I HAVE A MISSION NOW

My previous post sort of outlines my idea to move toward peace, but I think such a goal deserves more attention than just a day's rant. So for the next year, my blog will be dedicated to spreading the idea that peace is possible.
Here are some things I hope to add, or incorporate if possible:

1. Points of view of readers from various countries.
A. I'm hoping this will help discover what other means to peace there may be
B. I'm also hoping that it will help to make clear the obstacles standing in the way, and how they may be overcome.
2. Stories of people from feuding cultures coming together
A. This will show that peace is possible, and even the deepest blood feuds can be resolved.
3. Eventually I'd like to get politicians and leaders involved.
A. These people are the ones who really have the power to make drastic changes.
B. If leaders of the world make global peace a priority they should be supported and have a place to contribute their own ideas.
4. I plan on posting daily ideas of how the world could benefit from peaceful relationships.

So I guess the biggest thing I'm wondering about looking ahead to 2008, is how much can be accomplished in spreading a peaceful and unifying message to the world.

A Simple Suggestion for The Middle East and The World

First of all, I'd like to make it clear, so that my idea is not over shadowed by my inexperience with international relationships, yes I am a typical white American, living comfortably geographically and culturally separated from all the horrors of the war and hatred in the middle east. However I am involved in this conflict, as every other person on this planet is involved, others just like me are killing each other in futile wars which provide no benefits to those who fight.
My suggestion starts with the religious fundamentalists, these are the people who possess the greatest passion of all, and actually have a great potential to do good in this world. Any person willing to end their life for something they believe is good is not a fool, or a lunatic, but a person with the deepest faith, trusting that at the end of their life they will find meaning. However I in no way support the killing of other people, and that may be something which at first may seem like an insult to the fundamentalists, but it is in no way a biased point of view, human life is undeniably precious, no matter what religion one holds, and it should not be wasted. The suggestion I have, if only it could be heard, is that even those people who devoutly hate their opposition based on the belief that those they hate are also hated by god, and it is god's will to eliminate those people, should leave the punishment of so called "infidels" to God. These people no doubt believe that Allah, God, whatever the name may be, is the supreme ruler of everything, and has limitless power. If their enemies are as equally faithful to their beliefs as those who believe their cause to be just what good does killing gain? The enemy believes their deaths will be rewarded and so too does the other side. If one must hate, or look down on another people, what good is it to act on that hatred? The most powerful thing a person can do to another is kill them, but if there is a god and an after life killing does nothing. Instead if God is truly offended, or whomever, let him, her, or it act, for god's wrath, as a supreme being, would be far more effective, and pleasing to God anyway.
Lets get one thing straight, I in no way condone hating, disrespecting, or harming another person, or living being, but if people can not accept that such actions are just, then any other manner should be implored to convince others not to do harm. If that means allowing others to hate, but on the condition that they allow their god to judge and punish those who are not obedient or faithful, so that people may move toward global peace than so be it. The biggest obstacle in the way of peace is not the differences between cultures, but the simple idea that peace is impossible. We believe we can't do it so we stop trying before we even begin. We are not willing to give up the bad habits, and futile desires that take us no where. Philosophers have argued that people are just naturally war like, and so peace is impossible, how then do nation's exist in the first place though? People can be unified, and can live peacefully among each other. War is proof of that, instead of every man fighting wildly against every other man, an army works together for a common goal, thus peace exists between the ranks of each opposing army, a war is more like two larger bodies fighting against each other. In our modern world there is no longer a need to fight on such large scales, we have the means and intelligence to share resources, land, and whatever else older wars were fought for, so fighting does us no good, it only maintains unequal distribution, since to the victor goes the spoils. Instead what we truly lack is something to unify every person on this planet. Just as an army is unified to oppose its enemy, every person has the capacity to work, coexist, and benefit from existing and cooperating with every other person.

Ultimately, if we could put gender, race, religion, and whatever else we differentiate and discriminate against each other for behind us, not forgetting them all together, because there is good in knowing one's qualities, what one believes, and what not, but abandon the parts of those things that cause us to hate, peace would be easy, and attainable. Peace can not be attained through violence, there will be no war to end all wars, peace will come from seeing one's self in others, finding that we are not very different at all.

My deepest hope is that people will embrace my idea, and add their own ideas to help make peace more possible. I can not say this IS THE WAY, because nothing good comes from forcing one's ideas on others, thats why hatred is so prevalent in this world to begin with. Instead I hope that I can get the ball rolling so that peace and the unity of humanity becomes such a good idea it would just be foolish not to embrace
it.

New Years Resolution For The World :Give Up Hate

In the spirit of New Years I'm giving the world a new year's resolution, abandon hatred. Don't worry about losing weight or quitting an annoying habit, the best thing anyone can do for even for a year, or to try to do for a year is to give up hate. Its a tough thing to do, people love to hate, if we didn't like to hate we would realize how pointless and harmful it is. But giving up hate doesn't just mean to stop hating other people, it also means to stop hating one's self. There's no use in worrying over extra pounds or that what one puts forth isn't any good. Hate is probably the greatest hindrance to complete and total happiness in this world. I know it seems idealistic, and childish, but it is such a simple concept, just don't hate, why not give it a try, what is there to lose anyway, war, feuds, genocide, do we really want to keep those things around anyway?

So if you share my feelings, spread the word, do something meaningful this year.
I wish you all a Happy New Year

When your eyes fall upon me what do they see?

Another Seduction poem of mine, once more not directed to any actual woman.

When your eyes fall upon me what do they see?
For it can not be my body which would warrant desire,
Nor my mind which curiosity conceivably could sire,
So what do you see that with you does not agree?
Why chose you partners who are but simpler men,
Who with all means couldn’t match the gift I could give,
When all means I’d need would be mere paper and pen,
To make forever yours and so forever you will live?
How can you say no to a love transcendent to time,
Which would wash away worry with wondrous verse,
Enveloping you in euphoria and in ecstasy immerse,
With nothing more than words written in rhyme?
How when the body is secondary to the mind,
Can you refuse such intellectual and eternal bliss,
Which I could give without gain, bound by a kiss
Tell me please if folly in this offer you find?
If it is but physical pleasure that you require,
How do you miss my selfless submission,
To feed the flames of your passion’s fire,
To worship your body as my sole religion?
Even if not in love with me what can you lose,
If you I immortalize as a goddess divine,
And I am the one who willfully you may use,
So for at least one night I may call you mine?
Now when you look at me may you see this,
Immortality and ecstasy contained in a kiss.

Sex: An Intellectual Exploration Within Our Society

Sex, it would seem, is one of the strangest aspects of human behavior. It is a necessary, natural, and for the most part, enjoyable activity. Yet the mere discussion of it can make people uncomfortable, embarrassed, or even offended at times. Sex is undeniably good, if it wasn’t for sex we wouldn’t exist. We enjoy it, otherwise it would be a chore, and for a few people it can be, but putting all the Al Bundys aside, sex is something we all at one point or another, want to have. The various religions of the world aren’t against it, how could they be, banning it would definitely reduce the number of believers. Sure there are rules when sex is good, and when it is bad, but even when those rules are followed, and there is nothing illegal or immoral going on, sex still may feel dirty, or naughty, or taboo. So how did sex become dirty? Animals seem to have no problem with it, besides us of course, our ancestors obviously didn’t have a problem with it, me being alive to write this, and you being alive to read this are a testament to that, so when and how did we decide that sex was “naughty”?
Well first of all let me clarify the “we,” by we, I’m talking about Americans, as well as any other culture where people are apparently afraid of their own bodies and desires. Yes there are social norms that must be obeyed with sex, but what doesn’t change is the awkward dance with dizzyingly different steps which two people must go through before it becomes clear that both people wish to have sex. In America, we men must first bashfully yet tactfully strike up a conversation, or in some manner first get to know the woman without even letting on that we are sexually interested for fear of the woman being frightened and running away. While for this to work the woman must obviously have some interest in the male, otherwise she wouldn’t even acknowledge him. The woman also, if she is sexually interested, may not let her desires become known, because it could earn her an undesirable reputation as being “easy” or a “slut.” All this occurs even before two people know each other. Then once an acquaintance is established the two often feel obligated to spend time to establish a relationship to develop a deeper connection or perhaps love. Love complicates things even further, because both may not actually love each other, but still desire to have sex, and so the two may fool themselves into thinking they are in love, just to have sex. Love is indeed a wonderful thing, but sex does not require love, just as being in love doesn’t require one to have sex. Sex can strengthen love, but it can also make it clear when love is not the true motivation for sex between two people. We seem to fear that sex without love is dirty, but why?
If two people knowingly, honestly, and being both of sound mind, decide to have sex safely, and in a manner that provides enjoyment for both people, where is the immorality? All three basic philosophical theories of ethics would be hard pressed to find a flaw in such activity. Aristotle’s theory, doing things that enhance one’s self and one’s society would be applied to show that that pleasure, and additional pleasure from pleasing another person lifts a person’s spirits, and allows them to do other activities with more zest and vigor. Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative demanded that people should do things that treat people equally and with respect. When two consenting people decide to have sex to please each other, and in doing so benefit each other equally and do so in a respectful manner, that rule is perfectly obeyed, and no harm is done. Finally there is John Stewart Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism, “the greatest good for the greatest number.” If happiness is the greatest good, and it can be derived from pleasure, sexual freedom, and being comfortable with one’s sexuality and a society being free to be sexual the greatest good is given to the greatest number. It is the few that make people feel guilty, or dirty, for a perfectly clean, beautiful, and moral activity, that are immoral.
As those philosophers described their theories of moral action, I believe it is equally beneficial to define immoral action. Immoral action obviously is harmful, and destructive. It can corrupt an individual, or a society. Immoral acts prevent equality and respect among people. Therefore what I believe to be the most fundamentally immoral act is to force one’s will upon another who does not desire it. Theft is forcing the victim to submit their property to the thief according to his will. Murder is forcing the victim to accept the murderer’s belief that the victim does not have a right to live. Rape is forcing the victim to submit to the rapist’s will. All immoral activity can be reduced to the same principle. Consensual sex however does not fall into the definition of immorality. So why then should we endure the immoral act of being forced to feel guilty or immoral for doing a morally acceptable act?
Well those opposed would say that because the two participants are not married. Their augment may also contend that sex being moral relies on the theory of evolution, that we are animals, and animal nature is ok. However these refutations are relying on the Bible stories, or if the Bible is the true word of God, the actual demands of God himself, and that God did not create us as sexual beings, sex is necessary because of the sins of Adam and Eve. This answers how sex became believed to be dirty. It is associated with sin. Adam and Eve didn’t even know they had the capacity to have sex until they were cast out of Eden, and when they realized their sexual nature they were supposedly shamed. Well then, I apparently have lost this argument to my own invented opposition. But wait; were Adam and eve even married? There was no priest to conduct the ceremony, and God didn’t go through the whole spiel with the couple. In fact it was God who gave Adam and Eve their sexual parts in the first place. Sure they noticed them after original sin, but they were there before, so the capacity to have sex is not associated with sin. Sex being sinful is a Christian concept any way. Islam for example, came after Christianity; it is fundamentally the same god, only with a new message, and a new prophet speaking it. The notion that sex is immoral was founded in the Christian concept of original sin. Therefore it is the misconception of original sin that is the source of society’s sexual insecurity. Hinduism for example, uninfluenced by Christianity, holds sex to be a beautiful and divine activity; an act that their gods should be thanked and praised for giving, and also an act that brings the participants closer to their god or gods.
So how can sex not be associated with sin, even if original sin were true? Well the original sin was attempting to possess knowledge that God knew human minds could not fully handle. When Adam and Eve acquired this knowledge against God’s will that was the sin. The knowledge of course was of good and evil. Which still proves true today, people can often not decipher what is truly good, and what is truly evil. People do what they think, or apparently know to be good, when it may actually be evil, or refrain from something which actually may be good, thinking it is evil. Sex is universally good if done morally with both parties consenting, whether it’s believed as a gift from God, or pure nature. The punishment of original sin, if the religious point of view is adopted, is merely not being able to comfortably enjoy God’s gift.
Sex therefore is something people should not fear, or find discomfort in discussing it. What people do to make one another happy and pleased is good, and should be encouraged? The discussion of it can help us to learn more about ourselves, and to relate to people better. We should not feel like we must repress a part of ourselves. It is that repression that leads to problems within an individual. Every person should feel free to learn all that there is to know about themselves, and the world around them, and we are sexual beings, and we deny all that we are by denying even a small portion of what makes us who we are.

Seducing The Spirit

Seducing the Spirit
By Andrew Moravick

Daily, devoutly, diligently you praise,
Softly submitting your obedient gaze
To a being you can neither feel nor see,
Yet how do you not stare so wanting at me?
For here in flesh in front of you I stand,
My body as yours the work of His hand,
Which crafted us to fit and be able to mesh,
So why think you so evil the joys of the flesh?
If we be more than these vessels of flesh and of bone,
And it is knowledge and wisdom which must be known,
And I a mystery your understanding I at present elude,
Than how would you knowing me be misconstrued?
Why would a being of such wisdom and grace
Give us such gifts if we’re to remain chaste?
If in any way to you harm it would do,
Do you think me so cruel to ask this of you?
So who do we hurt if not us than God it must be,
Because our love sins striving to be as divine as he?
You and I could be gods together ruling the world,
Erasing existence with a weakly whispered word,
As all that we are and all that is, in each other becomes,
Containing all that is countable and all of its sums.
Must misery molest you because obedience persists,
When all that’s inside you objects and resists?
Where in scripture does it say you and I
Should not be together lest we suffer and die?
Even then what hell could possibly harm us for our supposed sin,
When we know of such heaven harnessed in the heat of our touching skin?

This Poem was written as a seduction poem inspired by those of John Donne. The woman to which the poem is directed does not exist. My goal with this poem was to be seductive, and attempt to write in a manner as alluring as Donne wrote.

Religion: Truth, or a Defense Mechanism?

Sigmund Freud theorized that people used natural emotional defense mechanisms to cope with difficult experiences in life, these mechanisms include denial, repression, projection, displacement, intellectualizing, rationalization, reaction formation, and sublimation. All of these mechanisms help people to cope, survive, or move past a difficult stage in life. Is there another mechanism to be added though, one that deals with one of the most fundamental crises which every single human being will face in their life time? I'm alluding of course to religion. I'm not denying any religion or saying that there is no god, or anything like that, I am however exploring the idea that religion may be necessary for an emotionally healthy human to exist. It is interesting after all that everywhere there are people there is a religion of some sort. Atheism is most popular in countries where there are other distractions to divert people's attention away from the most basic of human desires, the hunger for purpose. Religion explains all those unexplainable things, and for the most part gives even the most average, unremarkable person a sense of purpose, of value.
Religion it seems, true or not allows us to live, after all, if there was no god, or at least if we didn't believe in a god, what reason would any of us have to live? All of us common, unrecognized, people, whose presence may never even be known or cared for by the world as a whole; would have nothing to live for. As Shakespeare said, "Ti's nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?" Why should we suffer the pains of daily life if all that awaits us at life's end is but an un-waking sleep? Religion spares us that painful pondering, and affords us a reward, a goal, a purpose to exist. The idea that there is more to life than just what is experienced is infinitely powerful in killing the pains of life. TO be able to say, "yes its bad now, but things will get better," or "I will be rewarded for my suffering," these phrases give us hope, and a reason to continue to live, without a religion or at least the concept of it, we would be devoured by our own thoughts. Our primal urges would run wild, while conflicting with our intellectual inclinations, destroying us from within. We would want to live for each day, but be crushed by our own meaningless, and eventually come to realize what good is even the greatest euphoric experience, if every sensation will soon end, and all that we've done will count for nothing.
So this begs the question, is our tendency to lean on religion actually a defense mechanism, or a natural tendency to search for truth, and possibly come to know and love our creator, creators, or spiritual superiors? If any of the religions are in fact true then our habit of depending on, or searching for the defined supreme being, or state of being, is just as natural as depending on one's mother at birth. On the other hand if this life is all that we have, and we are actually only over analytical animals, who have no real right to rule the world as we do, then life is futile, and our very existence is a burden to all life on our planet. If that were the case we still could have purpose, of our own manufactured nature, to enhance all life, and prolong our planet so that we may live as long as possible, since that would be all we could gain in existence anyway.
TO sum up I'll spare you any more of my moderately depressing wonderings, and propose an idea of mine to relieve and hopefully uplift you. I believe that in truth God does exist. It is actually an undeniable fact. Philosophers before me have attempted to prove such a fact using dizzying logic, and calculated statements, however I believe it is much simpler. One of the few absolutes in this world is that something is absolute, or it is not. Since nothing can be almost absolute, and be considered absolute. Therefore God can either exist, or he can not. Likewise if we are God's creations we can also either exist or not exist. Assuming that we do exist, and anything that is created by God, or even by us also exists, then God absolutely exists. This is because even if God is not real, and is merely a thought shared by many people, that thought is a creation, and that which is created must exist. Whether God is actually God or just a creation of the mind also does not diminish his good. Love is also a shared thought, people believe in it, appreciate it, and benefit from it, just as people benefit from believing in God.
What troubles people I believe is when they become confused about whose God is the right one, and attempt to force theirs on others. God ultimately is good, otherwise there would be no point for he/ she or it to exist, so no religion can argue that their God is more good. To force anything on a person not desiring that thing is universally bad in fact, and would not be something a just and good God would desire. Also a universally good God would not punish people on a technicality for not finding him in the right manner.
Religion therefore whether a defense mechanism, or a search for truth should not cause different people to conflict with each other. Religions are all searching for the same thing, and should embrace other ideas which may help us understand our God or an ultimate good. Either way it gives us purpose, no religion, if true can deny that all humans are creations, or servants of the religion's deity, and to harm a fellow creation, or servant is harmful to that god, but enhancing the lives of others, so that they may worship better, or experience the best existence possible, can not be considered bad within any religion.
My conclusion, religion, no matter what it is, or what is true about it, if pure, and understood properly is a universal good. If people of all religions would practice them as they believe, but embrace others in the same search, but using a different religion to do so, we may either come to find the ultimate truth in existence, or at the very least come together is we should as human beings.

Intellectual Enjoyment

Intellectual Enjoyment
By Andrew Moravick

Cut me and you alike and see
No difference in blood’s hue.
Live not on same air does me
As air taken and tasted by you?
Down to matter unmake us might
All our parts be compared,
No difference sensed by sight
Nor science if with paired.
Potential same have not our minds
To find pleasure in our thought,
Intellectual joy to our beings bind
From knowledge we have sought?
So why may I have pleasure profound
In an intellectual instance,
When from you wails of agony resound
In your deprived existence?
Deny of course you do your pain
Of the pleasure left un-enjoyed.
Seeking other outlets till all that remain
Is the only joy left unemployed.
So waste no time to your mind wake
From ignorance’s intolerable sleep.
Lessons of life neglect never to take
So stupidity into your mind may not creep.

Love: Cheesy, yet Interesting

Yes, I'm addressing it, I've been trying to post intellectual, and interesting topics, but during the holiday love is supposedly everywhere. You see it in all the commercials, the man getting just the right gift for the woman he loves, or the woman doing the same for him, or whatever those brilliant marketing people can come up with to cram love down our throats. Yes I'm sure love is a wonderful thing when in it, but what about those of us who aren't. Its an annoyance to see all these happy couples everywhere you turn which reminds you how lonely and miserable you are. This makes me wonder however, why do we seek love, whats so great about it, and what is it? Well to answer the first two questions, one must first answer the third, what love is. Love is obviously good, otherwise it wouldn't be universally sought after. Love must be healthy, those who lack it are often unstable, depressed, or likely to have other disorders. Love must be an intellectual pleasure because it is intangible, it must be thought about, considered and appreciated, and its benefits are not limited to an amount of time. Love is not directly related to sex, some may love, but have no sex, while others may have sex and not be in love. Love however may enhance sex, along with any other activity in life. Therefore love can be defined as an intellectual pleasure that enhances the lives of the people involved, and is universally good. So why then is love so great? Love perhaps is so wonderful because it is one of the few things without a detriment. Usually in life there is always give and take, in order for the rich to be rich there will be poor people, for a heart transplant recipient to live another person must die, these trade offs can be found everywhere, but with love there is no trade off. Some may say the monogamy of a loving relationship is a sacrifice, if say I was going to marry a woman I loved I would be giving up the chance to be with countless other women. However if I am truly in love, then it isn't a sacrifice since I have attained a universal good, which is benefiting me, and furthermore, if I was truly in love with that woman, any other woman would most likely be inferior and would be no real loss anyway. So why do we seek love? Why do we turn green with jealousy when we're single and actually looking for our match? Well why are we jealous of anything? Love, being such a beneficial and good sensation or experience we of course want it, just like we want food when we're hungry, or drink when thirsty, we need it. I'll admit, it is difficult for me to talk about love, being single, and never having experienced true love in any of my relationships, however I think its a gift, my condition that is, so that I may see what others do, and feel when in love, and maybe understand it as a scientist studies something, from the outside, impartial, evaluating every aspect.
Hopefully some people who are in love will read this, and possibly be strengthened by it, or contribute comments to their beliefs on love. I know it is a cliche' topic, but it is interesting, and something we all eventually search for.

The Morality of Intervention

In this post I'm not talking about an alcoholic intervention, I'm talking about an intellectual intervention. Is it ethical to step in and scream at the top of my lungs, or do whatever it takes to try to disrupt the downward spiral of intelligence in America, or is it better to let us fall, let us crumble, collapse until all that remains is a mass of poorly educated zombies shuffling here and there. The problem which I wish to put a stop to is our idiodic media, and pop culture putting emphasis on the fickle short term fun aspects of life, parties, drinking, popularity, and all the sort of issues you'd see depicted in any "TEEN MOVIE," and not drawing attention to the long term pleasurable activities, such as gaining knowledge, and bettering one's self as a whole. Our whole idea of education isn't focused on what we learn, but who we meet, what we do outside of the classrooms to entertain ourselves that our society cares about. The ethical issue here is should one try to convince others that it is better to sacrifice those fickle yet more instantly gratifying pleasures, to better one's self as a whole, and in doing so one improves society, and the relationships within it. Obviously people know that intellectual activity is good, otherwise we wouldn't have schools at all, but why do we put frivolous activities over our education? Ask any high school student, well almost any, there are a few outstanding intellectuals, but any average high school student what the best part of high school was and they'll say something like, "living it up with my friends," or "The parties," often followed by a "Woooohoooo," or an "ow ow." Now this is a great thing, social activity is healthy and necessary, but that shouldn't be the best part of HIGH SCHOOL, that should be the best part of being a teenager. The point of school is to learn, and yet for some reason, we as a nation HATE to learn. "I don't want to go to school," "I don't want to do my homework," "I don't wanna go to that class," "I DON'T WANT TO LEARN." Yeah I'll admit, even I have said this before, but its just what kids say, its what we've come to believe was cool to say. THe kids who enjoy learning are nerds, outcasts, lame, but those who live it up at the expense of their lessons are cool. Not to start some jealous rant on the cooler class, because I've been on both sides, I've had people tell me, "dude, what're you talking about being an outcast, I thought you were the popular one," and other people sayy, "dude you're a loser." The thing is I've learned from it all, but is it right for me to try to make others learn like me? Is it just to help others take pleasure in every activity in life because it is all a lesson? Is it possibly even an irresponsible act not to spread the knowledge? I don't know, but I am willing to err on the side of utilitarianism, it is better to help the masses, even if I or a few others must suffer to do so by shaking up the status quo.

That's Not What I Voted For

Why, when believing we have voted for the right presidential candidate, we complain after he, or possibly after the 2008 election, she, is not the resolute leader we thought we were voting for? Well it all comes down to the whole campaign process. Plato, in The Republic suggested “A city whose prospective rulers are least eager to rule must of necessity be most free from civil war, whereas a city with the opposite kind of rulers is governed in the opposite way.” Although an ancient point of view this idea is interesting when we look at the mudslinging, and desperate advertising campaigns bombarding us as we approach the 2008 election. The candidates lower themselves, wasting millions of their own money which could be used to fund charities, aid communities, or go toward the overall welfare of society, but instead that cash is pilfered for a few frivolous images online or on television. All the candidates are doing this, they have to, otherwise their campaign would be a complete failure, but whatever happened to gaining popularity and praise through greatness, not public relations? A candidate should gain followers by having platforms so beneficial and well researched that it would be foolish not to vote for them.
So why don’t we have candidates like that, or if there are such candidates why aren’t they using this method? Its easy to see, when those who want the position not because they are best fit for it, and feel responsible to involve themselves, but because they want the power, prestige, and success for their party, compete against those who are actually the best fit. The just practices of the fit are useless against unjust mudslinging, and PR campaigns of those unfit.
So what’s the solution? Who in their right mind would read an article whining about the woes of the world without supplying an answer? Well a plausible answer would be to completely prohibit candidate advertising campaigns. This may sound like an embargo on the candidates freedom of speech and expression, however these are the people trying to represent us as a nation, we shouldn’t care how talented their marketing departments are, we should only care what they have to say when put to the test in debates and in public speeches, where one can not hide, or edit out mistakes. Then we would be voting for candidates who we understand to be the best. In the world of international relations a leader can not go back and undo, erase, or hide their mistakes, one slip of the tongue, one misinterpreted gesture could set off massive hostility, or make worse an already tense situation. No commercial can demonstrate a candidate’s ability to handle these situations. So when November rolls around next year, don’t look to the commercials to find your candidate, watch the debates, public speeches, and decide for yourself, instead of letting the media decide for you.

To Drink or To Think?

College, where supposedly one goes to gain higher learning, is becoming more of a place where one would go to get a higher blood alcohol content. Like any other brilliant idea, colleges began with a pure, uncorrupt intention, to educate individuals so that they may better benefit society. Sure Harvard, America's first college, was founded on the premise that its graduates gained their degrees just to be able to read and understand the Bible, but still it was spreading understanding, and encouraging thought. Today however, students do go to college just to learn, of course that's what they will tell their parents, their teachers, and other adults, but that's not what they're looking forward to. No, in fact, as a college student encountering other college students, I rarely ever find anyone who truly enjoys their classes, learning, or the acquisition of knowledge, but when it comes to drinking, partying, and other fun but unproductive activities, its almost unanimous in agreement on the pleasures found in doing these things. Aristotle, though an ancient philosopher, would agree with them as well. I won't deny the fun found in drinking, I've had fun doing it myself, but Aristotle though he did say that those physical pleasures are enjoyable, he suggested that the pleasures of the mind, and intellectual activity are far superior to those physical pleasures. Having tasted both pleasures I would have to agree. What makes intellectual pleasure better than those physical pleasures is the way in which they satisfy us. Physical pleasures feel incredible, but only last for a few seconds, a minute, or in some circumstances an hour, but they end, they stop satisfying us, and often make us feel bad afterward, either from the loss of that pleasure, or the repercussions of what it took to give us that pleasure. When you're drunk sobering up often makes an individual feel sad or depressed, and coupled with a hangover it can make a person downright miserable, and yet people drink again the next night just to get that good feeling back. Intellectual pleasure however, has the potential to be sustained. When an individual thinks of a pleasurable thought, that thought not only makes the individual feel good, but if it is a beneficial thought, say a story one comes up with that is enjoyable to read, but also makes people think, that pleasure can be sustained, and further pleasure can be derived from the satisfaction of giving other people intellectual pleasure by encouraging them to think. I will confess intellectual pleasure is harder to discover, and it takes time, and effort, which is why most people do not find it, and resort to the much easier pleasures of the physical nature. So when people come to college they don't enjoy the massive amounts of intellectual pleasures available to them, and so instead alcohol serves as a temporary substitute. If it were at all possible to bring people into intellectual pleasure however, and students could enjoy the limitless benefits, college campuses would no longer be littered with empty beer cans, and emptied handles of the harder stuff, and instead be flourishing with students reading, debating each other, sharing their thoughts, and actually benefiting society.

The Point of Blogging?

When I decided to make my way into the world of blogging I thought, "wow, the possibilities of blogs are endless, people of every race, religion, creed, and culture sharing their ideas and advancing the understanding of all those who read and participate." Well, I apparently was wrong. The most popular blogs are not those of philosophy, literature, science, or anything that actually assists in the acquisition of understanding. Instead petty pop culture pollutes the brains of the people involved in blogging. Why should we care about people who do their jobs, just like the rest of us? Actors and actresses do preform a legitimate service, entertaining us all, but don't they deserve to go home at the end of the day, and be done with work? Why must we make their lives the focus of ours? It seems silly to me to want to know what color a certain female celebrity's panties are, or who so and so is dating now. Why do people devote hours, or even days of their lives to discuss these trivial topics? Blogs, I still believe, have a great potential to provide a place where people can converse and enrich each other's understanding, but people must want to gain that understanding first. If only bloggers cared as much about furthering the spread of understanding and beneficial ideas as much as they cared about pop culture. If this were the case bloggers would become more mighty than any military, more intellectual than the most studious professor. We would have at our disposal the combined brain power of the world to solve the problems plaguing humanity. We could shake the ground with the power of millions of unified voices.