All About Writer's Block

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

About the Author:
My name is Tim and... uh....

Deviant Me

Deviance: Behavior that is recognized as violating expected rules and norms. 

As it turns out, I am a deviant. The following ideals of mine are in violation of today's norms and rules in society: 

1. I  generally lean towards being a socialist and a humanitarian. 

2. We should have universal health care in the U.S. 

3. I enjoy debating (especially against conservatives). 

4. Government needs to be reformed to serve the majority. 

5. Women should have equal pay in the workforce. 

6. Homosexual people should have the same marital rights as heterosexual people. 

7. The War on Terror is and always has been wrong. 

8. The judicial system is completely broken and needs to be rebooted. 

9. I  don't like religion. 

At the surface, these ideals may not seem that incredibly odd or deviant, but our system is set up so that none of the above are the norms in practice. For instance, I am mostly a socialist because I care for the general welfare of society and believe that we have a moral obligation to help those that may be in a worse situation. General society labels the programs dedicated to this ideal as entitlement systems. The word "entitlement" has a negative connotation in today's political climate, but my thought is why am I called the bad guy when all I want is to improve the general human condition? This makes me a deviant because I am very much against how the system works now and believe we should treat each other more humanely. This same ideal crosses over into universal health care. Our system does not have universal health care and I believe that everyone in the country should have health care. This is because I am a humanitarian and I don't think health care should be for profit, but rather for the improvement of the general health of society. The U.S. spends more on health care per capita by far than any other nation in the world and yet we are ranked 37th in the world for quality of health care according to the World Health Organization. But again, this makes me a deviant because I do not agree with the health care laws and this is in violation of the rules our society currently has set up. 

My deviance extends beyond this, however. I enjoy debating with those that don't hold the same ideals as me, I don't like that our government serves a wealthy minority, etc. (as mentioned above). My point is that it is easy to define me as a deviant in sociological terms because I am very much opposed to many of our current laws and practices. My deviant ideals are for the betterment of society. From a sociological perspective, deviance is a driving force behind change and I hope that more people are deviant like me, speak loudly, and make this a better country.

Archer the Narcissist

Sterling Archer is the main character from a popular animated TV show. I intend to show that he has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This is going to be a mock interview of Sterling Archer using real quotes from him from the show.

Me: “Mr. Archer, do you know why you are here to see me today?”

Archer: “You're looking for the word, 'yes'?”

Me: “Yes.”

Archer: “Then, yes.”

Me: “Mr. Archer, you have people that care about you that think you might be a little... narcissistic.”

Archer: “Woodhouse!”

Me: “I don't know. It's possible he is one of the people that thinks this.”

Archer: “What? He thinks he's people?!?”

*Note: lacks empathy, check.

Me: “Well, Woodhouse is a person, Mr. Archer.”

Archer: “I'm going to pain you dearly Woodhouse, when I peel all your skin off with a knife, sew it into Woodhouse pajamas and then set those pajamas on fire!”

*Note: really, really lacks empathy.

Me: “That's not appropriate Mr. Archer. Why are you so angry at Woodhouse?”

Archer: “Because how hard is it to poach a *expletive deleted* egg properly?!? Seriously, that's like Eggs 101.”

*Note: tendency to be interpersonally exploitative, check.

Me: “Perhaps you should move on from being mad at your breakfast.”

Archer: “There's not enough liquor and therapy in the world to undo that.”

Me: “It seems that you perhaps are feeling insecure. Are there aspects about yourself that you want to change?

Archer: “Do you see me rocking this chiseled slab of hard man body?”

Me: “No. You aren't my type, Mr. Archer.”

Archer: “Hey, I am everybody's type!”

*Note: excessive need for admiration, check.

*Note: believes that others are envious of him, check.

*Note: shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes, check.

Me: “That's pretty funny, Mr. Archer.”

Archer: “Because I happen to have perfect situational awareness.”

*Note: belief that he is “special” and unique, check.

Me: “I see. Have you thought that perhaps you don't have perfect situational awareness?”

Archer: “I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you, buddy.”

Me: “Okay. So why do you think you are so special?”

Archer: “Hey, we're out there risking our lives every... many of the days!”

*Note: grandiose sense of self-importance, check.

Me: “Did you know that the people around you just want you to be a little nicer to them?”

Archer: “I thought they just wanted my hair so their scientists could unlock its luxuriant fullness.”

*Note: Preoccupation with fantasies of beauty, check.

Me: “Mr. Archer, do you realize that in the couple of minutes that we've been talking that you've shown yourself to be eight of the nine criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder? You only need five in order to be diagnosed as such.”

Archer: “DANGER ZONE!”

Utah Caucuses

I really wish I had paid more attention a week ago because I completely ignored all the signs and didn't participate in the Utah caucuses. I would have really liked to go to the local Republican party caucuses and tried to voice my opinion to the majority party... oh wait... I'm not registered as a Republican, so the rules say I couldn't have gone to that caucus. In fact, I'm not registered as a Democrat either; I am registered as unaffiliated. I have this crazy notion that I should vote for the person that represents my ideas and values the best and not just vote along party lines. I know, weird. Well, I could have gone to the Democratic party caucus because that caucus is open for anyone! So I could have participated in an event that would determine who would get the Democratic delegates in the least Democratic leaning state in the nation... Hmm. Now I'm starting to get demoralized. Well, what if I decided to register as a Republican for the next round of caucuses in 2014? If I did that, then I could have a voice amongst people that didn't want to hear it in the first place and give my opinion to a delegate that wouldn't listen too it. “Oh, he's one of those liberal Republicans!”

I'm really trying to figure this out. It seems that the Utah Republican caucuses cater to the minority of the majority and ignore the majority of the minority. The attendees of the Republican caucuses represent a minority of the majority party and don't let those that are part of the minority party attend. On the other hand, the Democratic caucuses let anyone attend so they can make a futile attempt to vote for a Democrat that is at best a long shot. Whoa. So confused...

Of course, there are lots of things that confuse me. For instance, why is it that with today's technology we only have the option of in-person caucuses that only happen on one day at one time? With only two tenths of one percent representing all of the population (delegates), perhaps there are other avenues to explore? You can register to vote online, so why not have a mass representation system that allows the maximum number of people to put in opinions about political candidates online or at a voting booth? Is it wrong for me to want more people to have a voice and for a nominee process to more accurately represent the wishes of the majority? Yet another conflict between traditional systems and systems that work better in today's world. Oh, like the electoral college! You mean, someone can win an election even when they didn't?

The Senate Filibuster

 The senate filibuster is a necessary measure in today's political climate which could very well be reformed under the correct circumstances. The current debate takes on the form of keeping or abandoning the filibusters, but other options exist. Both sides of the debate have some legitimate arguments as well as some irrelevant arguments. I will explore both sides of this topic and then will present alternatives to just “yes” or “no.”

Thomas Geoghegan wrote The Case for Busting the Filibuster in Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Political Issues, 17^th Edition (McKenna& Feingold, 2012, pg. 116). In his argument, Geoghegan mentions that the filibuster, specifically, the procedural filibuster, gives too much power to the minority and causes too much easy obstructionism. He writes that the simple majority should be how it works and allowing the filibuster gives room for too much pork in bills.

On the other side of this issue is Robert Byrd (McKenna & Feingold, 2012, pg. 121). Byrd brings up several examples as to the good the filibuster has done. One example of which mentions a court-packing bill pushed by FDR in 1937. After heated debates in the senate and a traditional filibuster, the bill was revised to better promote checks and balances for the judiciary. Byrd also characterizes the importance of giving a strong voice to the minority due to many of our principles being dedicated to equality.

Both sides make compelling arguments. Unfortunately, which side of the debate the political parties tend to gravitate towards depends on whether or not they can filibuster. When Republicans have a minority, the filibuster is widely accepted by the party in general. When Democrats have a minority, the filibuster is widely accepted by the party in general. In other words, support from the parties on filibusters is historically hypocritical.

With American ideologies, it is important for the majority to rule, but it is also important that the minority has a voice. The filibuster is intended to give a voice, but the procedural filibuster does not elicit debate or consideration; it elicits pork being added to bills. Without the filibuster, controversial bills could pass without any proper debate and consideration. The mere threat of a filibuster also mediates presidential nominees so the nominees are usually not too extreme on one side or the other.

With such strong arguments and counterarguments, perhaps a compromise on the issues is in order. To start, a filibuster should not be procedural. It ought to allow a debate on the issues as to better present the evidence or importance of a bill (or lack thereof). Pork could be addressed by simply disallowing it from being added to a bill. Without the option of pork, senators do not hold out in order to better their own positions, but rather they would hold out based on specific grievances they have on a bill. It becomes a talk of how to make the bill work rather than how to bribe to get votes. With these two modifications, compromise and negotiation directly on a bill is much more likely. With these two modifications to the filibuster, better and more rigorously considered legislation can go through and the checks and balances system returns to a healthier state.

This is not the only possibility, however. Under the right circumstances, the filibuster could be completely abandoned and simple majority rule in the senate could happen once again. The right circumstances, however, are very difficult to achieve. For starters, more than two parties would have a big voice in the system. We would need at least a third party that holds a significant number of votes in the senate. This hypothetical third party creates an additional check in the legislative process and inherently eliminates most of the pork put into bills. It eliminates the pork because there are simply too many contenders to deal with to effectively garner votes through bribery.

Being that there are already alternative parties that do not have a significant voice, something else in the system needs to change in order to get significant contribution from these parties in congress. Alternative parties do not have the money to get much of a voice, though. This then points to the need to have public financing for political parties (a la most of the democratic world besides the US). So, if there is public financing that is distributed evenly across three or four parties, then there is an increased likelihood that alternative candidates will get elected in a meaningful amount.

The trick then is to get politicians to follow what is best for the country and not what is best for their own personal pocketbooks. If money is significantly involved as it is now, then public finance for political parties will never happen. There are also complications in how to correctly distribute the money from public financing, but, as mentioned previously, there are many other examples in the democratic world as to how to do this. This is a problem that has been tackled numerous times by numerous countries, so no need to reinvent the wheel.

If no such drastic measures occur, then the senate filibuster needs to remain in place as to allow for a correct mechanism of checking and balancing. In our current political climate. Some modifications could happen to aid in creating a more stream-lined and fair process that better recognizes true debate on issues rather than upholding the principles of bribery through the use of pork. This would require some compromise and some meaningful dialogue in the senate, however.

References:

1. McKenna, G., Feingold S. (2012). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Political Issues, 17^th Ed. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
2. O’Connor, K., Yanus, A.B., Sabato, L.J. (2011). American Government: Roots and Reform, 2011 Ed. Glenview, IL: Pearson Education, Inc.   

Church and state

                The separation of church and state is a complex issue that has been debated since the founding of this country. The importance of this issue to the Framers was addressed with the very first amendment of the United States Constitution. “The First Amendment to the Constitution begins, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’” (O’Connor, Sabato and Yanus, 2011, p. 154). This amendment is the cornerstone in the debate over the separation of church and state. Nowadays, with the rulings and interpretations of the Supreme Court over the centuries, it is reasonable to accept that there should no longer be separation between church and state. I will present the reasoning for this by: 1) evaluating the arguments for proponents of separation of church and state; 2) clarifying historical and judicial decisions that counter the idea of the separation of church and state; 3) providing some of the governmental benefits to the integration of church and state; and, 4) analyzing the moral benefits of opposing separation of church and state.

                In issue 16 of Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Political Issues (2012), United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens supports the notion of separation of church and state. Justice Stevens specifically writes about the case in 2005 regarding a monument at the Texas’ State Capitol that displayed the Ten Commandments. In his argument, he mentions his dismay because, “…This State endorses the divine code of the ‘Judeo-Christian’ God” (Stevens in McKenna and Feingold, 2012, p. 274). He argues that this display can be offensive to those that are not aligned with the Judeo-Christian God. The flaw in his logic is that it would be virtually impossible to correctly represent all those of every religion with monuments on the grounds of the Texas’ State Capitol. Christianity and those that believe in the Ten Commandments still dominate our country, so it is reasonable to allow the voice of the majority to be present on the grounds of the capitol in Texas. Relating to the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the display of this religious monument, Justice Stevens writes, “This makes a mockery of the constitutional ideal that government must remain neutral between religion and irreligion” (Stevens in McKenna and Feingold, 2012, p. 282). This is a silly statement in that religion has been involved in government since the foundation of our country; on our money, in our courts, and in the moral guidance of our laws.

                This leads us to the argument that opposes the separation of church and state. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia writes about the case of McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky and finds that the conclusion of the court to not allow a display of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky to be wrong. Interestingly enough, this decision occurred on the same day as the decision to allow the display in Texas. The government absolutely does and has over the centuries allowed religion to be part of government. As mentioned previously, it is even on our currency (“In God We Trust”), in our court rooms (swearing on a bible), and in our legislature (opening meetings with a prayer). Prominent historical figures like our Founding Fathers have stressed the involvement of religion in our government and society. “James Madison, in his first inaugural address, likewise placed his confidence ‘in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future’” (Scalia in McKenna and Feingold, 2012, p. 284). Again, religion has been and still is an integral part of our government.

                To further this idea, it is important to understand that accepting church as a part of state means that one has to accept the possible eventualities of this. This very well could lead to no separation between church and state and this means that church is state. Separation means they are two different entities, so without separation, they are one in the same. As such, by accepting the involvement of church with state, the conclusion is that the state ought to be run like a church. This is a good, moral conclusion to make. The reason for this is that by integrating church into state, we can have the confidence that God would not lead us astray. After all, it is believed by the majority of people in the United States that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. This simplifies government greatly. If a church-like hierarchical set up of government existed, this means that decisive power would be granted to the head of our nation. In other words, a religious leader ought to be elected as the definitive leader of the United States and this leader ought to be given the right, the divine right, to make all decisions and personally appoint not only his own successor, but any representative he may choose in helping make decisions. This is sound logic as those of religious faith generally believe that religious leaders are chosen by God and, according to a recent poll by Public Policy Polling (2011), God only has a disapproval rating of 9%*. This is much better than any elected official has which means that the American people would be in general satisfied with the way that God would run the country (via a religious leader).

                With a religious authority being the decision maker for the country, our whole system becomes phenomenally simple. For instance, our court system gets to do away with due process and simply have one religious appointee or even the highest religious authority quickly make a decision. No one would have to worry about jury duty anymore. The healthcare debate has been an issue for quite a long time, and with a direct representative of God commanding that we pray for our health and happiness, we can completely eliminate all of healthcare and all the bureaucracy that goes along with it. If people die from disease, then obviously this is what God wanted of them. The huge financial burden of FEMA would be gone because a natural disaster only happens because God wants it to happen. Relief to those caught in a natural disaster would be as sacrilegious wishing that Noah saved all those condemned by God.

                There are also great moral implications to this oneness between church and state. Religion is oft times considered the root of morality. Ethical and moral decisions can be made quickly and efficiently as a religion-based country. The bible has great teachings that can guide a religious ruler in all moral conundrums (besides having a direct line to God). Long debated issues such as abortion, cloning, stem-cell research, and gay marriage would not exist. Our precious time and resources can be used to further develop more important undertakings like building more churches and creating more public religious displays. Beyond this, we have a moral obligation to our children and as such a moral obligation to the world in which we live. By having a nation that is run by a single religious leader, we are able to do away with such things like scientific progression and general health. This means an increase in infant mortality and a decrease in average life span. The population would not be quite so out of control and the resources would not be used up quite so quickly. This means that we leave something for our progeny (those that survive, anyway).

                The debate about separation of church and state is interesting in that we, as a country, never have truly made up our mind about this topic. To this day, we have Justices in the Supreme Court arguing and being divided on this issue. To accept integration of church and state, however, is to accept the notion of church and state being one in the same. By accepting the consequences of this, we allow ourselves to be run by religious authority which is supposedly guided by the hand of God. This means that we reject many of our current political principles and revert back to a time that religious authority made all decisions (aka medieval times).

*God has an approval rating of 52%.

                In case it is not apparent, the point of this paper is to present a “slippery slope” argument by detailing what the eventual outcome could be if people are willing to allow integration of church and state. With this extension of logic, perhaps some degree of skepticism ought to be given to the heavy involvement of church with state. The realization that church really is very integrated into state matters also ought to raise a few eyebrows as to the possible eventualities of this and should be alarming to those of us who want more of a voice and not less of one.

References:

1)       McKenna, G., Feingold S. (2012). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Political Issues, 17^th Ed. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

2)       O’Connor, K., Yanus, A.B., Sabato, L.J. (2011). American Government: Roots and Reform, 2011 Ed. Glenview, IL: Pearson Education, Inc.

3)       Jensen, T. (July 21, 2011). Public Policy Polling. Americans’ Perception of Congress Improves, But Still Poor. Retrieved February 1, 2012 from http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_721.pdf

If a tree falls in a forest and nothing with hearing is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

                This is a question I’ve heard a number of times and I’ve always discounted it because the obvious answer is, “of course.” Regardless if something with the ability to hear is present, sound waves still occur and molecules still vibrate. How do I know this for sure? It is physics and the laws of the universe which occur whether or not we are present to observe them. Why is this philosophical question asked frequently? I believe the answer to this is that we tend to define the universe in terms of our own perception. In other words, this comes from the thought that if our perception doesn’t occur, then the universe doesn’t exist. This idea points to a much more egotistical view of us as human beings. The Earth is the center of the universe. The sun is the center of the universe. The universe is small and made just for us. Nothing exists unless we perceive it to exist. It is interesting to evaluate our own narcissistic view of how things work. This is a classic example of science and philosophy/religion clashing over myth and fact. This may sound like I’m taking this argument too far for such a simple question, but I strongly believe that we as a society need to be more careful about how questions are phrased. Questions like this lead one to suspend critical thinking in hopes of finding a deeper answer when there isn’t one. Essentially, this question is asking whether or not our perception guides the laws of physics. Of course it doesn’t. Now, if the question really is trying to point out that our perception is an interpretation from our senses, then perhaps it should be worded something like this: “Do all things with the ability to hear interpret the sound of a tree falling in the same way?”

taxes

The other night, I was watching Jon Stewart talking about Mitt Romney's 13.9% tax rate on 20+ million per year and really liked the quote, "Poor people have shitty lobbyists."