Dylan Taylor

2012′s presidential election has, for the umpteenth time, sparked a national debate on religion. In the past, this debate has focused ultimately on which religion is best fit for the presidency. Recently, however, it seems a bit of common sense has found its way into the American people and, thank God, the debate is finally putting significant focus into whether religion should even matter. With Romney’s ill-perceived Mormon faith and Obama’s still uneasy grounds after accusations of being Muslim (those dern rednecks), I doubt either candidate will speak much of the issue in their campaigns. But, despite their probable silence and despite this recent questioning of its place in politics, religion will still carry defining weight in 2012′s election.

But it shouldn’t. Here’s why.

Those who support religion’s role in politics argue that a candidate’s religion will define his actions. They say he will lead under the authority of his religion and that his executive actions will not deviate from that religion. If a president were Muslim, they argue, his decisions would reflect Islamic beliefs as he would most certainly make those decisions in accordance with his faith. The same goes for a Christian president or, as relevant this year, a Mormon president. They argue that one’s religion will define his leadership and, consequentially, the nation. Therefore, it is in a nation’s best interest, they argue, that the nation elects a president who shares the same religion as the majority of that nation. This argument is flawed.

First, it must be recognized that – and this might offend some people – that the majority of those who claim a religion don’t actually practice that religion in their daily lives. Secondly, it must also be recognized that each religion is not only perceived and therefore taught differently by each housing of that religion but that it is also perceived and therefore acted upon differently by each practicing individual of that religion (pending, of course, that the “practicing individual” actually practices the religion). In Laymen’s terms, everyone interprets their religion differently and not everyone claiming a religion will practice the religion.

It is reasonable to assume, then, that if one’s religion is not be practiced in his daily life (which it typically is not), then his religion should not carry much weight in whether or not he wins an election. If it did, that’d be like a candidate winning votes for his preference to coffee instead of tea; a preference with little to no impact on his ability to perform in office. Pending he did actually practice his religion, one should judge him, not his religion, for what he practices likely isn’t to par with what stereotypes of his religion say he practices.

That’s all I have to say about that. Happy Easter aka second hangover morning of April everyone.

I had some jaw surgery done today. I didn’t eat since midnight, just like they’d told me, and I starved through the morning until ten, the time they’d scheduled my surgery, just so I could starve another hour cause they’d double booked me, those bastards. That alone was traumatizing; sitting in a waiting room full of people snacking and sipping while my stomach basically imploded.

They called me at eleven and, aside from answering a few questions, I was politely quiet. Oh, and can I note that they put those nipple monitor things on me? Like, the ones from drama TV that measure your heart rate or whatever? Yeah. I felt like someone from House as the lines on the computer bounced with my beats. Also: they put one on your tummy. I don’t know what purpose it serves, but they put one on your tummy.

Then they gave me the anesthesia injection, but they stuck that bitch up into my hand, like on the top of my hand. Odd choice of placement for a needle, if you ask me. I’d rather have it like, in my arm or something, you know? It hurts less there. But on the top of my hand? man. And that nurse like wiggled it around and shit too.

Anyways, that’s when things got trippy. The last thing I remember is telling the nurse about my childhood hospitalization (the nurses back then also put a needle on the top of my hand) and how I don’t understand why they don’t just stick your arm. I’m pretty sure I ranted about that for a good ten more minutes, but I only remember five minutes of the conversation. Next thing I know, I’m coming to, waking up. What follows is what my step-mom told me the entire family over dinner; I barely remember any of this.

My waking question was something along the lines of “so when am I actually gonna fall asleep, anyways?” I’m not sure if I was serious or joking and apparently the nurses weren’t sure either, because nobody laughed. Then I talked about prom this year and how I was getting to go a year early and then I flirted with the nurses, too, and hinted at asking one of them to go with me on my senior year. I talked about how much I loved Hispanics, too, and here’s the best part; all the nurses were Hispanic.

They wheeled me to the car and much to my protest, too; apperantly I was “man enough” to walk down the hall alone (they let me try, I fell). As I stumbled into Deb’s van, I said something like “man you guys need some anesthesia or weed or something you’re all so serious like don’t be so stiff.”

Here’re my tweets from right after surgery, on my way home:

But seriously though. All my nurses were hispanic. I was like in heave or something.—
dylan (@dyylannnn) March 27, 2012

Personally I think I'm behaving fairly okay considering how heavy that sedation was.—
dylan (@dyylannnn) March 27, 2012

I'm so fucking drowsy though. Can't think straight.—
dylan (@dyylannnn) March 27, 2012

Dude this one nurse issso hitting on me sand shes so hot and hjuspanic and unff marry me—
dylan (@dyylannnn) March 27, 2012

The nurses said I talked all through the procedure. Lord knows what I said then.

I’ve started a sort of practice lately in which I flip through headlines every morning, find an interesting article – usually one which I think exposes an important topic of little previous exposure – and I tweet it. Due to I’m doing this as I drink my 7AM coffee, I’ve noted these tweets with the tag “morning coffee reads.”

Today, however, I tweeted an article but wanted to further it with my own opinion, so I went on a sort of Twitter-rant. Upon finishing my rampage, I wondered why don’t I just start a blog and carry on the Coffee Reading tradition there, where there’s room and place for my opinion?

And so it is with great, rant-happy pride that I bring you Coffee Reads: the blog.

It will be updated once daily, likely in the morning, with an excerpt of a news article and commentary on the topic. As a sort of grand unveiling, I’ve already published an article ahead of schedule. Go read it.

This blog will continue to function in it’s philosophical and sometimes personal manner. Also, catch some humor over at The Grugg (there’s an article on smoking weed there and, thanks to retweets, I now know who the potheads of my school are).

It’s funny what I’ll do to know the truth of some things. And scratch that, it’s not funny. Torturous, rather. It’s borderline insane.

Something happened to me, see, and what happened to me hurt and I didn’t know why. I never exactly got a straight answer. But it hurt, and I hadn’t hurt like that before because I’d never been foolish enough to allow myself to be hurt like that before. So it hurt pretty bad. Like, a drunk man falling and hitting his head and bleeding out but not blacking out, that kind of hurt. And I never really got a straight answer as to why.

I never got a straight answer because that answer would’ve hurt more. But curiosity killed the cat, and, though I despise all felines, I was a cat fulfilling my curiosity. So I hunted out the truth – I tried hard to rid myself of emotion so that I wouldn’t be biased and I opened my own investigation -, and I found it, and it hurt. It hurt even more than the original hurt, like, a bleeding drunk man slipping in his blood and falling again, that kind of hurt.

I write a lot about how our minds distort reality to a form more easily acceptable by our emotion’s expectations of reality. It’s the topic of my new book, in fact. In these writings, I encourage us – everyone – to fight against that distortion so that maybe we’ll see more reality, more truth, than we previously saw. But I’ve had a new epiphany; there’s a reason our minds keep reality from us. Perhaps it’s best we don’t intervene. Perhaps this distortion of reality is what gives us happiness, and perhaps we ought not give up happiness.

This post is password protected. You must visit the website and enter the password to continue reading.

“You wrote a poem on your Tumblr and for some reason I was stalking it in my theater class and I came across it, and I think it was titled ‘to the body in the air’ or something, idk but it was soooo good that I read it to my friend who is a bit suicidal, he got all quiet and stuff but I think he kind of understood in that moment that he’s worth more than he thinks, and we wrote it down and signed your name on it, and I showed it to Kevin and told him all about you and how you helped me a lot.”

I write because it is the exchange of ideas that moves humanity forward. I’m not giving merit to my own ideas – that’s for my audience, if they see fit, to do – I’m simply, by writing, fulfilling what I see as a social obligation that we all hold; I’m expressing myself. It goes a long way sometimes. So write, speak, paint, or do whatever you have to do to convey, peacefully of course, what you feel, because we’re all human, and what you feel could mend how someone else feels, and it’s a beautiful thing to have mended someone else, even if just a little bit.

“To the Body in the Air”

To your hair
Flying in the wind;
I suppose you thought not of
Those hands that run through you.

And to your eyes
Blood shot from the rush;
I suppose you thought not of
All the smiles you’ve seen.

And to your hands
Squeezing onto fear;
I suppose you thought not of
All the lives you’ve touched.

To the body in the air
Gasping one last breath;
I suppose you thought not of
All you left atop the ledge.

Alright. I’ve got my drink, got my chips ‘n’ sausa, and HOLY SHIT I don’t remember Kelly Clarkson being so ugly and this from-the-waist-looking-up camera angle isn’t helping and why on Earth is she on camera again?

Oh. She’s singing the National Anthem. That makes sense. Well her voice is pretty at least.

Game time. Wait, did you seriously just ask who I’m rooting for? Do you like, not know me? I’m all things New York dear and that includes the Giants so figure it out. Yeah. The Giants. Oh; and I betted a bag of Italian Roast coffee that they’d win, too, so that kinda factors into my loyalty. Just a lil bit. You know.

Budweiser is still celebrating the end of prohibition eighty years later. A bit outdated but that era was golden, so this commercial is also wait what the fuck why’s he shaving in a bar?!

This game is boring. I’ve gotta pee. Tell me when the commercials are back.

Run to bathroom unbutton unzip aim fire pee pee pee hurry now before the commercials come back on shake it now pack it up zip and button wash hands RUN TO THE TELEVISION.

Just in time for commercials and this dog has more motivation to work out than I do and he’s just a dog. Sigh.

Lookin’ fine, Steve, lookin’ fine. You keep rocking your Aerosmith hair for as long as you like buddy OH SHIT NEW YORK JUST MADE A BEAUTIFUL CATCH MID-FIELD. Play that one over again, please.

There’s not a law that makes skydiving cars illegal??

This game is boring. This game is really boring.

OH MY GOD IT’S ADRIANA LIMA AND SHE’S HOT AND SHE’S SEDUCING ME BY PUTTING HER SHOE ON OR TAKING IT OFF I CAN’T EVEN TELL BUT DAMN SHE’S HOT oh my god OH MY GOD SHE TALKED SHE’S SPEAKING IT’S THE VOICE OF AN ANGEL. Note to self: Valentine’s Day is simple; give and you shall receive.

You’ll always have a place in my heart Adriana you beautiful Brazilian beauty you.

Madonna has the half time show? Huh. I wonder how many 50 year old dicks she had to suck to get that. You do have to hand it to her, though; she still moves like she’s young and she’s better than the Black Eyed Peas. Wait. Two black guys. Or Hispanic? I can’t tell. It must be LMFAO. Yup. It’s LMFAO. They’re on stage with Madonna. God help us all WAIT WHAT MADONNA IS SHUFFLING HOT DAMN SHE’S CRAZY.

Oh no. Not Nicki Minaj. I’d rather die. Like seriously I hope someone brought a sniper rifle. Take this bitch out.

Cee Lo. Okay. I can live with this. Sing some soul Cee Lo give us some gospel, you and your churchy bedazzled bath robe. And while you’re at it, spew a few lines of Fuck You in Minaj’s direction.

The NFL is thanking me for watching that half time show but  dammit I want compensation in cash. That was awful.

BETTY FUCKIN WHITE!

Everyone be quite Clint Eastwood is talking and when that man opens his mouth you shut the Hell up or else.

Damn.

Damn.

Damn why doesn’t he run for President already. Just his face and his voice and everything ugh Eastwood For President 2012. He’s got my vote. Just look at him uniting this country with his raspy inspirational old-man monologuing.

Okay. Back to the game. Let’s go Giants.

Another Hispanic woman and she’s hot and she’s talking in Spanish and boy oh boy I need to change pants this is just too much for me to handle.

THAT WOMEN JUST HEAD-BUTTED HER HUSBAND OVER A SPOON OF I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT. Bitch is crazy. That’s why you don’t get married, men; they all turn into vicious life-sucking demons the minute you say I Do.

Dammit the Giants are losing. But, on the bright side, I only betted on the bag of coffee that my ex gave me, so it’s not too much of a loss. If any. Lol that sucker’s about to win cursed coffee poor guy.

NEW YORK JUST PASSED THE BALL LIKE HALFWAY ACROSS THE FIELD AND CAUGHT IT BARELY IN BOUNDS AND OH THAT WAS BEAUTIFUL I’ll tell my children about that and my children’s children and even their children. Except I’ll likely die by heart attack at age 30 ’cause of this enlarged lover-thumper in my chest so I’ll be lucky to even see my own kids. Sigh. I’d better get busy on that. BUT NEW YORK THAT WAS BEAUTIFUL PROPS TO YOU.

Okay. Move the ball down the field. Keep going. You got this.

We’re so close to a touchdown, so close. Oh my god they almost fumbled it WHY GIANTS WHY? Do this right. No fumbling.

PUNT! He’s moving in, he’s broken through the line, he’s, wait, he’s turning around? He’s squatting over the zone? Lol he’s just fuckin with those Patriots now. Look at that; definitely direct eye contact with Brady over there. HE SITS DOWN! TOUCHDOWN!

Yeah we just won the game.

Confetti and shit.

And this is a poor explanation of it. Enjoy.

I had to write a poem the other day about social reform for a contest (which I’ve advanced places in and have yet to be determined the winner of) and, as I wrote my poem, I had a small epiphany of truth. Now, so that I don’t sound stupid, I suppose that I’d known this truth for a while; I’d just known it in a different form.

I think we can all agree that – and this is a major theme in literature, British literature especially – that man is a product of his past. We start as a baby – blank, like a white sheet of paper – and, as we mature and grow, our parents and what we see influence and build our minds. As you’ve surely heard before, the early years in life are the most critical because they build character, and I hold that to be true. After our parents have built our base character – defined, indirectly through their influence, the characteristics in us that are strongest – after that happens, then we’re seasoned, and sometimes weathered and chiseled, by society; friends and school and the news, etc. What we observe and what we absorb becomes who we are, for man is a product of his past, and observations and absorbings become that past.

And then we have free will; the ability to choose for ourselves what we want by ourselves. But if we are our past, if our mindsets and thought processes are built atop what we have seen and what we have experienced in the past, then we will choose each present decision based on that past, for that past is what built our mindsets. In this sense, there is no free will but, instead, will that is decided by the past actions of one’s surroundings.

There’s not really much we can do about this, but it’s not like we’re helpless, either. Although the past is set in stone and, therefore, how the past has affected us is too set in stone, we still have the future ahead of us. So, although none of us can completely see reality for what it is, we can still try, and, in trying, we can see more of it than previously possible. So try to see reality – truth, untainted by your emotions – try to see that as it happens, try to process it as near realistically as you can. Although you’ll never fully succeed, you’ll lay stronger foundations for the future decisions that you’ll make.

Free will is not free but it is our past according to ourselves and, therefore, it is a lie, and a lie that we claim to “decide” under. But we aren’t deciding, the lie is.

Now perhaps you’re wondering why I’ve written a paragraph about rationality in response to a quesiton about love. The answer is simple;

Because I believe that love is the exact opposite of rationality.

- What is Love, Dec 2011

I like relationships. I really do. And I loved being in the only real one that I was in, at least I loved being in it while I was still in it. See, since then, I’ve realized a few an overwhelming amount of things about relationships both in general and in that one in particular.

First, although I’m sure the girl still cares about me to some degree, I don’t know how much of that relationship she spent feeling “locked in” with me. And that makes me sick with myself, knowing I could’ve made – and likely did make – someone who I care about so much feel “locked in.” Second, I realized that I’m, bluntly put, way too fucked up in the head to mess around with anyone past the 3 feet deep marker. And I don’t say that in a bad way – I’m not like Drew Peterson or something. Ugh, shiver – I just have a lot of internal conflict to sort out before I go inviting people into my internal affairs. Third, I’ve realized an assload of mistakes that I made, mistakes that, while I was making them, I believed myself to be doing the right thing.

Those’re all good and well realizations, but here’s what I’ve realized that is, perhaps, most important.

High school relationships are the biggest load of bull shit in the building. Yeah, even bigger than the “you’ll use chemistry in the real world” bull shit. And when I say relationship, I’m talking about, you know, an actual relationship; not mindless fucking. See, upon entering a relationship, you go straight into that oh-so-infamous “honeymoon phase;” everything’s perfect, they’re the one, you know; that crap. Upon leaving the honeymoon phase, however, upon realizing that they’re not perfect, you’re faced with a decision: end the relationship or put effort into its continuity. And here’s where it gets shitty, cause if you value something past what it offers you – and I call that love; valuing something even though it’s an irrational thing to value -, so if you actually love the person, then you’ll put effort into the relationship’s continuity. And more effort. And more effort. And motherfucking more effort. But guess what; it’s going to end. I guarantee that*. So all that effort you put into the relationship and all that extra time gained as a result of your efforts – and, with that time comes emotional attachment -, it all comes back to slap you in the face, and boy oh boy does it ever slap you with more force than the force you put into not ending the relationship. And it hurts. It hurts bad.

So it’s a waste. Getting into a relationship past what’s physical is a complete waste, and putting effort into making the relationship work is the motherload of waste, because the more effort you put into the relationship, the sharper the sting on your face afterwards.

In the end, it all boils down to this: being in love is for the people who don’t mind living in irrationality. That’s what I’ve figured thus far.

But here’s the crazy part. Obviously, I believe that high school relationships are stupid.  It’s probably just as obvious that I don’t want one, and I that’s right; I don’t. So, from that, you can correctly conclude that – in my mind, at least – that I see high school relationships as wholly irrational, and I do. But here’s the crazy part, and this is how I know that I actually love that girl: I’d get into a relationship with her again. I’d do what I see as irrational, I’d break my new-found rules, I’d do what I know will hurt in the end, I’d do this all for only one girl even though I firmly believe against it. I’d make an irrational decision for her, and love is the opposite of rationality.

Lucky enough for all of us, however, she’s not interested. Lol.

*statistics are telling me that it’s safe to guarantee your high school relationship won’t work ’cause 99% of them don’t. So yeah.

Sgt. Dennis Weichel, 29, died in Afghanistan last week as he lifted an Afghan girl who was in the path of a large military vehicle barreling down a road.

Weichel spotted the girl and quickly moved toward her to get her out of the way. He  succeeded, but not before he was run over by the heavily armored truck. The girl was safe, but Weichel later died of his injuries. He had arrived in Afghanistan  a few weeks ago and had been a member of the Rhode Island National Guard since 2001.

– via ‘Hero’ U.S. Soldier Gives Life to Save Afghan Girl – ABC News.

There’s not much to analyze about this article, not much to tear apart or opinionate over. There is only the sad but important reminder – and one amidst the chaos of last month’s slaughtering – that not all our soldiers are cold and numb towards the Afghans, that, although we train our men to kill (for it is war), that there are those, perhaps more than we think, who maintain compassion and humanity, heroism, at the same time. Sgt. Dennis Weichel just died showing us that, died saving a little girl playing in the dirt.

A woman who became the disfigured face of the shunned and forgotten women of Pakistan committed suicide, jumping from her sixth floor apartment window in Italy last week.

Durrani wrote of Yunus in The News Daily, “I have met many acid victims. Never have I seen one as completely disfigured as Fakhra. She had not just become faceless; her body had also melted to the bone. Despite her stark and hopeless condition, the government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was not in the least God-fearing. She was provided nothing…but disdain…and trashed.”

Acid attacks are prevalent in certain parts of Asia. According to the New York Times’ Nicholas D. Kristof, who reported in 2008 that attacks were then at an all-time high in Pakistan, they are often the work of husbands who attack their wives as a form of revenge for refusing sexual advances or other proposals.

In the Washington Post article on Yunus, Durrani quoted an Italian professor who assisted in Yunus recovery, “I tried to mend her physical scars, but was unable to heal her soul.”

– via Victim of Acid Attack Commits Suicide – ABC News.

The pinnacle – the most hurt victim who’s received the most help who’s become the very face of hope for other victims – the pinnacle of this tragedy has just killed herself.

The face is what gives the soul an identity, see. It’s what represents the soul, what represents you, and the burning of a face burns that face’s soul, too, and living with a soul so intensely scarred is worse than living without sight or without legs or without anything physical; it’s living without life.

Though not all the victims are as hurt as Yunus was, her suicide shows us how deep the pain – the pain beneath the burnt skin, the pain we can’t see - this shows us how deep that pain is, and that showing should drive us to stop this horrific practice, and to stop it at all costs.

This suicide was Yunus’s last cry of agony. Don’t let her have cried that agony – have jumped those six floors – don’t let her have done that in vain. Do something.

Most political brawls are drummed-up follies, but the fight over health-care reform is legitimately historic. The law is the biggest achievement of Barack Obama’s presidency. If it survives, Democrats say, it will expand and transform American health care. Republicans, though, see it as a government intrusion into private affairs. If the law is upheld, they say, no area of American life will be safe.

America’s highest court usually devotes one hour to arguments. For this case it will devote six hours, spread over three days. The Economist has a seat for the proceedings; we’ll be posting our thoughts on Wednesday, and a detailed story will appear in next week’s issue. In the meantime, here is a guide to the arguments.

– via Obamacare and the Supreme Court: A guide to the health-care case.

Here’s an interesting article that’ll perhaps help you form your own opinions on the infamous health care debate before and as it’s being debated. Personally, I’m leaning towards it, and is a former Reagan official (funny as Reagan seems to be the political God of the republicans).  But we’ll see how this plays out.

The veteran TV personality, speaking on “Fox & Friends,” waded in with an opinion on the shooting of Trayvon Martin, a story that has attracted national attention over the past month. He later acknowledged that his comments were “politically incorrect.” …

“I’ll bet you money that if he didn’t have that hoodie on, that nutty neighborhood watch guy wouldn’t have responded in that violent and aggressive way,” [Fox News's] Rivera said. …

Of Martin, Rivera said, “God bless him, he was an innocent kid, a wonderful kid.” But he said the case should be a warning to parents to watch what their children should wear.

“If you dress like a hoodlum eventually some schmuck is going to take you at your word,” he wrote in a commentary posted Friday on the website Fox News Latino.

– via News from The Associated Press.

The article at first sparked a bit of anger and rage towards Rivera, but upon some digestion I’ve concluded that part of what he said, in a facilitating social context, carries at least a little bit of truth.

Some communities, especially down South, are quick to make judgments, to profile, and to stereotype others based just on what those people are wearing. In this sense, Rivera’s initial statement, that the hoodie instigated Zimmerman’s actions, carries some – not a lot, but some – possible element of truth.

That being said, that possible element of truth should only be taken with a grain of salt. The hoodie could have only instigated Zimmerman’s actions because Zimmerman is a part of a not-uncommon group of stereotyping and racist people who fear, leading to hate, what they’re too ignorant or too lazy to understand.

In the end, Trayvon Martin has no fault here. He wore the article of clothing that he saw fit and it is in no way his fault that Zimmerman is a stereotyping and racist pig. Further, hoodies are common not just among “hoodlums,“ to wear one on a rainy day is only more common, Zimmerman ought to be locked up and forced into some racial acceptance classes, and Rivera ought to learn that nobody can help how others perceive them.

Alas, to the surprise of no one, the justices announced last week that they would not permit the Care Act arguments to be broadcast live or on video. Instead, interested people will be able to hear the argument, but only in the afternoon, after the day’s argument has concluded. The most eagerly anticipated (and most important) reality show in America for the past two years — ever since President Obama signed the Care Act into law on March 23, 2010 — will be entirely blacked out. That’s just not good enough.

– via For Democracy’s Sake, Supreme Court, Let the Cameras In – Andrew Cohen – National – The Atlantic.

This is arguably the 21st century’s most debated legislation. I don’t know – and neither do many other people – what’s inside it so I’m not really for or against it, but the fact that its legitimacy is being debated behind closed doors doesn’t really bode too well for me.

Our government, Congress specifically in this case, is run by people who represent the majorities of their parties. Represent, as in they vote based on our interests. We don’t know what’s in the bill, however, and – let’s be honest – some of our Congressmen probably don’t either, so us being represented in their voting didn’t really take place back in 2011 when the law was signed.

There was a chance for this to be corrected with the Supreme Court hearings this week. Didn’t happen. Democratic Republic fail.

Nearly four in 10 Americans (38 percent) say there has been too much expression of religious faith and prayer from political leaders — an all-time high since the Pew Research Center began asking the question more than a decade ago. Thirty percent say there has been too little.

– via U.S. News – Pew survey: Americans think politicians are talking too much about religion.

Can I get a no shit? I mean, just, duh. My grandma, though, she’s part of the thirty percent who’re insistent that there’s too little religious expression (especially from Obama). “Our nation was founded on Christian principles” she says oh so passionately. But no. Half of our fathers were deists and the other half signed this piece of paper called The Bill of Rights which includes The Establishment Clause and quoteth the clause; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

So, uh, if religion has to stay out of law then it would seem that a political official’s religious convictions and expressions aren’t all that important.

That being said, Christianity is a key part in American history. It’s been a prominent factor in both social and political movements since day one. It is, however, completely non-requisite by or in law and to say otherwise is to impose tradition in fear of change, and when change is avoided then progress is hindered and when progress is hindered then problems remain unsolved.

Leave it up to them good ol’ conservatives and we’d done still be in the dark ages of tuberculosis and lynching.

His first memory is an execution. He walked with his mother to a wheat field, where guards had rounded up several thousand prisoners. The boy crawled between legs to the front row, where he saw guards tying a man to a wooden pole.

– via How one man escaped from a North Korean prison camp | World news | The Guardian.

Instead of summing this article up for you, I recommend you just read it. It’s eye-opening to the atrocities occurring inside N. Korea’s borders and it’s educational and it’ll make you think twice before taking your comforts for granted. Seriously, read it. It’ll take some time but it’ll draw you in, too, and it’s worth it in the end.

I would also like to note that if the United States really considered itself the “police nation,” it’d do something about this. Deep down under the yellow journalism and sensationalizing headlines, however, our actions aren’t decided on moral factors; rather, they’re decided on economical investments and good publicity as are the actions of any other reasonable nation.

“To say to any child of 13 that you are only fit to die in prison is cruel,” Stevenson has said. “It cannot be reconciled with what we know about the nature of children. It cannot be reconciled with our standards of decency.”

…

“Kids are different from adults,” explains Father Greg Boyle, the founder and director of Los Angeles’s Homeboy Industries, the largest gang-intervention, -rehabilitation, and reentry program in the nation. “They are not as developed as far as brain science, controlling impulses, and maturity, and fall prey to all kinds of pressures. Young people can change and grow. Every parent knows that. Redemption is possible and it is the measure of a civilized society. Our society ought to catch up.”

There are those, however, who maintain that killers, no matter how young, cannot be rehabilitated and continue to demand revenge—the proverbial eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

–via Ex-Prisoners Say Life Term Is Cruel for Teens, As Case Hits High Court – The Daily Beast.

I don’t know that a generalization can be set here. It seems, as the last quoted paragraph states, that it would be reasonable that there are people – kids – who are unable to change, who are “unfit for society” no matter what. At the same time, however, there are those who have simply caved to pressure or inadequate upbringings. There are people who have no care for what is right and wrong, and there are people who do; those without care should be locked away for life, while those with care should be given, after reasonable punishment, a second chance (pending evaluations deem this appropriate). In Laymen’s terms, this issue should be dealt with on a case-by-case policy. I do, however, believe that parole should always be given to underage convicts.

The killing of 16 Afghan civilians last Sunday is now one of the greatest points of tension between the United States and Afghanistan. U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales allegedly killed the civilians in cold blood; those close to him say they were shocked by the news.

…

Gen. Peter Chiarelli spent the last couple years of his military career working to help troops returning from combat with invisible wounds of war like post-traumatic stress.

He says what the incident “proves more than anything … is just how much we don’t know.” As vice chief, Chiarelli says he was frustrated by not having reliable diagnostic tools to screen for behavioral health issues.

– via Troops’ Mental Health: How Much Is Unknown? : NPR.

Not too long ago I saw the movie Jarhead. I was bored through the entire thing as it was not a typical war movie – it had no action, no blood, no running under heavy fire, none of that – and then, as the credits rolled, it hit me; that’s what made the movie so great. It wasn’t a sensationalized “paint a war hero” movie, it was reality. It was a cold, hard, bitter depiction of the reality of what many soldiers have had to deal with. It was a depiction of the human psychology under warlike circumstances – a film of the mind – and when I saw it from that perspective, I was intrigued.

Though I frown upon the soldier’s actions here in this slaughtering and also the actions of other soldiers – the Qur’an burnings and corpse pissings – I think it necessary to keep this in mind; that their actions are the results of a psych that has crumbled under the pressure of circumstances that you and I have not the slightest clue about, of circumstances that we could never fathom in our wildest nightmares.

To condemn this soldier – or any, for that matter – would be to condemn something that you know nothing of; an ill-founded judgement. There is no right way to condemn, then; only the handling of this present circumstance and the preventing of future similarities.

Chiarelli, however, argues that we have no reliable way to, with integrity, gauge the psychs of our soldiers, which dents our ability to prevent future similarities. And I agree; the human mind is far too complex to determine through written tests or oral evaluations or even, if we’re being honest here, at all.

Perhaps, then, a different approach should be taken. Some would argue that the end to war is a viable solution, but those are the hippies talking and it must be realized that we do not live on a utopia and that, though perhaps not this particular war, that war is an inevitability, a sort of necessary evil. But we’re still at square one; the issue of the psychological integrity of our soldiers remains.

My proposal: start at the root. Instead of squeakily testing the psychs of soldiers during duty, instead of relying on evaluations, perhaps the founding of a humane, strong, resilient-to-snapping psych should take priority in training. Hell, give it its own program, perhaps even a separate training if you will. What good is brute force when the mind is crippled?

That’s my idea. Yours?

“A number of previous studies have linked narcissism with Facebook use, but this is some of the first evidence of a direct relationship between Facebook friends and the most “toxic” elements of narcissistic personality disorder.

…

GE includes ”self-absorption, vanity, superiority, and exhibitionistic tendencies” and people who score high on this aspect of narcissism need to be constantly at the centre of attention. They often say shocking things and inappropriately self-disclose because they cannot stand to be ignored or waste a chance of self-promotion.”

– via Facebook’s ‘dark side’: study finds link to socially aggressive narcissism | Technology | guardian.co.uk.

I feel almost as if I am unable to effectively commentary on this since perhaps this applies directly to me. After all, I match most the criteria. I’ve even already formed a few “justifications” for my behavior. Kinda scary.

The article, however, brings to light perhaps the most overlooked yet obvious side effect of social media. I see this effect, this development of narcissism, to be true and real not just potentially in myself but in some of my friends both globally online and locally at school as well.

Perhaps a month or two of social detox is due, just to reevaluate my psych. If you’re also a little freaked out by this article, I recommend the same for you.