with it, even teaching me a thing or two.
The Pragmatist:
Each year, I try to implement new strategies. I stick with what works and get rid of those things that don't. I plan to use the iPads more in my classroom. These have proven to be effective. I really find SplashTop to be effective in my class. They really learn when I can stop movies to explain things, rather than let them watch the whole video and then try to go back and explain. Because most students seem to be so tech savvy, I really like using the iPads in class as there are all sorts of apps that really help the learning environment.
I also intend to keep using Prezi. This is something that I started implementing last year and now I try to do a prezi at least once a week. These Prezi's are a fun way for students to learn and take notes, rather than just another boring lecture. It allows them to really follow along with an idea or unit that we are studying. I also have students do prezi's so that they can teach me as well as their classmates.
While my classroom is FAR from the ideal classroom, I make due with what I am given. My students might not have all the high technology that other schools have or have all the cool tools but they are learning. They are using the hands on activities they are given and really using their brains to figure out problems. They aren't just learning about science, they are learning about how to learn.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
A Taste of the Bitter Banquet of Racism
According to William Cross’ theory, I have lived through the Encounter phase of racial identity development which “is typically precipitated by an event or series of events that forces the individual to acknowledge the impact of racism in one’s life”(Tatum, 1992). The earliest memories I have of this occurred while I was in the second grade. Two incidents in particular come to mind. The first episode happened on September of 1985 when I was transferred to John C. Fremont Elementary school located on 4000 E. 4th St., Long Beach CA 90814. Unlike my former school, Theodore Roosevelt Elementary School located on 1574 Linden Ave., Long Beach CA 90813, Fremont was in a more affluent neighborhood where the residents were predominantly white and very much opposed to having “colored boys and girls” bussed to their children’s school.
As the bus pulled closer to the drop off point, I witnessed a huge commotion outside. Teachers ran toward a group of adults and sternly escorted them across the street. Meanwhile, a few administrators ushered the students off the bus and onto the campus. Everything was so hectic. I could not make out the writing on the signs and banners that the adults held; nor did I know why they were so passionate about celebrating the first day of school. My naivety had a short shelf life in those days. As soon as the bell rang, my teacher informed the class about the uproar that had occurred outside. She spoke, almost shamefully, of racism and how the surrounding residents were upset that Blacks and Latino(a)s were bussed in. Thoughts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the struggle of colored people came to mind in a bewildering manner. “Are they trying to relive history? Wasn’t this resolved when television was still in black and white?” I thought. I did not understand how they could view me, a scrawny child of seven years, as such a threat. Nevertheless, I learned a lesson that day. The skin color of a group of kids had the power to stir up contention amongst a crowd of adults.
The second event happened that same year, but on a more personal level. I could almost justify a group of seemingly old people acting that way, because that is probably how they were raised, but to have a child my age display acts of bigotry was distressing. I was sitting in class and the teacher instructed the students to get into groups. I immediately joined the closest assembly of students, which just so happened to be my school yard “friends”. The group consisted of two white students, Richard and Bradley, two black students Gus and Desmond, and one Chicano, me. The moment I sat down, Richard looked at me with disgust and said: “You can’t be in our group, you’re a beaner!” “A beaner?!” I asked puzzled, “what’s a beaner?” Richard and Bradley whispered amongst each other as if coming to a consensus about the word’s meaning, then Richard responded: “a beaner is a person who eats beans!” I quickly processed the information and countered: “do you eat beans?” “Yes” he replied, “but I’m not a beaner!” I asked each member of the group, individually, if they ate beans, to which they all answered affirmatively. “Then we’re all beaners” I concluded. Noticing my frustration in trying to come to terms with this new concept, Gus asked me with sincerity: “you’ve really never heard of a beaner?” “When would I have ever heard that word?” I answered. “A beaner is a Mexican, that’s why he called you a beaner and not us” he said resolutely. At that point, I was “forced to focus on [my] identity as a member of a group targeted by racism” (Tatum, 1992).
Another stage that I have experienced in my life is Immersion-Emersion which entails that an individual “shed their self-hatred and rush to a new ethnic identity” (Spring, 2006). During my middle childhood, I resented my name, Salvador, because it made me sound like a “paisa” or a “chunt” (paisa is a shortened version of “paisano” and chunt is the condensed version of “chuntaro” which are both Spanish words used derogatively to describe native Mexicans, equivalent to the English pejorative word “wetback”). As I entered my teen years, I began to feel “social pressures to adopt culturally valued roles and beliefs” (Lightfoot, et al., 2009) as described by Erik Erikson’s identity versus role confusion stage of psychosocial development. Although, I felt that I was lost in between the dominant American culture and the Chicano sub-culture, I had an affinity towards the latter. I studied the history of the Aztecs, the Mayans, the Toltecs, the Olmecs, and every other tribe that thrived during pre-Colombian times. In comparison to the achievements reached by the New World’s native cultures, the Chicanos condition seemed disparaging. I gained a strong sense of Chicano pride which was reflected in my artwork. During that point in my life, I focused most of my energy to learning about my Mexican roots and any time invested on learning U.S. history was through the perspective of those people indigenous to this land. In doing this, a sense of security emerged “in a newly defined and affirmed sense of self” (Tatum, 1992) which helped lead me to Helms’ Autonomy Stage.
Despite the fact that Janet Helms theory of racial identity development is associated more with the Caucasian experience, I presently see myself in the Autonomy Stage because I “confront racism and oppression in daily life…[and I am] continually open to new information and new ways of thinking about racial and cultural variables” (Tatum, 1992). Life experiences, logic, reasoning, and education have contributed to this realization. During basic training in the United States Marine Corps, I learned to see myself and other recruits as humans with the ability to adapt and overcome anything. Although, racism exists in the military, it is somehow minimized by the same intense preparation bequeathed on all. Because we were all treated equal, I learned to see everyone as an equal despite of their physical appearance. I distinctly remember one winter night, as I lay on the top bunk, “Taps” began to play. There are two uses of that musical piece by the military, one is to indicate “lights out” at night, and the other is at the funeral of the fallen. That night, I visualized scores of 18 and 19 year olds who lost their lives within moments of stepping on the battlefield. My eyes welled up with tears. I was not thinking about their race, I was simply empathizing by shedding tears at the thought of their final moments and lost future. That life experience served as a cobblestone in my proverbial road to becoming socially-justice minded.
Logic, reasoning, and education played an essential role in arriving at the Autonomy stage because it allowed me to make connections between different cultures that can be attributed to all humans despite of their demographics. In most all cultures, the attainment and maintenance of money and power are the driving force behind most major events. Sexual depravity tends to corrupt and weaken all systems of governance regardless of what groups of people are involved. In general, societies can be broken down into the oppressors and the oppressed. As Rodney, a classmate continues to allude to in class, in all these situations, the actors may change, but the metaphorical script remains the same. My cognition is set up to process human interactions and attributes any positive or negative traits to the individual(s) rather than to said individual(s)’ race because I know that all humans hold the capacity to carry out any action, be it slavery, prostitution, invention, imagination, creation, murder, healing, being industrious, being lazy, etc. I cannot remain silent while another person denigrates a group of people ignorantly as I feel it a duty to take a “proactive stance on anti-racist issues” (Tatum, 1992).
During my first couple of months at a new church, a white woman, who has since become a close friend, told me: “you know Sal…you’re smarter than you look!” I am smarter than I look? What does a smart person look like? Experiences such as this have given me some insight as to how I am initially perceived by others. I have learned to neglect such commentary with an assurance that, if given the time and opportunity, my character will invalidate their preconceived notions of me based on my looks. My encounter with racial acceptance, rejection, and indifference have made me compassionate enough to have the desire to only promulgate positive feelings within those who surround me, notwithstanding their race. As a teacher, I willingly take on the responsibility of promoting egalitarianism, “which emphasizes the equality of members of all ethnicities” (Lightfoot, et al., 2009).
For example, in the 2009-2010 school year, I was hired, under an internship, as a 9th grade Integrated Science teacher at Paramount High School. With a population consisting of 83% Latino(a)s and a very pervasive gang culture, I made it an issue to highlight the achievements of people of all races because I, personally, know that the Latino(a) gang culture promotes racism. On one occasion, I played a video for the students that dealt with the use of science in warfare, namely the unmanned, rice-paper balloons that carried bombs from Japan to the United States in 1945. The video told a compelling story of two nations that used their brain power to combat each other (i.e. the Japanese had an understanding of air currents and thermal pressures which they used to guide their explosive inventions to the proper destination vs. the United States forensic ability to find the location, where the bombs were being launched from, based on the type of sand placed in the bags found on the Japanese contraptions). I then led the class on a discussion as to whether race had anything to do with either group’s engineering capabilities. Some students struggled with the concept because it countered their unfounded biases against Asians. I would be foolish to believe that a permanent change would come about in a single class period. Nevertheless, I would be an even greater fool if I did not make egalitarianism ubiquitous throughout my lessons with the hope that its implicit and explicit teaching would leave an indelible impression in my students’ minds, possibly leading to a phase change on the scale of racial identity development. As James Allen stated in his short essay, “As a Man Thinketh”, “man is the master of thought, the molder of character, and the maker and shaper of condition, environment, and destiny” (Allen, 1903).
References
Allen, James. (1903). As a Man Thinketh. Retrived 22 October 2010, from http://jamesallen.wwwhubs.com/think.htm
Lightfoot, C., Cole, M., & Cole, S. (2009). The Development of Children. New York: Worth Publishers.
Spring, J. (2006). The Intersection of Cultures: Mutlicultural Education in the United States and the Global Community. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Tatum, B.D. (1992). Talking About Race, Learning about Racism: The Application of
Racial Identity Development Theory in the Classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1). Retrieved 22 October 2010, from http://ets.mnsu.edu/darbok/ETHN201/race.pdf
As the bus pulled closer to the drop off point, I witnessed a huge commotion outside. Teachers ran toward a group of adults and sternly escorted them across the street. Meanwhile, a few administrators ushered the students off the bus and onto the campus. Everything was so hectic. I could not make out the writing on the signs and banners that the adults held; nor did I know why they were so passionate about celebrating the first day of school. My naivety had a short shelf life in those days. As soon as the bell rang, my teacher informed the class about the uproar that had occurred outside. She spoke, almost shamefully, of racism and how the surrounding residents were upset that Blacks and Latino(a)s were bussed in. Thoughts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the struggle of colored people came to mind in a bewildering manner. “Are they trying to relive history? Wasn’t this resolved when television was still in black and white?” I thought. I did not understand how they could view me, a scrawny child of seven years, as such a threat. Nevertheless, I learned a lesson that day. The skin color of a group of kids had the power to stir up contention amongst a crowd of adults.
The second event happened that same year, but on a more personal level. I could almost justify a group of seemingly old people acting that way, because that is probably how they were raised, but to have a child my age display acts of bigotry was distressing. I was sitting in class and the teacher instructed the students to get into groups. I immediately joined the closest assembly of students, which just so happened to be my school yard “friends”. The group consisted of two white students, Richard and Bradley, two black students Gus and Desmond, and one Chicano, me. The moment I sat down, Richard looked at me with disgust and said: “You can’t be in our group, you’re a beaner!” “A beaner?!” I asked puzzled, “what’s a beaner?” Richard and Bradley whispered amongst each other as if coming to a consensus about the word’s meaning, then Richard responded: “a beaner is a person who eats beans!” I quickly processed the information and countered: “do you eat beans?” “Yes” he replied, “but I’m not a beaner!” I asked each member of the group, individually, if they ate beans, to which they all answered affirmatively. “Then we’re all beaners” I concluded. Noticing my frustration in trying to come to terms with this new concept, Gus asked me with sincerity: “you’ve really never heard of a beaner?” “When would I have ever heard that word?” I answered. “A beaner is a Mexican, that’s why he called you a beaner and not us” he said resolutely. At that point, I was “forced to focus on [my] identity as a member of a group targeted by racism” (Tatum, 1992).
Another stage that I have experienced in my life is Immersion-Emersion which entails that an individual “shed their self-hatred and rush to a new ethnic identity” (Spring, 2006). During my middle childhood, I resented my name, Salvador, because it made me sound like a “paisa” or a “chunt” (paisa is a shortened version of “paisano” and chunt is the condensed version of “chuntaro” which are both Spanish words used derogatively to describe native Mexicans, equivalent to the English pejorative word “wetback”). As I entered my teen years, I began to feel “social pressures to adopt culturally valued roles and beliefs” (Lightfoot, et al., 2009) as described by Erik Erikson’s identity versus role confusion stage of psychosocial development. Although, I felt that I was lost in between the dominant American culture and the Chicano sub-culture, I had an affinity towards the latter. I studied the history of the Aztecs, the Mayans, the Toltecs, the Olmecs, and every other tribe that thrived during pre-Colombian times. In comparison to the achievements reached by the New World’s native cultures, the Chicanos condition seemed disparaging. I gained a strong sense of Chicano pride which was reflected in my artwork. During that point in my life, I focused most of my energy to learning about my Mexican roots and any time invested on learning U.S. history was through the perspective of those people indigenous to this land. In doing this, a sense of security emerged “in a newly defined and affirmed sense of self” (Tatum, 1992) which helped lead me to Helms’ Autonomy Stage.
Despite the fact that Janet Helms theory of racial identity development is associated more with the Caucasian experience, I presently see myself in the Autonomy Stage because I “confront racism and oppression in daily life…[and I am] continually open to new information and new ways of thinking about racial and cultural variables” (Tatum, 1992). Life experiences, logic, reasoning, and education have contributed to this realization. During basic training in the United States Marine Corps, I learned to see myself and other recruits as humans with the ability to adapt and overcome anything. Although, racism exists in the military, it is somehow minimized by the same intense preparation bequeathed on all. Because we were all treated equal, I learned to see everyone as an equal despite of their physical appearance. I distinctly remember one winter night, as I lay on the top bunk, “Taps” began to play. There are two uses of that musical piece by the military, one is to indicate “lights out” at night, and the other is at the funeral of the fallen. That night, I visualized scores of 18 and 19 year olds who lost their lives within moments of stepping on the battlefield. My eyes welled up with tears. I was not thinking about their race, I was simply empathizing by shedding tears at the thought of their final moments and lost future. That life experience served as a cobblestone in my proverbial road to becoming socially-justice minded.
Logic, reasoning, and education played an essential role in arriving at the Autonomy stage because it allowed me to make connections between different cultures that can be attributed to all humans despite of their demographics. In most all cultures, the attainment and maintenance of money and power are the driving force behind most major events. Sexual depravity tends to corrupt and weaken all systems of governance regardless of what groups of people are involved. In general, societies can be broken down into the oppressors and the oppressed. As Rodney, a classmate continues to allude to in class, in all these situations, the actors may change, but the metaphorical script remains the same. My cognition is set up to process human interactions and attributes any positive or negative traits to the individual(s) rather than to said individual(s)’ race because I know that all humans hold the capacity to carry out any action, be it slavery, prostitution, invention, imagination, creation, murder, healing, being industrious, being lazy, etc. I cannot remain silent while another person denigrates a group of people ignorantly as I feel it a duty to take a “proactive stance on anti-racist issues” (Tatum, 1992).
During my first couple of months at a new church, a white woman, who has since become a close friend, told me: “you know Sal…you’re smarter than you look!” I am smarter than I look? What does a smart person look like? Experiences such as this have given me some insight as to how I am initially perceived by others. I have learned to neglect such commentary with an assurance that, if given the time and opportunity, my character will invalidate their preconceived notions of me based on my looks. My encounter with racial acceptance, rejection, and indifference have made me compassionate enough to have the desire to only promulgate positive feelings within those who surround me, notwithstanding their race. As a teacher, I willingly take on the responsibility of promoting egalitarianism, “which emphasizes the equality of members of all ethnicities” (Lightfoot, et al., 2009).
For example, in the 2009-2010 school year, I was hired, under an internship, as a 9th grade Integrated Science teacher at Paramount High School. With a population consisting of 83% Latino(a)s and a very pervasive gang culture, I made it an issue to highlight the achievements of people of all races because I, personally, know that the Latino(a) gang culture promotes racism. On one occasion, I played a video for the students that dealt with the use of science in warfare, namely the unmanned, rice-paper balloons that carried bombs from Japan to the United States in 1945. The video told a compelling story of two nations that used their brain power to combat each other (i.e. the Japanese had an understanding of air currents and thermal pressures which they used to guide their explosive inventions to the proper destination vs. the United States forensic ability to find the location, where the bombs were being launched from, based on the type of sand placed in the bags found on the Japanese contraptions). I then led the class on a discussion as to whether race had anything to do with either group’s engineering capabilities. Some students struggled with the concept because it countered their unfounded biases against Asians. I would be foolish to believe that a permanent change would come about in a single class period. Nevertheless, I would be an even greater fool if I did not make egalitarianism ubiquitous throughout my lessons with the hope that its implicit and explicit teaching would leave an indelible impression in my students’ minds, possibly leading to a phase change on the scale of racial identity development. As James Allen stated in his short essay, “As a Man Thinketh”, “man is the master of thought, the molder of character, and the maker and shaper of condition, environment, and destiny” (Allen, 1903).
References
Allen, James. (1903). As a Man Thinketh. Retrived 22 October 2010, from http://jamesallen.wwwhubs.com/think.htm
Lightfoot, C., Cole, M., & Cole, S. (2009). The Development of Children. New York: Worth Publishers.
Spring, J. (2006). The Intersection of Cultures: Mutlicultural Education in the United States and the Global Community. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Tatum, B.D. (1992). Talking About Race, Learning about Racism: The Application of
Racial Identity Development Theory in the Classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1). Retrieved 22 October 2010, from http://ets.mnsu.edu/darbok/ETHN201/race.pdf
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Institutions, Discrimination, and God's Judgment
Prop. 8 boils down to redefining what the institution of marriage is, and whether it's traditional definition should evolve. As I've stated, I've thought it through on many logical aspects and could efficiently argue both sides (without naively resorting to character attacks). Those who argue that Prop. 8 is discriminatory are right in saying so, but not necessarily with the malicious undertones that are attached with the word "discrimination". The truth of the matter is that any and every institution is discriminatory towards one group or more. (example: Leisure World is a geriatric institution that discriminates people under a certain age, that's reverse agism) Just pick an institution and I guarantee you'll find discrimination everywhere, hmm...the discrimination argument doesn't really seem that strong now does it? Or should we go around picketing at every institution?
"Institutions are structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals. Institutions are identified with a social purpose and permanence, transcending individual human lives and intentions, and with the making and enforcing of rules governing cooperative human behavior. The term, institution, is commonly applied to customs and behavior patterns important to a society, as well as to particular formal organizations of government and public service. As structures and mechanisms of social order among humans, institutions are one of the principal objects of study in the social sciences, including sociology, political science and economics. Institutions are a central concern for law, the formal regime for political rule-making and enforcement. The creation and evolution of institutions is a primary topic for history." Wikipedia
The institution of marriage is a social structure that legally unites men and women with the intent to create a family and was/is not founded on discrimination, (discrimination is a natural result that comes with the fact that marriage is an institution). Now we all know it doesn't always happen that way, but I intend to uphold that ideal, regardless. I have the assurance that in my lifetime, gay marriage will be backed by our legal system. I don't agree with it, and I will never vote for it. I will just tally it up as another social blunder.
As for people calling God a jackass, you obviously don't know him or care to know him, so feel free to call him what you will. He's been called worse. Jesus Christ was crucified by a group of people who felt the way same way most of you feel right now. They saw a man that was telling them to change their behavior, and they said "we ain't changing shit!" They called him the lord of flies (Beelzebub, which implies that he rules over feces which is the major source of flies) and tried to shut his mouth by killing him. Truth is, despite the people's rebellion against choosing his "better way", he loves them and despises their sin.
People become involved in homosexual practices for many reasons. Those who feel they were born that way are not sinners for their natural attractions, sin doesn't come into play until that attraction is acted upon. I don't believe God made anyone the way they are. I believe he created humans and gave them guidelines as to how they should live, if they want to return to his presence. If you don't feel a desire to love God or even admit that he exists, so be it. I believe he is real, and when our mortal existence comes to an end and it's time for him to mete out our rewards, he will REWARD everyone according to their works. Everyone will feel that the reward they recieved was just, because God is just. Not everyone will return to live in his presence, but that does not mean that they are going to hell.
Not all christians hate homosexuals. I don't hate them, I love them, I just don't make love to them. Shame on anyone who does things to others with malicious intent. When all is said and done there is only one thing that truly matters to me. God loves us all and desires the best for us, even though we hate him for asking us to show restraint. I have natural urges to sleep with a lot of women and I'm married. I have to struggle with my sexuality as well. I have an even greater urge to kill and torture people, it almost consumes me at times (I know I got issues), but I must fight my "natural" urges to the day I die if I want to recieve a greater glory. I've asked God to strip me of these feelings, but I've come to the conclusion that this must be my obstacle to overcome, and in the end I can show him that I overcame.
always desiring for the unity in community,
Salvador
"Institutions are structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals. Institutions are identified with a social purpose and permanence, transcending individual human lives and intentions, and with the making and enforcing of rules governing cooperative human behavior. The term, institution, is commonly applied to customs and behavior patterns important to a society, as well as to particular formal organizations of government and public service. As structures and mechanisms of social order among humans, institutions are one of the principal objects of study in the social sciences, including sociology, political science and economics. Institutions are a central concern for law, the formal regime for political rule-making and enforcement. The creation and evolution of institutions is a primary topic for history." Wikipedia
The institution of marriage is a social structure that legally unites men and women with the intent to create a family and was/is not founded on discrimination, (discrimination is a natural result that comes with the fact that marriage is an institution). Now we all know it doesn't always happen that way, but I intend to uphold that ideal, regardless. I have the assurance that in my lifetime, gay marriage will be backed by our legal system. I don't agree with it, and I will never vote for it. I will just tally it up as another social blunder.
As for people calling God a jackass, you obviously don't know him or care to know him, so feel free to call him what you will. He's been called worse. Jesus Christ was crucified by a group of people who felt the way same way most of you feel right now. They saw a man that was telling them to change their behavior, and they said "we ain't changing shit!" They called him the lord of flies (Beelzebub, which implies that he rules over feces which is the major source of flies) and tried to shut his mouth by killing him. Truth is, despite the people's rebellion against choosing his "better way", he loves them and despises their sin.
People become involved in homosexual practices for many reasons. Those who feel they were born that way are not sinners for their natural attractions, sin doesn't come into play until that attraction is acted upon. I don't believe God made anyone the way they are. I believe he created humans and gave them guidelines as to how they should live, if they want to return to his presence. If you don't feel a desire to love God or even admit that he exists, so be it. I believe he is real, and when our mortal existence comes to an end and it's time for him to mete out our rewards, he will REWARD everyone according to their works. Everyone will feel that the reward they recieved was just, because God is just. Not everyone will return to live in his presence, but that does not mean that they are going to hell.
Not all christians hate homosexuals. I don't hate them, I love them, I just don't make love to them. Shame on anyone who does things to others with malicious intent. When all is said and done there is only one thing that truly matters to me. God loves us all and desires the best for us, even though we hate him for asking us to show restraint. I have natural urges to sleep with a lot of women and I'm married. I have to struggle with my sexuality as well. I have an even greater urge to kill and torture people, it almost consumes me at times (I know I got issues), but I must fight my "natural" urges to the day I die if I want to recieve a greater glory. I've asked God to strip me of these feelings, but I've come to the conclusion that this must be my obstacle to overcome, and in the end I can show him that I overcame.
always desiring for the unity in community,
Salvador
Saturday, November 8, 2008
The Protests and Arguments on Proposition 8
Voicing your opinion, empowering or just whiny? It's funny how I voted yes on 8 after much consideration and without a hint of hatred in my heart for anyone, yet many people (who voted no on 8) feel the need to ignorantly attach an air of negativity to anyone who doesn't hold their position. The ironic thing about it is that they spew hatred while simultaneously repeating the clever "no on h8!"
Before I continue, Prop. 8 is being referred to as the Civil Rights Movement of the 21st Century. Really?! Prop. 8 is the Civil Rights Movement of the 21st Century?! People who are gay are suffering the black experience of the early to mid 1900s? As a whole, they're getting hosed down, raped, robbed, beaten, lynched/murdered, stripped, tarred and feathered, and forced to use sub-standard facilities apart from society? Wow! Not getting to say, "we're married!" holds equal weight to the aforementioned? Or, is it more like the Latino experience where they're currently suffering police brutality, racial profiling, deportation, absurd sentencing, wages far below minimum wage, and severe discrimination for their APPEARANCE, not their lifestyle? Hmm, Prop. 8 falls under that umbrella?...interesting.
I've previously stated several reasons for voting yes on 8, (I won't be a broken record about it) and discrimination and hatred had nothing to do with it, in the least degree. My vote was based on logic and reasoning. I could see and understand why people voted no on 8. I feel that to take an educated stance on anything, you must first be able to effectively argue all sides of the issue at hand. And, likewise be respectful of people who decide to take the opposing stance. Attack the issues, not the people. I recognize, as I feel you must have by this point, the ignorance that has almost thoroughly permeated both parties. But, enough of the soap box speech. My words seem to fall upon deaf ears. I was hoping that after the people had spoken, the issue would be put behind us. How "un-American" of me to accept the people's voice on this matter. This topic is obviously more important than, I don't know, people losing their life to actual WAR, to drug trafficking, to a prejudiced judicial system, to poverty, to mafia's and gangs, to rape, to incest, to child abuse (emotional, physical, and sexual), etc. Let's continue this discussion that really has nothing to offer me or my people. Oh, I see the error of my ways, (sarcastically) let's fight for a group of people who aren't being IMPRISONED or MASSACRED, and are doing well off in our economy and society (collectively). Let me stand behind a group of people who are warring against another group's moral stance over semantics, not rights, SEMANTICS.
Unless, someone is willing to participate in an educated exchange of ideas, I will no longer engage in a discussion that is completely irrelevant to me.
Good luck with your "struggle",
Salvador
Before I continue, Prop. 8 is being referred to as the Civil Rights Movement of the 21st Century. Really?! Prop. 8 is the Civil Rights Movement of the 21st Century?! People who are gay are suffering the black experience of the early to mid 1900s? As a whole, they're getting hosed down, raped, robbed, beaten, lynched/murdered, stripped, tarred and feathered, and forced to use sub-standard facilities apart from society? Wow! Not getting to say, "we're married!" holds equal weight to the aforementioned? Or, is it more like the Latino experience where they're currently suffering police brutality, racial profiling, deportation, absurd sentencing, wages far below minimum wage, and severe discrimination for their APPEARANCE, not their lifestyle? Hmm, Prop. 8 falls under that umbrella?...interesting.
I've previously stated several reasons for voting yes on 8, (I won't be a broken record about it) and discrimination and hatred had nothing to do with it, in the least degree. My vote was based on logic and reasoning. I could see and understand why people voted no on 8. I feel that to take an educated stance on anything, you must first be able to effectively argue all sides of the issue at hand. And, likewise be respectful of people who decide to take the opposing stance. Attack the issues, not the people. I recognize, as I feel you must have by this point, the ignorance that has almost thoroughly permeated both parties. But, enough of the soap box speech. My words seem to fall upon deaf ears. I was hoping that after the people had spoken, the issue would be put behind us. How "un-American" of me to accept the people's voice on this matter. This topic is obviously more important than, I don't know, people losing their life to actual WAR, to drug trafficking, to a prejudiced judicial system, to poverty, to mafia's and gangs, to rape, to incest, to child abuse (emotional, physical, and sexual), etc. Let's continue this discussion that really has nothing to offer me or my people. Oh, I see the error of my ways, (sarcastically) let's fight for a group of people who aren't being IMPRISONED or MASSACRED, and are doing well off in our economy and society (collectively). Let me stand behind a group of people who are warring against another group's moral stance over semantics, not rights, SEMANTICS.
Unless, someone is willing to participate in an educated exchange of ideas, I will no longer engage in a discussion that is completely irrelevant to me.
Good luck with your "struggle",
Salvador
Friday, October 24, 2008
Let Me Take Your Rationales on Gay Marriage for a Brisk Run
Does the bandwagon have room for one more? Let’s just use our imaginations a little. How open-minded and understanding are we really, and how far are we willing to go with this? Who has the right to draw the line and set the limits? Oh, the audacity of some people…setting boundaries. Let’s take the abstract concept of “fundamental rights” that seems to be escaping everyone’s lips (as if the notion was universally accepted or defined without the liberty of interpretation) and run with it, but not too extreme. Although, some may already feel that Gay marriage is extreme. Let’s pretend that we have forgotten what a social contract is, (a concept which serves as the foundation upon which all civilized societies are built upon). Let’s make believe that the phrase separation of church and state is what people are misinterpreting it to be; as if the majority of our standing laws have no moral basis stemming from religion.
Let’s try to shed all those icky memes that we received from our GUARDIANS and turn our backs on laws that “protect” the fundamental unit of society, and do away with all that religious mumbo jumbo that has carried humanity on its back for so long. People are spitting out this new concept of memes as if all ideas and thoughts carry the same weight, but let’s pretend they do. It’s the dawn of a new era. I like that idea, a lot. The rationale I’m hearing is that nobody should interfere with consenting adults wanting to get together. If everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, has the fundamental right to marry, then the law should not have anything in the books to prevent gay marriage.
The next thing to take off the books is polygamy. Hey, if it involves consenting adults, then why should we care, legalize bigamy and polygamy, they are moral constructs infused into our laws. Hmm, I’d like that, (I think). Better yet, if the “government” is to be stripped of religious influence, then why do they care where and how I get my kicks. If the whole basis is individual rights and adult consent, then legalize prostitution. It could increase Federal revenues and decrease divorce rates (and broken homes), why buy a freakin’ cow when you could get the milk elsewhere. Why marry? Just commit to being companions with someone in an open relationship, if that’s what you want. Along those lines, adultery should have no standing in court cases. It involves consenting adults…who’s to say what’s “wrong” and what’s “right”, right? Who cares about the fathers, mothers, children, friends, etc. getting their wittle fee-wings hurt, it’s “just a MEME we barf out *shakes fist*”, right?
As long as I get what I want out of life without morals impeding with my aspirations then my fundamental rights will be preserved. So why stop there, if alcohol is legal and makes me feel good, why aren’t all drugs legal? If you merely scratch the surface of investigating our nation’s drug laws, you’ll quickly find that they stemmed from fear and racism from "white" politicians who felt threatened by the Chinese and their opium dens in northern California; thinking that their white women were being corrupted, Oh no! minorities pleasing white women, destruction is imminent! Let’s be as adamant about abolishing those laws too. Our prisons won’t be as crowded, or will they? I love how little justifications chip away at the greater whole. Wow, who knew that using LOGIC could be so much fun?! I'll stop there, or should I continue? No, I've probably ruffled enough feathers by now.
I love slippery slopes. I also, love trotting around the high horse of self-righteousness and trampling over antiquated religious ideals. Who needs that crap about self-restraint and principles when we have secularism? We have selfish; I mean, self-governance and group consensus. Who cares if the masses are asses?! Let’s embrace free thought and exploration of new memes, despite the dreadful cost, yay hippies, uh…I mean progression!
Proposition 8 is not an issue of hate, although tragically many people are treating it that way on both sides (religious freaks showing contempt to homosexuals, and free-thinking kooks despising people who hold traditional values). Let us overlook the obstacles placed before us by these two extremes and try to foresee the course we embark on. People can be naïve, bigoted, and close-minded on voting Yes or No on the issue, whether they recognize it or not. And with that, I dismount the bandwagon of cynicism, trendy ideals and acceptance.
With love, for all,
Salvador
Let’s try to shed all those icky memes that we received from our GUARDIANS and turn our backs on laws that “protect” the fundamental unit of society, and do away with all that religious mumbo jumbo that has carried humanity on its back for so long. People are spitting out this new concept of memes as if all ideas and thoughts carry the same weight, but let’s pretend they do. It’s the dawn of a new era. I like that idea, a lot. The rationale I’m hearing is that nobody should interfere with consenting adults wanting to get together. If everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, has the fundamental right to marry, then the law should not have anything in the books to prevent gay marriage.
The next thing to take off the books is polygamy. Hey, if it involves consenting adults, then why should we care, legalize bigamy and polygamy, they are moral constructs infused into our laws. Hmm, I’d like that, (I think). Better yet, if the “government” is to be stripped of religious influence, then why do they care where and how I get my kicks. If the whole basis is individual rights and adult consent, then legalize prostitution. It could increase Federal revenues and decrease divorce rates (and broken homes), why buy a freakin’ cow when you could get the milk elsewhere. Why marry? Just commit to being companions with someone in an open relationship, if that’s what you want. Along those lines, adultery should have no standing in court cases. It involves consenting adults…who’s to say what’s “wrong” and what’s “right”, right? Who cares about the fathers, mothers, children, friends, etc. getting their wittle fee-wings hurt, it’s “just a MEME we barf out *shakes fist*”, right?
As long as I get what I want out of life without morals impeding with my aspirations then my fundamental rights will be preserved. So why stop there, if alcohol is legal and makes me feel good, why aren’t all drugs legal? If you merely scratch the surface of investigating our nation’s drug laws, you’ll quickly find that they stemmed from fear and racism from "white" politicians who felt threatened by the Chinese and their opium dens in northern California; thinking that their white women were being corrupted, Oh no! minorities pleasing white women, destruction is imminent! Let’s be as adamant about abolishing those laws too. Our prisons won’t be as crowded, or will they? I love how little justifications chip away at the greater whole. Wow, who knew that using LOGIC could be so much fun?! I'll stop there, or should I continue? No, I've probably ruffled enough feathers by now.
I love slippery slopes. I also, love trotting around the high horse of self-righteousness and trampling over antiquated religious ideals. Who needs that crap about self-restraint and principles when we have secularism? We have selfish; I mean, self-governance and group consensus. Who cares if the masses are asses?! Let’s embrace free thought and exploration of new memes, despite the dreadful cost, yay hippies, uh…I mean progression!
Proposition 8 is not an issue of hate, although tragically many people are treating it that way on both sides (religious freaks showing contempt to homosexuals, and free-thinking kooks despising people who hold traditional values). Let us overlook the obstacles placed before us by these two extremes and try to foresee the course we embark on. People can be naïve, bigoted, and close-minded on voting Yes or No on the issue, whether they recognize it or not. And with that, I dismount the bandwagon of cynicism, trendy ideals and acceptance.
With love, for all,
Salvador
Saturday, October 4, 2008
People seem to have a problem with other people who don't stereotype.
I am not one to put a limit or condition on the human mind. I firmly believe that there is no obstacle that the human mind can't overcome. Time and experience can eventually decrease/eliminate bias. The problem with saying that everyone stereotypes is that it is a generalization, and like we know, all generalizations are inherently erroneous, including this one. Nevertheless, I could see how individuals may have an issue with a person who is tolerant and understanding of all.
First of all, there is a degree of indignation toward someone who has presumably achieved something that is thought to be impossible, and the claimer is seen as presumptuous. Secondly, there is a paradox if a person completely avoids judging and/or stereotyping. People who haven't achieved that level of understanding and empathy toward all see something wrong with this supposed unbiased person in order to attribute a flaw in their character and thus "humanize" them.
For example, an unbiased person says: "I have no problem with anyone", to which the skeptic retorts: "So, you have no problem with Hitler, and with what he did?" This is a catch-22 for the so-called unbiased individual, he/she answers "No" and they instantly become a heartless bigot; he/she anwers "Yes" and their I-don't-judge-people claim is automatically debunked. Truth of the matter is, that in life there is black and white, and all degrees of shades in between. Alfred Kinsey said it best when making a reference to male sexual behavior "the world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-hhscale.html With that rationale, people can be categorized on a continuum, falling on and between the two extremes of being extremely (racist, biased, prejudiced, etc.) and being completely (empathetic, understanding, impartial, etc.).
First of all, there is a degree of indignation toward someone who has presumably achieved something that is thought to be impossible, and the claimer is seen as presumptuous. Secondly, there is a paradox if a person completely avoids judging and/or stereotyping. People who haven't achieved that level of understanding and empathy toward all see something wrong with this supposed unbiased person in order to attribute a flaw in their character and thus "humanize" them.
For example, an unbiased person says: "I have no problem with anyone", to which the skeptic retorts: "So, you have no problem with Hitler, and with what he did?" This is a catch-22 for the so-called unbiased individual, he/she answers "No" and they instantly become a heartless bigot; he/she anwers "Yes" and their I-don't-judge-people claim is automatically debunked. Truth of the matter is, that in life there is black and white, and all degrees of shades in between. Alfred Kinsey said it best when making a reference to male sexual behavior "the world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-hhscale.html With that rationale, people can be categorized on a continuum, falling on and between the two extremes of being extremely (racist, biased, prejudiced, etc.) and being completely (empathetic, understanding, impartial, etc.).
Monday, September 15, 2008
DNA transmission complete!
His protein coat moved through the new acidic environment with more speed, his flagella lashed with greater intensity, and with a devastating entrance into the ova he brought death to millions of his cohorts. Two cells melded into one, then divided exponentially until it created this; the only surviving remnants of that night's emissions. The process was nothing short of miraculous and his birth has given me incentive not to bring an end to my own life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
