Really?

I received a very hard message tonight from someone I thought was a friend, but I don't think she really is, because I don't think she would have passed on from her husband what she did pass on. That because I depend on help from the government to receive help, that I should have no say in voting. At all. "You have too much at stake." That hurt like you wouldn't know. I have too much at stake? Take a look in the mirror, honey. I don't have a house. You do. I don't have a car. You do. I don't have my own business that I rely on for my livelihood. You do! I have too much at stake. That is a great joke. So take away my meds. I'll have seizures; a lot. Take away my education that I rely on the government for because my family is poor too. I'll just keep sucking up those dshs dollars, which they won't let me suck up for a whole lot more, I don't think. And it's all because I advocated an initiative for income tax for people that make more than $200k. Maybe I sound naive, but that income tax is for education and healthcare. Maybe for other people like me. I believe when they say it's for rich people. If you make more than $200k a year, I consider you at least wealthy if not just plain rich. You don't have to worry about education costs or healthcare costs, unless you live beyond your means. A woman actually said that she wanted to keep her money because then she "could put it back into the economy." Isn't that what taxes are for??? In general, I think that we like schools. We like teachers that teach in schools; many of which have been laid off. We like police officers when we need them. We also like firefighters when we need them too. We also like to have paved streets, which some cities are turning to dirt road cuz they can't afford paved streets. So, you, the rich bitch, will put your money to more good use than that? But I see the other side. So many people in high positions use that money to line their pockets. Or they use that money to line someone else's pockets, who will line their pockets, in one way or another. So why should the lowly good-to-do citizen pay more? Maybe because we have good people on our side. Because I believe, I like to believe, that these people won't let scoundrels get away with that extra tax money. I believe that they will do what they say they will do. Patty Murray has been pretty good to Wa. So has Maria Cantwell. It saddens me more than anything - I don't have a right to vote?

Stupid Is as Stupid Does

I was watching Smoking Gun's Dumbest Criminals the other day (I highly recommend it if you want a good laugh - better than America's Funniest Videos, and yes, this guy was on it), and I've wondered for a long time why are so many criminals so dumb, and so few smart people criminals? How does having an education change that, theorizing that it does? In my psychology class, my teacher said that generally criminals have a lower IQ than the general public. Also, criminals rarely have a degree, if any college education. I'm talking about the lowly burglar who robs the 7-11 or holds up a small bank. The higher the degree, the lower the percentage of those degree holders commit crimes. So does a college education make people more moral, and if so, how? This applies not only to criminals, but people in general. Look at Glenn Beck, who I don't see as possessing high morals, who dropped out of two colleges that I know of, and Rachel Maddow, who I see as a very moral person, who became a Rhodes scholar when she was 21, and earned her doctorate. People with less education tend to be more racist, sexist, homophobic, religious, narrow-minded, bigoted in general, and (hrrmph) republican, than people with a higher education. Now, of course, I'm talking in general from what I have seen. I stuck religion in there, because, well, it's true. More people with a higher education, from what I've observed, don't believe in a god than people with a lower education. Or if they do believe in god, they realize that they have no hard evidence that one exists; that it's blind faith.

I thought of morals being taught in the home. So do all people with low morals come from bad homes, or the product of parents with low morals? For the most part, it's probably true, but I think there are many criminals that came from good homes. It also works vice-versa. There are lots of good people that come from less-than-desirable homes.

My mother fell asleep with the tv on earlier, and this religious show was on. This woman yelled out to a massive audience that she was almost 61 years old and she felt like she was 25, "and that is God's work," and the crowd roared! Yay!!! Do they really believe that crap? My grandparents believed in God, and they died from cancer. Was it because they didn't believe as hard as she does? Could it be that she takes care of herself? That she has good genes (which she would also consider the work of God)? That she is just plain lying, so that her supporters, especially ill ones, will send her money hoping that God will make them feel like 25? And you know, 25 wasn't especially great for me. But that must be because I'm a non-believer. I also didn't take very good care of myself. And there's the whole seizure thing.

Going back to education and morals, teachers/professors don't necessarily teach morals. Yet, education seems to impact them. Perhaps it's because more education can make people more open-minded. They meet people from different backgrounds and cultures whose views differ from theirs, and learn things out of their scope. It forces one to question their beliefs and analyze what they think - not just positions they always held, but also issues they didn't give much thought to before. It also happens (or should happen) in a non-threatening manner. If you tell someone their beliefs are wrong, then they'll dig their heels in deeper. If you can get them to truly question their beliefs, to explain themselves, then it makes the person more open-minded to alternatives. "Huh. Maybe that doesn't make as much sense as I thought, now that I think about it." Like duct-taping your face to use as a disguise.

We're Only Human

 What does it mean to say, "We're only human."? It's human to display inquisitive behavior. It's human to lust. It's human to have weaknesses. In colonial times and the slavery era (much of one in the same), EuroAmerican people didn't consider Africans or Native Americans as humans. They were primitive, savages, animals, that didn't belong in proper society. To admit that they were human would mean to admit that they deserved to be treated with some amount of respect and decency, and they were entitled to rights. It's much more convenient to write them off as nonhuman, don't you think? Look at how so many humans still treat animals. That reminds me of a similarity I haven't thought of before. We know what Michael Vick did to dogs. Priests at a boarding school for little Native children did something similar. They disciplined a child by making other children, their schoolmates, beat him, or they would suffer a beating themselves. The two situations differ not all that much, unfortunately. So it seems human to rule over something that can be controlled - whether it be animals, the environment, money, or other humans. Cohabitation doesn't exist. Reservations prove that. Animals lose more and more of their home as humans drive them back to make room for their homes. Cohabiting with the animals, that I believe have as much right to be here as any human does, is farcical. What if the big bad bear ate little Timmy? Well, that's only nature ( ;. Other animals face that same fear. As I tend to do, I strayed from my initial question. 

What is it to be human? Does it mean to have fingers and toes and opposable thumbs? Monkeys have those things, and not all humans do. Does it mean to have a more developed brain? That we can reach a higher level of thinking than any other species? Then why do we act so stupid? Why do we kill each other, impose our morals on others, make war with each other, destroy each other and the earth in which we need to live? Why can't we cohabit with other animals as all other animals seem to be able to do quite nicely, except when they're hungry? Native Americans did. They lived right along the deer, bears, wolves, buffalo, and all other animals. So did (and still do) all indigenous peoples. Or is it our ability to communicate? We created languages and the written word. Whales have their own language(s), as most other animals. And I've seen an elephant paint. I actually think I've seen a chimpanzee draw letters much like a kindergartener. So are they human, too? If a woman lives in a cave, eats squirrels and berries, and doesn't talk, does that make her less human than me? Less of a woman than me? Isn't "Nell" about something like that? Never did watch it, obviously. Actually, she sounds like someone out of "Deliverance." How about the human's ability to build grand edifices and mansions to live and work in? Ants and bees build abodes that most humans can barely fathom. So what makes us so much better than them?

Witchy Woman

  I just looked at a note to remind me of the conversation of two women I overheard talking. They were two white women in their 50's or 60's talking about Muslim women and their burkas. They felt that they shouldn't be allowed to wear their burka in the United States, because, "you just don't know who could be under there." Really, people? Really? Whatever happened to the land of the free? Not that everyone has ever been really free here - the reservations the Natives were segregated to and all the rights taken away, the slaves that were imported from Africa, internment camps for the Japanese, and now the sex slave industry. I just watched a new Law & Order: SVU episode about poor children sent to work on farms and being sold into slavery. As the immigration of illegal immigrants decreases, farmers need to find cheap work somewhere. But I digress. It was hard to keep my mouth shut as I listened to these ignorant women feeling it appropriate for them, the government, to intervene with religious rights that brings no harm to anyone else, but I highly doubt it would've mattered if I said anything or not. As if one of "those people" could be Osama bin Laden hiding under a blanket right in plain view. That brings up another point, this ideology of "us" vs. "them." I thought Obama exclaimed quite eloquently and passionately that there is no "us and them," there is only "us." It's only too obvious to state that as long as the "us and them" ideology persists, then we can't come together to banish the "them" part. Unfortunately, a "them" has always existed. "Us" are scared of the "them" because of real differences, and differences they perceive. Muslim women wear burkas. Christian women don't. That is a difference you can see, but they're both religious women. People have all different colors of skin, but the DNA is almost the same - we're all the same underneath. I think of "Imagine," the best song ever written (in my humble opinion): "Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace."