Saturday, January 14, 2017

Back in the saddle against a new brand of Statism

After a long self-imposed hiatus, I have decided to get back to publishing content here again. Honestly the Trump phenomenon, and subsequent backlash, has thoroughly inspired me.

CreativeCommons: DonkeyHotey
At the beginning of the election season I watched in horror as dozens of candidates were whittled down to two individuals that caught the almost undivided attention of the country with their unethical, and at times absolutely vile, behavior.

I still can't decide whether this election was a reflection of 'The People' or a betrayal of them. Maybe it was both. Years ago I saw the potential for a dramatic political snap-back from Obama's divisive rhetoric and radical policy direction in his second term. Admittedly I never imagined it would snap back this far.

Hillary Clinton was as unacceptable a candidate as Donald Trump was, so to me it mattered very little which was the ultimate victor. This was compounded by Gary Johnson's absolutely moronic campaign (more on that in an upcoming post).

I personally disengaged whenever possible and figured the cards were gonna fall where they may. I don't regret this, but now I see that my unique perspective might be appreciated once again now that a comical villain is in office. 

No one in my generation wanted to hear dissent when a smooth criminal like Obama was running the show. But with Donald Trump's emergence I know for a fact that there are receptive minds out there looking for alternative answers from objective thinkers.

The day after the election I was driving for a ride-share company and my first ride of the day was a young woman who was hysterically crying when I picked her up. She quickly calmed down after a little small talk and then proceeded to carry on a phone call with a friend about how Trump winning the election kept her up all night and she can't stop crying randomly. 

Now I can't help but wonder if she did anything to follow through on her promise to leave the country with her friend.

I previously couldn't imagine an election having this kind of effect on someone, but here she was. I then saw the same scene play out on YouTube from various celebrities, politicians, and random man-buns for months. It really is remarkable.

In the months since the election I have been asked innumerable times from both strangers and close friends what I thought of Trump's policies and behavior. Apparently my opinions mean something to a good number of people, enough for me to want to put them out into the ether again.

So, these experiences have led me to believe it is a perfect time for me to restart writing about current events and seeing if my perspective strikes a chord with some of my fellow countrymen. I am looking forward to hopefully giving you some really good thought-provoking content, thanks for tuning in again!

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Dialogue: A Fundamental Means to a Democratic Society?

File:Dialog ballons icon.svgI've found recently that introducing the ideas of soul and the natural tendencies of human spirit to politically "liberal" persons (those of the democrat party) who mask their socialistic ways and ideas based on force, by fronting with humanism, have 'turned them off' in a sense, so much as to be referred to as stupidity. Through my own personal experiences I've discovered the importance and foundation of a true democratic society. One important element of such is dialogue. Where I feel that I have fallen short through my verbal communication skills I introduce two quotes:
"Dialogue with the people is neither a concession nor a gift, much less a tactic to be used for domination. Dialogue, as the encounter among men to 'name' the world, is a fundamental precondition for their true humanization." (Paulo Friere, Pedagogy of the Opressed)
"A free action can only be one by which a man changes his world and himself ... A positive condition of freedom is the knowledge of the limits of necessity, the awareness of human creative possibilities ... The strugle for a free society is not a struggle for a free society unless through it an even greater degree of individual freedom is created." (Gajo Petrovic, Man and Freedom)
The first refers to the importance of dialogue and how misuse through domination can lead to neglect of that "fundamental precondition". Most people find this ridiculous that other people can think for themselves, and act justly, therefore they abuse our system of maintaining rights (government) and impose their beliefs through force of law.
The second, if I understand correctly, is based on the idea and struggle for a free society. Of which subtly explains cannot be unless a certain degree of individual freedom is not only acknowledged, but created.
Both ideas form a basis on which I believe common modern political views abandon. This in turn negatively affecting their own grounds for argument, and establishing one or more opposing views that could potentially produce the same result as the original intended view. 
For example, most men and women would agree that each individual should be cared for and have the same potential to be healthy. After all, we don't often hear within the general populous that one should be left to die from sickness or ill health. They have a tendency to care for one another. 
Through the lack of trust and certain economical manipulations, the idea which seems to be popular is introduced into law and the agency governing and enforcing the law forces itself upon the citizens, or in this case taxpayers. The citizens, as a result of being mistrusted, return to the agency a mistrust based upon the agency's dictatorial process of which neglects dialogue of the citizens. The ideas of a free society are forgotten and what could be a common idea has been torn apart.