It's very amusing hearing/reading people saying that the Catholic Church "takes things too far" (I was reading thoughts on tube ligation) and that it "sticks its nose" in personal lives. Of course, the people that said this definitely came across as over-reacting and admitted that they came under 'extreme' judgement with people who they shared thoughts about tube tying. Well, you did ask a Catholic who's practicing and if they're practicing the right way they should be orthodox on the matter. Apparently that's 'extreme.'
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
They're mad about this? And my standards.
It's always amusing on what angers the social "progressives." Take for instance the hashtag #NoHymenNoDiamond. What I've gathered that this slogan was created by a group of guys in the 'men's rights' movement. It has angered feminists and the like.
The hashtag stems from a facebook group, a relatively new group created in 2014, of the same name, and it's just gaining its infamous status in the past couple of days. And boy, are the progs annoyed. Raw Story, HuffPo, Metro etc. have written articles about it and the tweets show the irritation of this slogan turned hashtag.
Anthony DeMarco runs the podcast Ascending the Tower over at Social Matter, so hat tip to him for making me aware of this.
The tweets are the typical mockery and presumptions of people who hold sex like drinking a beer towards those who think sex is more than that, and that chastity is actually a legit stance towards the hedonistic and amoral view on sex. And again, typical of such people, they wear their hearts on their sleeve. Planned Parenthood supporter. A person stating they aren't straight by their twitter name. Some guy who looks like a douche from Ireland (my impressions of the men of Ireland aren't good -- either they come across as douches or they're just atheistic pansies, think Richard Dawkins fanboys). The last, @elctrafemme whose twitter name is "unsex me now" ... Well, her entire twitter masthead and bio should be posted.
Okay, since I singled out that twitter person, er, twitterian, er, @elctrafemme I'll just show the fragile nature of @DboudreauDella, the "i am gay" twitter name who wrote #MasculinitySoFragile.
Well a boy has a penis. I'm rather positive that the person shown above does not actually have a penis. The part of me that is in doubt says that person is a he and looks like a girl. If so, no, "im the prettiest boy of them all" is just self-flattery that I disagree with.
Back to the #NoHymenNoDiamnonds. Its' reasonable to say that it's a double standard for women, those that have lost their virginity well before a man proposes to them and those that have numerous sexual partners, when compared to men who have slept with other women, whether it be in a relationship or a casual tryst. I would not be surprised if this uproar will be another page that the #WarOnWomen movement will reference. I don't think it's a "war"; it's a standard. Of course, for anyone that knows about a woman's body, the hymen can be broken even without sexual intercourse based on pure accident. I won't get into the details, though. But the hashtag isn't directed towards those in that small, rare group. It's directed at the large group of women who consciously choose to have sex before marriage. It's an ego blow to the women who have had sex that are part of the modern day feminist movement and those who share similar stances and beliefs.
Many can say to the facebook group and those that support the hashtag to "face reality," and deal with the sexual nature of women. True. And this is one way of dealing with it. This group, from my readings on their facebook wall, is a mix of men. Some men are frustrated that they couldn't get sex from the women of their choice when they bulked up; some men actually want to have sex within marriage only. The first group joins the second group - adopting the standards and ideals of the abstinence before marriage people - and in a very ironic way see the value of actually having sexual standards (not if the woman's body is to ones liking, but if she sees her sexual worth more than "I'll do it when I'm ready" aka most likely before marriage with a person that most likely won't be my spouse if I ever do get married.)
Should the facebook group lessen its harshness on those who admit that having sex before marriage was a mistake and/or that they regret it? I think they should, but, as a guy, I see no real issue with the group's message and goal. As I said before in another post, I think double standards are good in certain occasions. It, in a sorta mean way, says to the group that is being singled that they are looked at differently and that not everything is held to the same standard. Sometimes it's out of sheer bias, even hatred, and others because it's a psychological instinct. When the left points out hypocrisy by The Right I tend to think that it should help The Right be more prudent, if not push its limits to better thought processing and to live up to the goals the ideology sets forth (the left should probably never be let to live up to its goals because it'll just create misery, personal destruction and nihilism).
The hashtag is a standard more than anything once you move away from the MGTOW and the angry body buildings who can't get laid. In many ways it has exposed the idiocy of the progressives and the pure contempt that the modern world has for anything sacred and traditional. It has also exposed the foolishness of pick-up-artists that when they don't "get some" they cry and wonder to themselves "I've got the body, I got the car ... What about my taco?" They don't treat the opposite sex like human beings; they want sex and that's it, and for that they deserve their misery. This is the twist: modernism's attitude towards sex and pick-up-artists have collided. The end result a somewhat hilarious crash.
Now what are my exact thoughts on this, personally when I deal with abstinence, if not chastity, and how sex ties into marriage? This has always been my philosophy about this situation. If I ever do get to propose and the woman isn't a virgin, then she isn't a virgin. If we get to a point where I propose and I'm aware she isn't a virgin, then in my eyes, she's worth it. I deal with it the same way in the given situation when the woman I'm dating has already had plastic surgery - be it breasts, a rhinoplasty or whatever before we became something more than friends. I don't reject them because of that. I deal with it, accept it and carry on with the relationship because I don't see such things as a deal breaker. I will make it aware that I reject plastic surgery, though. Same with tattoos. As for politics, wow, I can see myself compromising on that as well. Now, when it comes to religion that's a much more serious issue. This me "meeting them where they are." I believe I am being very generous about what I accept in terms of faults and past actions.
Preferably I would like my future wife to be a practicing Catholic and not of the liberal bent. If I can't find one of that stripe then being a non-denominational Christina is fine. If I can't find that then a non-religious person holding similar morals & values may have to do - but they must be an exceptional person who doesn't treat Christianity, let alone Catholicism, with disrespect. The third option must be, again, exceptional - if not, then it's a no go. Here's why.
You see, nothing of what I've admitted says anything about the woman's looks, her ethnicity, her education level, her career choice (porn stars are a no and actresses are to be looked at with great suspicion) or where she has or has not lived.. It has everything to do with moral standards and values. I am not looking for perfection, but effort and standards. If we share the same morals and values - which atheism cannot base itself on or say "morals is based on evolutionary psychology!" - then living together and raising children will be that much easier. I will absolutely not dedicate a part of my being to a person who cannot allow me to raise any of our future children in a Catholic household. Education wise, we either find a good Catholic school or we homeschool till high school. Non-religious privates are also an option. Opting for a public school is on the page, but that's the last resort. There are compromises, but spirituality is not a compromise for me. I've seen it with my own eyes that a house with no prayer or concept of religion is an empty household. It is spiritually vacant. A single parent household with prayer is stronger than a two-parent household. A two-parent (of opposite sex) household with prayer is the ideal. The Mormons, the Catholics (at least the old-style kind), the Baptists and Orthodox Jews are poof of this. Oddly enough, when it comes to abstinence, the Mormons outdo the Catholics in sexual restraint.
So yes, our attitudes towards sex is not only a character revealing scenario, but also it can heavily dictate how we raise our children and how they come to view sex. I know exactly what I'm getting with a women who have no issue with sex before marriage. And it's not a "veteran" in a sense of a war veteran or a seasoned professional athlete. But they think of themselves that way.
EDIT: The "sex positive" people are miffed over an LA billboard urging app users of grindr (for non-straight dating/hook-up) and tinder (it's straight counterpart) to get STD tests. The ad was footed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Oh the irony.
The hashtag stems from a facebook group, a relatively new group created in 2014, of the same name, and it's just gaining its infamous status in the past couple of days. And boy, are the progs annoyed. Raw Story, HuffPo, Metro etc. have written articles about it and the tweets show the irritation of this slogan turned hashtag.
Anthony DeMarco runs the podcast Ascending the Tower over at Social Matter, so hat tip to him for making me aware of this.
The tweets are the typical mockery and presumptions of people who hold sex like drinking a beer towards those who think sex is more than that, and that chastity is actually a legit stance towards the hedonistic and amoral view on sex. And again, typical of such people, they wear their hearts on their sleeve. Planned Parenthood supporter. A person stating they aren't straight by their twitter name. Some guy who looks like a douche from Ireland (my impressions of the men of Ireland aren't good -- either they come across as douches or they're just atheistic pansies, think Richard Dawkins fanboys). The last, @elctrafemme whose twitter name is "unsex me now" ... Well, her entire twitter masthead and bio should be posted.
Okay, since I singled out that twitter person, er, twitterian, er, @elctrafemme I'll just show the fragile nature of @DboudreauDella, the "i am gay" twitter name who wrote #MasculinitySoFragile.
Well a boy has a penis. I'm rather positive that the person shown above does not actually have a penis. The part of me that is in doubt says that person is a he and looks like a girl. If so, no, "im the prettiest boy of them all" is just self-flattery that I disagree with.
Back to the #NoHymenNoDiamnonds. Its' reasonable to say that it's a double standard for women, those that have lost their virginity well before a man proposes to them and those that have numerous sexual partners, when compared to men who have slept with other women, whether it be in a relationship or a casual tryst. I would not be surprised if this uproar will be another page that the #WarOnWomen movement will reference. I don't think it's a "war"; it's a standard. Of course, for anyone that knows about a woman's body, the hymen can be broken even without sexual intercourse based on pure accident. I won't get into the details, though. But the hashtag isn't directed towards those in that small, rare group. It's directed at the large group of women who consciously choose to have sex before marriage. It's an ego blow to the women who have had sex that are part of the modern day feminist movement and those who share similar stances and beliefs.
Many can say to the facebook group and those that support the hashtag to "face reality," and deal with the sexual nature of women. True. And this is one way of dealing with it. This group, from my readings on their facebook wall, is a mix of men. Some men are frustrated that they couldn't get sex from the women of their choice when they bulked up; some men actually want to have sex within marriage only. The first group joins the second group - adopting the standards and ideals of the abstinence before marriage people - and in a very ironic way see the value of actually having sexual standards (not if the woman's body is to ones liking, but if she sees her sexual worth more than "I'll do it when I'm ready" aka most likely before marriage with a person that most likely won't be my spouse if I ever do get married.)
Should the facebook group lessen its harshness on those who admit that having sex before marriage was a mistake and/or that they regret it? I think they should, but, as a guy, I see no real issue with the group's message and goal. As I said before in another post, I think double standards are good in certain occasions. It, in a sorta mean way, says to the group that is being singled that they are looked at differently and that not everything is held to the same standard. Sometimes it's out of sheer bias, even hatred, and others because it's a psychological instinct. When the left points out hypocrisy by The Right I tend to think that it should help The Right be more prudent, if not push its limits to better thought processing and to live up to the goals the ideology sets forth (the left should probably never be let to live up to its goals because it'll just create misery, personal destruction and nihilism).
The hashtag is a standard more than anything once you move away from the MGTOW and the angry body buildings who can't get laid. In many ways it has exposed the idiocy of the progressives and the pure contempt that the modern world has for anything sacred and traditional. It has also exposed the foolishness of pick-up-artists that when they don't "get some" they cry and wonder to themselves "I've got the body, I got the car ... What about my taco?" They don't treat the opposite sex like human beings; they want sex and that's it, and for that they deserve their misery. This is the twist: modernism's attitude towards sex and pick-up-artists have collided. The end result a somewhat hilarious crash.
Now what are my exact thoughts on this, personally when I deal with abstinence, if not chastity, and how sex ties into marriage? This has always been my philosophy about this situation. If I ever do get to propose and the woman isn't a virgin, then she isn't a virgin. If we get to a point where I propose and I'm aware she isn't a virgin, then in my eyes, she's worth it. I deal with it the same way in the given situation when the woman I'm dating has already had plastic surgery - be it breasts, a rhinoplasty or whatever before we became something more than friends. I don't reject them because of that. I deal with it, accept it and carry on with the relationship because I don't see such things as a deal breaker. I will make it aware that I reject plastic surgery, though. Same with tattoos. As for politics, wow, I can see myself compromising on that as well. Now, when it comes to religion that's a much more serious issue. This me "meeting them where they are." I believe I am being very generous about what I accept in terms of faults and past actions.
Preferably I would like my future wife to be a practicing Catholic and not of the liberal bent. If I can't find one of that stripe then being a non-denominational Christina is fine. If I can't find that then a non-religious person holding similar morals & values may have to do - but they must be an exceptional person who doesn't treat Christianity, let alone Catholicism, with disrespect. The third option must be, again, exceptional - if not, then it's a no go. Here's why.
You see, nothing of what I've admitted says anything about the woman's looks, her ethnicity, her education level, her career choice (porn stars are a no and actresses are to be looked at with great suspicion) or where she has or has not lived.. It has everything to do with moral standards and values. I am not looking for perfection, but effort and standards. If we share the same morals and values - which atheism cannot base itself on or say "morals is based on evolutionary psychology!" - then living together and raising children will be that much easier. I will absolutely not dedicate a part of my being to a person who cannot allow me to raise any of our future children in a Catholic household. Education wise, we either find a good Catholic school or we homeschool till high school. Non-religious privates are also an option. Opting for a public school is on the page, but that's the last resort. There are compromises, but spirituality is not a compromise for me. I've seen it with my own eyes that a house with no prayer or concept of religion is an empty household. It is spiritually vacant. A single parent household with prayer is stronger than a two-parent household. A two-parent (of opposite sex) household with prayer is the ideal. The Mormons, the Catholics (at least the old-style kind), the Baptists and Orthodox Jews are poof of this. Oddly enough, when it comes to abstinence, the Mormons outdo the Catholics in sexual restraint.
So yes, our attitudes towards sex is not only a character revealing scenario, but also it can heavily dictate how we raise our children and how they come to view sex. I know exactly what I'm getting with a women who have no issue with sex before marriage. And it's not a "veteran" in a sense of a war veteran or a seasoned professional athlete. But they think of themselves that way.
EDIT: The "sex positive" people are miffed over an LA billboard urging app users of grindr (for non-straight dating/hook-up) and tinder (it's straight counterpart) to get STD tests. The ad was footed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Oh the irony.
Religion, secularism & marriage
I've observed that many of my friends that majored in physics tend to quote Carl Sagan. I've also observed that many that I throughout high school, given their particular personality and physical makeup (a bit dorkish and tall and lanky) are non-believers.
Another thing that's worth noting is that my brother's group of friends whose only a few years older than I treat religion with a bit more respect than those who, say, are a year or two younger than me. It's not all a huge age difference, but the contrast is a little striking. From getting married in a courthouse (why anyone would do this is beyond me, well, besides them being non-religious and/or can't afford the church fees) to nature weddings (ceremonies outside that are nowhere near a church) or the marriage conducted by a non-religious officiate (I just recently learned a friend is an officiate - as I saw a picture of him presiding a marriage).
Now the first and third -- why even bother attending. It's really just a bunch of 20/30 somethings playing dress-up like Halloween, but instead of getting candy it's putting rings on each others ring finger and declaring "For life!" Instead of a ring pop, Joe and Jane, now holding jobs/careers that afford them to rent out the facilities exchange relatively expensive rings. Instead of dressing up in a werewolf costume the groom dresses in a tux and the Pink Power Ranger puts on heels and a white dress. There is no real meaning to it. If you can get a divorce in a snap (no-fault divorce) and hold up that state wedding license with smiles why the celebration? Maybe it's a failure of their upbringing. Maybe it's a failure of their lack of understanding of what marriage is as a whole, not what marriage is to the individuals getting married.
I was just at a ceremony that was held at a botanical garden and the officiate, as I learned later, is a homosexual. I knew something was "off" because during the officiates speech about the two people getting married, there was no mention of faith, God or anything transcendental besides love and commitment. The only things that were repeated was love and commitment; the speech sounded like an atheist omitting the "under God" when saying the Pledge of Alliance. Alongside the bride's brother reciting a poem about, you guessed, love. It was somewhat weird. And the entire ceremony lasted no more than 15 minutes.
There's something lacking in courthouse/secular/outdoor-weddings. These weddings really are just a proclamation of "We really, really like each other! We've decided on forever!" Okay, where's the priest? Where's the steeple? There are non. I'll skip the ceremony and show up to the reception. At least they have alcohol to make my brain accommodate the nothingness that pervades the room.
If non-religious ceremonies are this uneventful, completely void of being transcendental and bizarre between two people of the opposite sex, then I can only imagine what a ceremony would be like between two people of the same sex.
These are a few quotes that showed up on my friends facebook page. Two, I presume are atheists and the other agnostic at best.
"time will pass, nothing will last"
"God is an alien" (when listing his religious views)
"The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." - Carl Sagan (this was one of three quotes on a three tier wedding cake)
EDIT: I just learned that one of college acquaintances, she and her boyfriend, just went to the courthouse and signed the marriage license. This was on facebook. The two dressed in casual clothes - like they were running errands - and the caption read something like this, "Well consider this my proclamation. I'm off the market! We've decided to not have a ceremony and felt it was time to finally time to sign a piece of paper." Finally time to sign a piece of paper. Why even offer a congrats in that? (Granted there were many by in-laws, immediate family members and close friends.) Why "make it official" with that line of thought?
In contrast, another college acquaintance of mine was married at, I think, in a Catholic church. The pictures of the groomsmen and women were really lovely. The pictures of the family and the married couple in front of the alter were more lovely. I am not sure if it means anything, but if she felt the need to list "Catholic" under religious views on facebook then I suppose that there is some sort of spiritual fire in her. I am not sure about her husband. At least their effort to respect the institution of marriage is more hopeful than the story just above.
Another thing that's worth noting is that my brother's group of friends whose only a few years older than I treat religion with a bit more respect than those who, say, are a year or two younger than me. It's not all a huge age difference, but the contrast is a little striking. From getting married in a courthouse (why anyone would do this is beyond me, well, besides them being non-religious and/or can't afford the church fees) to nature weddings (ceremonies outside that are nowhere near a church) or the marriage conducted by a non-religious officiate (I just recently learned a friend is an officiate - as I saw a picture of him presiding a marriage).
Now the first and third -- why even bother attending. It's really just a bunch of 20/30 somethings playing dress-up like Halloween, but instead of getting candy it's putting rings on each others ring finger and declaring "For life!" Instead of a ring pop, Joe and Jane, now holding jobs/careers that afford them to rent out the facilities exchange relatively expensive rings. Instead of dressing up in a werewolf costume the groom dresses in a tux and the Pink Power Ranger puts on heels and a white dress. There is no real meaning to it. If you can get a divorce in a snap (no-fault divorce) and hold up that state wedding license with smiles why the celebration? Maybe it's a failure of their upbringing. Maybe it's a failure of their lack of understanding of what marriage is as a whole, not what marriage is to the individuals getting married.
I was just at a ceremony that was held at a botanical garden and the officiate, as I learned later, is a homosexual. I knew something was "off" because during the officiates speech about the two people getting married, there was no mention of faith, God or anything transcendental besides love and commitment. The only things that were repeated was love and commitment; the speech sounded like an atheist omitting the "under God" when saying the Pledge of Alliance. Alongside the bride's brother reciting a poem about, you guessed, love. It was somewhat weird. And the entire ceremony lasted no more than 15 minutes.
There's something lacking in courthouse/secular/outdoor-weddings. These weddings really are just a proclamation of "We really, really like each other! We've decided on forever!" Okay, where's the priest? Where's the steeple? There are non. I'll skip the ceremony and show up to the reception. At least they have alcohol to make my brain accommodate the nothingness that pervades the room.
If non-religious ceremonies are this uneventful, completely void of being transcendental and bizarre between two people of the opposite sex, then I can only imagine what a ceremony would be like between two people of the same sex.
These are a few quotes that showed up on my friends facebook page. Two, I presume are atheists and the other agnostic at best.
"time will pass, nothing will last"
"God is an alien" (when listing his religious views)
"The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." - Carl Sagan (this was one of three quotes on a three tier wedding cake)
EDIT: I just learned that one of college acquaintances, she and her boyfriend, just went to the courthouse and signed the marriage license. This was on facebook. The two dressed in casual clothes - like they were running errands - and the caption read something like this, "Well consider this my proclamation. I'm off the market! We've decided to not have a ceremony and felt it was time to finally time to sign a piece of paper." Finally time to sign a piece of paper. Why even offer a congrats in that? (Granted there were many by in-laws, immediate family members and close friends.) Why "make it official" with that line of thought?
In contrast, another college acquaintance of mine was married at, I think, in a Catholic church. The pictures of the groomsmen and women were really lovely. The pictures of the family and the married couple in front of the alter were more lovely. I am not sure if it means anything, but if she felt the need to list "Catholic" under religious views on facebook then I suppose that there is some sort of spiritual fire in her. I am not sure about her husband. At least their effort to respect the institution of marriage is more hopeful than the story just above.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
I can tell the age gap in American conservatisim.
American conservatism, at least the circles I dipped into, is not young. I know this because of the stories people tell about their experiences with the Catholic Church - mostly negative about mean nuns and priests, and the psychological abuse they've been through, supposedly scarring them for life and leaving the faith. These stories aren't really new since I've heard them before. Here's a sample:
I suppose the horror stories listed are the "worst of the worst" and it's one of those situations where the loudest voice is usually the most bitter. It's unfortunate that such things happened, but, as someone nowhere near the age of 50 I'll keep quiet when the complainers come forth. The strictness that was found pre-Vatican II seems to be all but gone, yet those women who have taken vows and whose organization is more worldly has seen their numbers drop, yet those who have stuck with their habits and traditions have seem their numbers grow. It's immensely ironic, really.
My experience weren't with nuns, but with sisters - Adrian Dominican Sisters to be exact. There were only two present when I was in grade school. I cannot recall the other, but I do distinctly remember Sister Karen. She wasn't mean nor was she nice, at least to me that is. I remember that I was suppose read a few paragraphs during reading class - I proceeded to read and apparently I read too far. She made me re-read the paragraphs again, but again I read too far. I will never forget it: the parts I was reading weren't really paragraphs, per se, since all I was reading was dialogue. That was confusing to me. I thought to myself that I wasn't reading paragraphs! It didn't occur to me to make her aware of that fact. Obviously it got me a little upset; Sister Karen was very upset at me. Eventually she told me where to stop. Thanks, Sis.
Unlike the conservatives that I interact with, those that have left the faith due to perceived extortion and other somewhat petty reasons (to me), I have not. What came to a surprise to me, as an ex-liberal where religion and tradition are not thought of with an approving eye, was the level of anti-Catholicsm in conservative circles But it was a different type of contempt than liberals.. Again, most of the contempt come from people who were about 10 years of age in the 1970s. They were feeling the strictness of pre-Vatican II. Some are non-practicing while others have moved to other sects such as Lutheranism. They say "feel at home" but mention no philosophy behind it. Like liberals, it's all about 'the feels.' Most dissenters were sharing their horrible experiences with nuns/priests, so it's not their findings of the Church's teaching faulty or innately weak, but because the flock that was entrusted to spread the Gospel and guide the layman were put in teaching duties where they were not a good fit. A conservative sad that the Roman Catholic Church should be renamed the "Cafeteria Catholic Church." Though I do see the reasoning behind it, the Church itself - as of today - has not wavered in its stances. It is the flock that is cafeteria, not the doctrines. Another brought up that Pope Benedict wore designers slip-ons and said that it was hypocritical of the Church to ask for donations when the institution was "very rich." Apparently he did not know donations - a good percent - are geared towards the parish's physical upkeep.
Honestly, it's a bit tiring and irritating to hear the anti-Catholicism amongst conservatives when the RCc is brought up. I say this: Either you have issues with set of particular priests and nuns, who are probably all dead, or you're just a fool upset that the Church isn't falling in line politically on the conservative end.
The Church is hated by the modern liberals for being archaic, oppressive and bigoted. It's also not held in high esteem by the modern right on grounds that are also political (e.g. immigration, economics) but also personal. I think both sides are wrong. The left sees the RCC as an enemy to their ideology. The right has more personal baggage. Both seem to lack any understanding of the RCC, but on different levels. The right turns into a liberal when dealing withe RCC and the left turns into, well, they don't turn into anything because they'r the left.
This goes to prove that the Church isn't necessarily left or right. It's not straight down the middle, either. It's the Roman Catholic Church. Either get on its page and speed or get out of the way. If you leave, leave because you find the philosophy wanting or leave because you differ too much for another belief. Leaving because a nun/priest was mean is petty.
- a nun humiliating a child because her skirt was too short
- priest reading the amount of donation at the pulpit by each parishioner
- a nun not letting a girl go to the washroom so she ended up peeing herself in class
- a nun not letting kids go the washroom so they soiled themselves
- a nun making child write "I will not eat meat on Fridays" 100 times in front of the class
- a nun badgering kids if their Sunday donations weren't present in the collection basket (parents had one and kids had one)
I suppose the horror stories listed are the "worst of the worst" and it's one of those situations where the loudest voice is usually the most bitter. It's unfortunate that such things happened, but, as someone nowhere near the age of 50 I'll keep quiet when the complainers come forth. The strictness that was found pre-Vatican II seems to be all but gone, yet those women who have taken vows and whose organization is more worldly has seen their numbers drop, yet those who have stuck with their habits and traditions have seem their numbers grow. It's immensely ironic, really.
My experience weren't with nuns, but with sisters - Adrian Dominican Sisters to be exact. There were only two present when I was in grade school. I cannot recall the other, but I do distinctly remember Sister Karen. She wasn't mean nor was she nice, at least to me that is. I remember that I was suppose read a few paragraphs during reading class - I proceeded to read and apparently I read too far. She made me re-read the paragraphs again, but again I read too far. I will never forget it: the parts I was reading weren't really paragraphs, per se, since all I was reading was dialogue. That was confusing to me. I thought to myself that I wasn't reading paragraphs! It didn't occur to me to make her aware of that fact. Obviously it got me a little upset; Sister Karen was very upset at me. Eventually she told me where to stop. Thanks, Sis.
Unlike the conservatives that I interact with, those that have left the faith due to perceived extortion and other somewhat petty reasons (to me), I have not. What came to a surprise to me, as an ex-liberal where religion and tradition are not thought of with an approving eye, was the level of anti-Catholicsm in conservative circles But it was a different type of contempt than liberals.. Again, most of the contempt come from people who were about 10 years of age in the 1970s. They were feeling the strictness of pre-Vatican II. Some are non-practicing while others have moved to other sects such as Lutheranism. They say "feel at home" but mention no philosophy behind it. Like liberals, it's all about 'the feels.' Most dissenters were sharing their horrible experiences with nuns/priests, so it's not their findings of the Church's teaching faulty or innately weak, but because the flock that was entrusted to spread the Gospel and guide the layman were put in teaching duties where they were not a good fit. A conservative sad that the Roman Catholic Church should be renamed the "Cafeteria Catholic Church." Though I do see the reasoning behind it, the Church itself - as of today - has not wavered in its stances. It is the flock that is cafeteria, not the doctrines. Another brought up that Pope Benedict wore designers slip-ons and said that it was hypocritical of the Church to ask for donations when the institution was "very rich." Apparently he did not know donations - a good percent - are geared towards the parish's physical upkeep.
Honestly, it's a bit tiring and irritating to hear the anti-Catholicism amongst conservatives when the RCc is brought up. I say this: Either you have issues with set of particular priests and nuns, who are probably all dead, or you're just a fool upset that the Church isn't falling in line politically on the conservative end.
The Church is hated by the modern liberals for being archaic, oppressive and bigoted. It's also not held in high esteem by the modern right on grounds that are also political (e.g. immigration, economics) but also personal. I think both sides are wrong. The left sees the RCC as an enemy to their ideology. The right has more personal baggage. Both seem to lack any understanding of the RCC, but on different levels. The right turns into a liberal when dealing withe RCC and the left turns into, well, they don't turn into anything because they'r the left.
This goes to prove that the Church isn't necessarily left or right. It's not straight down the middle, either. It's the Roman Catholic Church. Either get on its page and speed or get out of the way. If you leave, leave because you find the philosophy wanting or leave because you differ too much for another belief. Leaving because a nun/priest was mean is petty.
Friday, September 25, 2015
Social media and "connecting."
I suppose it depends on the industry you work in on how social media plays into your "connecting" consumption.
Let me make comments on the platforms that are mostly used, as of today.
Facebook
Okay, I can absolutely see the purpose of this. I remember when it first came out in 2004 - my brother was the first "class" to integrate this type of media into his life and I still remember how clean the layout was. White. Easy to navigate once you became familiar with the interface. The lack of adverts adding to the the overall cleanliness. There were immensely less "lines" and categories to share your personal information. Back then (that felt weird typing that) users had to have a college email account in order gain access to the site. If you were in high school you were SOL and myspace was your stomping ground.
I do use this. My goal with facebook is to keep in touch with friends, old and new, family members and even professional contacts. It's been an indispensable tool to communicate with when setting up get-togethers or reunions.
A downside of this platform is the feed. Dear Allah. When it started it tolerable, now it's a foghorn of "updates." I suppose the upside to the feed is that, when anyone posts something political (say, something about same-sex "marriage," immigration, reproductive "rights" etc.) there are discussions revealing the thoughts of friends about the given issue. This can be depressing since you learn that many of your friends are political idiots. They're "good" people, but they're political idiots. I remember one online conversation between a high school friend and a grade school friend (they never met) when I posted an article about handwriting & education. At the time both of these people were earning a degree in education, so it was no surprise that they commented. One disagreed with the other and so-on and so-on. At the end, one came across as a the typical union "progressive" teacher while the other, who held more conservative views, held his ground and didn't let emotions take over.
Another downside is, as I noted above, the interface has become cluttered. Since the expansion and popularity of the site has become worldwide, every time you comment on another site needing an account you have the option to either log-in your facebook or create a profile specifically for that site. Now, if you log-in on your facebook that site asks if it can take information from your facebook in order to track your user habits. In many ways this ties into social demographics. The site you want to comment on wants to track down the sex, age and geographic area their visitors/commenters come from. This is understandable. But, in the end, I don't see the true point of it nor do I see the benefits besides more infographs about info I really do not care about. In the end, it's an invasion of privacy. If you do not allow the site to gain access to your facebook info then you can't use it to comment. In this way, everyone is "connected." I find this chilling and an insidious byproduct of the obsession of social media.
This is more of an annoyance, but I find the masthead that's located on every profile to be utterly sophomoric. What is the purpose of this? There's the avatar - the original profile picture - then there's this huge, obnoxious masthead filled with whatever picture the user decides to put up. If you don't have a masthead then the area on which the masthead is located is just an ugly grey. You either deal with that grey or put up a picture like covering a hole in the wall with a poster.
Now, I don't have the interest to scroll down my feed to learn what's happening in the lives of my facebook "friends" - if I need to send a message or update my profile my cursor and eyes will immediately find the tabs that allow me to do such things,and my eyes consciously ignore (read: my eyes do not even skim the feed) whatever comes up as updates. I have my profile setup where notifications like engagements are sent to my mobile and that's it. If I choose to offer my congratulations or "like" the update, I will do so. At least I know that so-and-so are engaged.
Twitter
In terms of news, I say this: national/international break-out stories are just that - break-out stories. The feeling or rush one gets from immediately knowing a story (that hasn't been fully developed), especially on issues many of us do not have a clue about like foreign affairs, is fleeting. A supervisor once said to me regarding the immediacy of twitter feed, "The person who knows about a certain story will not be anymore knowledgeable than they person who doesn't know about it when it breaks out, and follows it - like those who do follow a given issue - through the following weeks, months and years." Sooner or later, if the WOM is strong enough, you'll hear about a given story.
I have a twitter account which is under an alias. I barely retweet or tweet anyone or anything. It's usually just stuff about politics.
The line of work I do twitter isn't necessary unless you're updating for PR reasons, and that's usually an assigned job.
Instagram
Unless you're a photographer or the Most Interesting Man in the World a good majority of what you post will be just like every other idiotic millennial and celebrity.The "community" that has been expressed by a number of others on instragram is false community. It isn't real. Your feels do not make such a community real.
I can see if you have a soft spot for a celebrity and you follow them, but why even, at that?
Twitter & instagram are practically cousins. Instead of 140 characters there's a picture. Twitter is really facebook's feed gone solo and instagram is the photo section of facebook. Neither do I care to view unless under special circumstances.
Pinterest
I have no clue how pinterest caught on. Instead of going into bookmarks you just log-in into your pinterest account. Convenient, but overall the convenience makes it uninteresting.
Google +
I never used it; the fact that I'm scared that something might show up on it that I don't want too makes me even more cautious on what I write & post. I don't know anyone in my social circles that uses it in a serious fashion.
LinkedIn
The most legit, and in my eyes respectable, professional networking site. If you have a personal site and link your linkedin profile to it, then I don't see how you'll lose in the networking game.
Conclusion
If you're marketing something (like yourself if you're a politician or if you belong to a *sorority), say a movie, an event, or if you're business trying to reach out to the public then I can see the strong point of creating an account on twitter & instagram. It's brand identity and effective communication. But as individuals, excluding the politican? Yea, you and your life aren't as interesting as you think. Celebrities are as uninteresting and lack creativity (even if they're in the creative field) as the wannabe filmmaker.
A healthy percent of my friends and family members do not use instagram or twitter -- both on a personal level and a professional level. Then again many live in the Midwest, working in industries that have not put social media in its everyday fabric. There is no pressure to join either platform. Working teachers in elementary school truly don't have a use for twitter. They also don't see the need to broadcast their politics in such a way. Even for those who work in industries that do, say my cousin who works in tech in Palo Alto, he doesn't have one. His brother does, but he barely tweets and when he does it's something random. The only people that I know who tweet is a person in government/non-profit and another who was getting his doctorate in education.
No employer worth its salt, unless it's National Geographic, or if you're applying as a photographer, will give two shits if you have an instagram or twitter (save that you don't post anything un-PC). There are employers who view their potential hire before making an offer if their facebook is "clean." If they suspect anything that might look bad upon the company in your profile (e.g. questionable pictures) then that can decrease your chances of being hired. The gift of common sense says, "No, dear. Don't put that up. Untag yourself from that picture. Don't do stupid crap during the weekend."
How to eliminate your "internet trail"? Post under an alias. Choose not to have a twitter account or instagram, and if you do choose just post stuff related to your field of work.
Truly, I don't have the motivation and urge to be on my mobile tweeting or taking pictures to constantly share on instagram. You'd think that at least 50% of those on these platforms are making serious money from posting pictures and tweeting. That sunset and whatever pathetic #YOLO pic will be the same as the other account whose owner lives in Brazil.
I'll stick to blogging, my tumblr (beats instagram & twitter) and facebook. In fact, a personal website seems like a more creative outlet than both twitter/instagram combined. Then again many who use twitter don't know how to build a website from the ground up. The irony. Technically savvy yet almost useless when it comes down to it.
*Sororities (almost every chapter in every state) are turning to tumblr as a gallery alternative. It's a marvelous decision.
Let me make comments on the platforms that are mostly used, as of today.
Okay, I can absolutely see the purpose of this. I remember when it first came out in 2004 - my brother was the first "class" to integrate this type of media into his life and I still remember how clean the layout was. White. Easy to navigate once you became familiar with the interface. The lack of adverts adding to the the overall cleanliness. There were immensely less "lines" and categories to share your personal information. Back then (that felt weird typing that) users had to have a college email account in order gain access to the site. If you were in high school you were SOL and myspace was your stomping ground.
I do use this. My goal with facebook is to keep in touch with friends, old and new, family members and even professional contacts. It's been an indispensable tool to communicate with when setting up get-togethers or reunions.
A downside of this platform is the feed. Dear Allah. When it started it tolerable, now it's a foghorn of "updates." I suppose the upside to the feed is that, when anyone posts something political (say, something about same-sex "marriage," immigration, reproductive "rights" etc.) there are discussions revealing the thoughts of friends about the given issue. This can be depressing since you learn that many of your friends are political idiots. They're "good" people, but they're political idiots. I remember one online conversation between a high school friend and a grade school friend (they never met) when I posted an article about handwriting & education. At the time both of these people were earning a degree in education, so it was no surprise that they commented. One disagreed with the other and so-on and so-on. At the end, one came across as a the typical union "progressive" teacher while the other, who held more conservative views, held his ground and didn't let emotions take over.
Another downside is, as I noted above, the interface has become cluttered. Since the expansion and popularity of the site has become worldwide, every time you comment on another site needing an account you have the option to either log-in your facebook or create a profile specifically for that site. Now, if you log-in on your facebook that site asks if it can take information from your facebook in order to track your user habits. In many ways this ties into social demographics. The site you want to comment on wants to track down the sex, age and geographic area their visitors/commenters come from. This is understandable. But, in the end, I don't see the true point of it nor do I see the benefits besides more infographs about info I really do not care about. In the end, it's an invasion of privacy. If you do not allow the site to gain access to your facebook info then you can't use it to comment. In this way, everyone is "connected." I find this chilling and an insidious byproduct of the obsession of social media.
This is more of an annoyance, but I find the masthead that's located on every profile to be utterly sophomoric. What is the purpose of this? There's the avatar - the original profile picture - then there's this huge, obnoxious masthead filled with whatever picture the user decides to put up. If you don't have a masthead then the area on which the masthead is located is just an ugly grey. You either deal with that grey or put up a picture like covering a hole in the wall with a poster.
Now, I don't have the interest to scroll down my feed to learn what's happening in the lives of my facebook "friends" - if I need to send a message or update my profile my cursor and eyes will immediately find the tabs that allow me to do such things,and my eyes consciously ignore (read: my eyes do not even skim the feed) whatever comes up as updates. I have my profile setup where notifications like engagements are sent to my mobile and that's it. If I choose to offer my congratulations or "like" the update, I will do so. At least I know that so-and-so are engaged.
In terms of news, I say this: national/international break-out stories are just that - break-out stories. The feeling or rush one gets from immediately knowing a story (that hasn't been fully developed), especially on issues many of us do not have a clue about like foreign affairs, is fleeting. A supervisor once said to me regarding the immediacy of twitter feed, "The person who knows about a certain story will not be anymore knowledgeable than they person who doesn't know about it when it breaks out, and follows it - like those who do follow a given issue - through the following weeks, months and years." Sooner or later, if the WOM is strong enough, you'll hear about a given story.
I have a twitter account which is under an alias. I barely retweet or tweet anyone or anything. It's usually just stuff about politics.
The line of work I do twitter isn't necessary unless you're updating for PR reasons, and that's usually an assigned job.
Unless you're a photographer or the Most Interesting Man in the World a good majority of what you post will be just like every other idiotic millennial and celebrity.The "community" that has been expressed by a number of others on instragram is false community. It isn't real. Your feels do not make such a community real.
I can see if you have a soft spot for a celebrity and you follow them, but why even, at that?
Twitter & instagram are practically cousins. Instead of 140 characters there's a picture. Twitter is really facebook's feed gone solo and instagram is the photo section of facebook. Neither do I care to view unless under special circumstances.
I have no clue how pinterest caught on. Instead of going into bookmarks you just log-in into your pinterest account. Convenient, but overall the convenience makes it uninteresting.
Google +
I never used it; the fact that I'm scared that something might show up on it that I don't want too makes me even more cautious on what I write & post. I don't know anyone in my social circles that uses it in a serious fashion.
The most legit, and in my eyes respectable, professional networking site. If you have a personal site and link your linkedin profile to it, then I don't see how you'll lose in the networking game.
Conclusion
If you're marketing something (like yourself if you're a politician or if you belong to a *sorority), say a movie, an event, or if you're business trying to reach out to the public then I can see the strong point of creating an account on twitter & instagram. It's brand identity and effective communication. But as individuals, excluding the politican? Yea, you and your life aren't as interesting as you think. Celebrities are as uninteresting and lack creativity (even if they're in the creative field) as the wannabe filmmaker.
A healthy percent of my friends and family members do not use instagram or twitter -- both on a personal level and a professional level. Then again many live in the Midwest, working in industries that have not put social media in its everyday fabric. There is no pressure to join either platform. Working teachers in elementary school truly don't have a use for twitter. They also don't see the need to broadcast their politics in such a way. Even for those who work in industries that do, say my cousin who works in tech in Palo Alto, he doesn't have one. His brother does, but he barely tweets and when he does it's something random. The only people that I know who tweet is a person in government/non-profit and another who was getting his doctorate in education.
No employer worth its salt, unless it's National Geographic, or if you're applying as a photographer, will give two shits if you have an instagram or twitter (save that you don't post anything un-PC). There are employers who view their potential hire before making an offer if their facebook is "clean." If they suspect anything that might look bad upon the company in your profile (e.g. questionable pictures) then that can decrease your chances of being hired. The gift of common sense says, "No, dear. Don't put that up. Untag yourself from that picture. Don't do stupid crap during the weekend."
How to eliminate your "internet trail"? Post under an alias. Choose not to have a twitter account or instagram, and if you do choose just post stuff related to your field of work.
Truly, I don't have the motivation and urge to be on my mobile tweeting or taking pictures to constantly share on instagram. You'd think that at least 50% of those on these platforms are making serious money from posting pictures and tweeting. That sunset and whatever pathetic #YOLO pic will be the same as the other account whose owner lives in Brazil.
I'll stick to blogging, my tumblr (beats instagram & twitter) and facebook. In fact, a personal website seems like a more creative outlet than both twitter/instagram combined. Then again many who use twitter don't know how to build a website from the ground up. The irony. Technically savvy yet almost useless when it comes down to it.
*Sororities (almost every chapter in every state) are turning to tumblr as a gallery alternative. It's a marvelous decision.
Thursday, September 24, 2015
My frustrations with American conservativism.
I've come to realize that American conservatism is far less "well-traveled" than its ideological counterpart.
When I say "far less well-traveled" I mean unadventurous - it's too lazy to infiltrate cultural institutions that are dominated by The Left; having little to no interest in the interests that tend to be plagued by modernism. As I discussed on neo-neocon's site (I apologize for missed words - my mind tends to move faster than my typing hands):
When I say "far less well-traveled" I mean unadventurous - it's too lazy to infiltrate cultural institutions that are dominated by The Left; having little to no interest in the interests that tend to be plagued by modernism. As I discussed on neo-neocon's site (I apologize for missed words - my mind tends to move faster than my typing hands):
GRA Says:
September 24th, 2015 at 12:14 pm
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Pope visits the U.S. of A.
I'm casually watching CNN's coverage of Pope Francis' visit to Washington D.C. Emphasis (bold) my own.
10:47AM (Central Standard Time): One of the anchors, an English woman, mentions a possible Vatican III to cover issues like female ordination saying that since women aren't allowed to be ordained it would upset "many Catholic women." The guest-priest responds that's not how councils work, happening one after another, and that the Church is still integrating the changes from Vatican II.
Apparently this women thinks that councils are held mainly to "update" supposed outdated doctrines and stances in response to the secular world. The secular world dictates the social doctrines and rules that changes within the Church.
10:55AM: Another female anchor, in response to the English woman, says that Pope Francis' sign of the cross was due to him acknowledging the tabernacle (at Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle) which was in front of him.
This English woman isn't a Catholic or at least has no working knowledge of the faith and its customs. That I figured right away.
11:12AM: An an anchor and guest-priest are talking about the possible topics that will be addressed in the Pope's speech towards the 300+ bishops seated in front of him in the prayer service. The Pope is sitting unusually still, head down, and looks like he's sleeping. Climate change is recurring theme that the anchors bring up.
UPDATE: 2:35PM - I stopped watching around noon during the network's live break. It was really boring to be honest; the Latin translator was horrid - I'm not sure how she was chosen. At this time, Sally Kohn, Fox's modern liberal hire, gave me an impression that she's an idiot. Kohn smugly said that "any thoughtful Republican" would agree that Donal Trump should be put in a negative light due to comments on women. Personally, I really don't care what Trump says about women because the stuff that comes out of his mouth I find humorous. Call me an enabler or a sexist if you want. She then goes on to say that President Obama has done a fine job in bringing together people of different faiths, making inter-faiths more common and peaceful. Okay. And the sky is green. And penguins really can fly, it's just that society has discouraged their flying ability and therefor they aren't their true selves.
10:47AM (Central Standard Time): One of the anchors, an English woman, mentions a possible Vatican III to cover issues like female ordination saying that since women aren't allowed to be ordained it would upset "many Catholic women." The guest-priest responds that's not how councils work, happening one after another, and that the Church is still integrating the changes from Vatican II.
Apparently this women thinks that councils are held mainly to "update" supposed outdated doctrines and stances in response to the secular world. The secular world dictates the social doctrines and rules that changes within the Church.
10:55AM: Another female anchor, in response to the English woman, says that Pope Francis' sign of the cross was due to him acknowledging the tabernacle (at Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle) which was in front of him.
This English woman isn't a Catholic or at least has no working knowledge of the faith and its customs. That I figured right away.
11:12AM: An an anchor and guest-priest are talking about the possible topics that will be addressed in the Pope's speech towards the 300+ bishops seated in front of him in the prayer service. The Pope is sitting unusually still, head down, and looks like he's sleeping. Climate change is recurring theme that the anchors bring up.
UPDATE: 2:35PM - I stopped watching around noon during the network's live break. It was really boring to be honest; the Latin translator was horrid - I'm not sure how she was chosen. At this time, Sally Kohn, Fox's modern liberal hire, gave me an impression that she's an idiot. Kohn smugly said that "any thoughtful Republican" would agree that Donal Trump should be put in a negative light due to comments on women. Personally, I really don't care what Trump says about women because the stuff that comes out of his mouth I find humorous. Call me an enabler or a sexist if you want. She then goes on to say that President Obama has done a fine job in bringing together people of different faiths, making inter-faiths more common and peaceful. Okay. And the sky is green. And penguins really can fly, it's just that society has discouraged their flying ability and therefor they aren't their true selves.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
The War on Greek Life
Wesleyan University, an elite liberal arts institution, has banned all fraternities & sororities from campus. The culture is no more.
Here's an excerpt about the university's trustees giving an ultimatum to the existing fraternities prior to the fall of 2015 -
In terms of despicable behavior, if they - those that call for integrated socials - are so upset with sexual assault and drunkard behavior that occurs within parties why call for sex integration? Hormonal young adults, no supervision, alcohol = stupidity will rear it's head around the corner more often than you can shove it back. Now add all that with co-ed housing with the frat-life culture? That's like giving a child a grenade without the pin, and saying to throw it "real far," and either the child throws i not far enough resulting in your deaths or holds on to it resulting in your deaths.
What's interesting is that the university calls for a ban on greek life, which they got, but not ,say, alcohol or have seminars on character, integrity and decency. "It's the sexist, homophobic patriarchal system that's archaic in our day-and-age that must be vetted and teared down!"
Here's an excerpt about the university's trustees giving an ultimatum to the existing fraternities prior to the fall of 2015 -
The decree, endorsed by Wesleyan’s trustees, gave all campus-linked fraternities three years to either admit women into their membership or lose their status as “program housing.” (Wesleyan requires nearly all its undergraduates to live in either dormitories or university-approved off-campus residences.) Around the same time in 2014 the third fraternity, Beta Theta Pi, was suspended after an apparently intoxicated female sophomore at Wesleyan fell from a third-story window in the frat house and was seriously injured.As the article expresses -
The slow-motion demise of all-male fraternities at Wesleyan is the result of the fatal intersection of two phenomena. The first is a longstanding-old ideological war against fraternities conducted by progressive college faculty and administrators perturbed by Greek houses’ resistance to campus administrative control and their often politically incorrect culture. As soon as fraternities came into existence during the early 19th century, university administrators started trying to get rid of them.I'll add this as well: There's little doubt in my mind that those calling for the integration saw the single-sex requirement as equal to racial segregation, if not drawing inspiration from Brown v Board of Education.
In terms of despicable behavior, if they - those that call for integrated socials - are so upset with sexual assault and drunkard behavior that occurs within parties why call for sex integration? Hormonal young adults, no supervision, alcohol = stupidity will rear it's head around the corner more often than you can shove it back. Now add all that with co-ed housing with the frat-life culture? That's like giving a child a grenade without the pin, and saying to throw it "real far," and either the child throws i not far enough resulting in your deaths or holds on to it resulting in your deaths.
What's interesting is that the university calls for a ban on greek life, which they got, but not ,say, alcohol or have seminars on character, integrity and decency. "It's the sexist, homophobic patriarchal system that's archaic in our day-and-age that must be vetted and teared down!"
Meet Jordan Crook.
Jordan Crook is the Senior Writer for TechCrunch. I first found out about Crook when she interviewed professional basketball player Harrison Barnes. The interview was relatively interesting, going into how technology plays a part in Harrison's life on and off the court.
In the beginning the voice over was really irritating, and I immediately thought to myself that the person speaking is either a girl who is taking hormones to be "the right gender" or just a lesbian techie. It was the latter. And whoa.
Crook is a horrible interviewer - her posture sucks and she awkwardly is leaning forward, elbows resting on her knees. It's just weird. Her questions were okay; like I said the entire interview was relatively interesting. Harrison mentioned that he didn't have the mind of an engineer and that coding wasn't his strong suit, but I get the feeling he knows more about coding than Crook.
You may be asking why am I acting this way towards Crook? Honestly, her entire demeanor was just odd to me. I didn't want to assume, but I dd anyways. I assumed that her twitter account would be either of two things. In her bio she writes "Voice of a generation." I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I have a vague ballpark understanding, and if that vague ballpark is correct then she's filled with hubris.
First, her tweets being tech related, and the second being that she'll tweet about LGBT issues. I assumed correctly. I went down her tweet history and landed on September 11th. No tweets about the attack or about remembrance. The tweets that day were nothing related to the country's soul or to the victims of that day. I then scrolled down to July 4th. I did find a tweet linking to a stamp of the American flag with the word EQUALITY underneath. I saw where this was going. No mention of how thankful she is about the country she lives in or any pics of an All-American barbecue, or even a toast of alcohol towards the country. Nothing any of that sort. I then scrolled down to June 26th. What I found were many tweets about the Obergefell v Hodges decision. In one tweet Crook said that she was happy that the government recognized her as a "human capable of love." In another she admitted to leaving a voicemail on her mom's cell asking her to "pick the state and I'll pick the girl."
So, by (A) the tone of her voice before I even saw her face (B) her posture while interviewing and (C) her role as Senior Writer -- what qualifies her for this role I do not know, I basically read her like a book. My assumptions were right, and I'm glad they were right because that means my instincts when understanding the mentality of people like Crook is that her type (techies) are paper thin people who are boring as fuck. She doesn't come across as interesting. Almost everything personal I've come across from her tells me she's filled with narcissism. I mean, yes, I'm being judgmental on one public appearance and just a skim through twitter, but when I hit the bulls-eye that should count for something.
Yes, she dresses like a guy and so I thought she had to be a lesbian if not bisexual before she even mentioned about her "equality." She said her gaydar was horrible in one tweet - my gaydar is finally tuned and it accurately read, "You're are one typical lesbian." But why does it matter? In the grand scheme of things it doesn't, but one's fashion can tell some things about the wearer. One's tweets can say a lot about the person tweeting. She never tweeted anything beyond herself on two very important dates that truly defines the country, and when she did it was in reference of June 26th. I guess that's the only July 4th she ever saw the American flag in a reverent way.
In the end, Jordan Cook is a predictable person living in Brooklyn, making a living in an industry that leans to the modern left. All of a sudden that cubicle worker who lives in the Midwest seems much more appealing.
In the beginning the voice over was really irritating, and I immediately thought to myself that the person speaking is either a girl who is taking hormones to be "the right gender" or just a lesbian techie. It was the latter. And whoa.
Crook is a horrible interviewer - her posture sucks and she awkwardly is leaning forward, elbows resting on her knees. It's just weird. Her questions were okay; like I said the entire interview was relatively interesting. Harrison mentioned that he didn't have the mind of an engineer and that coding wasn't his strong suit, but I get the feeling he knows more about coding than Crook.
You may be asking why am I acting this way towards Crook? Honestly, her entire demeanor was just odd to me. I didn't want to assume, but I dd anyways. I assumed that her twitter account would be either of two things. In her bio she writes "Voice of a generation." I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I have a vague ballpark understanding, and if that vague ballpark is correct then she's filled with hubris.
First, her tweets being tech related, and the second being that she'll tweet about LGBT issues. I assumed correctly. I went down her tweet history and landed on September 11th. No tweets about the attack or about remembrance. The tweets that day were nothing related to the country's soul or to the victims of that day. I then scrolled down to July 4th. I did find a tweet linking to a stamp of the American flag with the word EQUALITY underneath. I saw where this was going. No mention of how thankful she is about the country she lives in or any pics of an All-American barbecue, or even a toast of alcohol towards the country. Nothing any of that sort. I then scrolled down to June 26th. What I found were many tweets about the Obergefell v Hodges decision. In one tweet Crook said that she was happy that the government recognized her as a "human capable of love." In another she admitted to leaving a voicemail on her mom's cell asking her to "pick the state and I'll pick the girl."
So, by (A) the tone of her voice before I even saw her face (B) her posture while interviewing and (C) her role as Senior Writer -- what qualifies her for this role I do not know, I basically read her like a book. My assumptions were right, and I'm glad they were right because that means my instincts when understanding the mentality of people like Crook is that her type (techies) are paper thin people who are boring as fuck. She doesn't come across as interesting. Almost everything personal I've come across from her tells me she's filled with narcissism. I mean, yes, I'm being judgmental on one public appearance and just a skim through twitter, but when I hit the bulls-eye that should count for something.
Yes, she dresses like a guy and so I thought she had to be a lesbian if not bisexual before she even mentioned about her "equality." She said her gaydar was horrible in one tweet - my gaydar is finally tuned and it accurately read, "You're are one typical lesbian." But why does it matter? In the grand scheme of things it doesn't, but one's fashion can tell some things about the wearer. One's tweets can say a lot about the person tweeting. She never tweeted anything beyond herself on two very important dates that truly defines the country, and when she did it was in reference of June 26th. I guess that's the only July 4th she ever saw the American flag in a reverent way.
In the end, Jordan Cook is a predictable person living in Brooklyn, making a living in an industry that leans to the modern left. All of a sudden that cubicle worker who lives in the Midwest seems much more appealing.
Friday, September 18, 2015
New link.
Catholic Churches of Manhattan has become my new favorite site for the week. I don't go gaga over NYC like many, but if it's about the city's Catholic churches then I'm all ears. A wonderful site done by a very dedicated person.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Youtube musicians and their fans.
It ceases to make me laugh when youtube musicians - usually of the skate-rock personal fashion kind - posts inspirational quotes or some sort of non-judgmental mantra, and their fans have an orgasm agreeing. "You are so right! Why do we tear each other down? Let others do their thing, making them happy we should just concentrate on our own thing!"
Take Youtube sensation signed by Columbia Records, Andie Case.
Take Youtube sensation signed by Columbia Records, Andie Case.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
99.9% of my interests have me surrounded
by non-conservatives.
Let me count.
1. urban planning
2. academia (sociology, education)
3. the arts (movies, theater, books/writing, photography, fashion)
4. non-profits focusing on disadvantage youth
5. just learned that CSO clarinetist, John Bruce Yeh, is a social moron aka social "progressive."
Okay, not really #5. But seriously, the man tweets are nothing about music; instead it's being about pro-choice and how the rainbow flag makes his eyes like "lasers."
As an ex-liberal, I have gained interests in -
1. guns and gun-rights
2. showed new interest in my faith and have embraced traditionalism
3. feel no contempt for the suburbs and country, small town life in spite of me being an urbanite for most of his life
4. I like the South and the Midwest
Neither "progressive" nor "conservative" interest that is politically flavorless -
1. camping
2. ...
3.
That's it for neutrality. Well, unless you count all those granola munchers then I guess it can tilt towards modernism. Cooking seems like a 50/50 fight. We got your vegan, gluten-free camp and your carnivores. The only thing annoying at first about political cooking is the MGO and organic talk. Once you get over that and just buy the chicken that's available it's all about the cookin'.
Upon reflection, it's really where I'm located that adds to the annoyance. I live in one of the most populated US cities, and my original political stance, one that is of a modern liberal color, has made me very aware and familiar with such a mentality and outlook.
I won't be dropping any of my interests - okay, maybe my quest to an advanced degree in the social sciences - but it does make what I have to hear and experience all the more frustrating.
For example, urban transportation geeks tend to salivate at high-speed rails (I sorta as well), but I don't go about complaining in a way that makes the US like some underdeveloped country (it's not, besides Japan it's the most technologically advanced for its size). I'd love a high-speed rail system connecting Midwestern cities like Milwaukee, Madison, Chicago, Champaign-Urbana metro, Peoria, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Detroit, Louisville, Cincinnati, Columbus and Pittsburgh. The geeks that go about it tend to direct their anger at two sets of people: the first being the car drivers (Hello, LA!) and the second are politicians who are in bed with business men. They, the geeks, never bring up costs, never bring up the positives in being in debt nor do they ever bring up job replacements for those who make a living manufacturing cars (ironic because almost all car manufacturers are overseas -- globalization of American interests have created jobs, European interests? Not so much.). "Feel-good" types don't understand how an economic system works, or if they do they are of the Keynesian bent. People who focus on urban planning are morons at math and finance. It's like their brain rejects it because it makes things too complicated and in the end finances are dream killers.
Let me count.
1. urban planning
2. academia (sociology, education)
3. the arts (movies, theater, books/writing, photography, fashion)
4. non-profits focusing on disadvantage youth
5. just learned that CSO clarinetist, John Bruce Yeh, is a social moron aka social "progressive."
Okay, not really #5. But seriously, the man tweets are nothing about music; instead it's being about pro-choice and how the rainbow flag makes his eyes like "lasers."
As an ex-liberal, I have gained interests in -
1. guns and gun-rights
2. showed new interest in my faith and have embraced traditionalism
3. feel no contempt for the suburbs and country, small town life in spite of me being an urbanite for most of his life
4. I like the South and the Midwest
Neither "progressive" nor "conservative" interest that is politically flavorless -
1. camping
2. ...
3.
That's it for neutrality. Well, unless you count all those granola munchers then I guess it can tilt towards modernism. Cooking seems like a 50/50 fight. We got your vegan, gluten-free camp and your carnivores. The only thing annoying at first about political cooking is the MGO and organic talk. Once you get over that and just buy the chicken that's available it's all about the cookin'.
Upon reflection, it's really where I'm located that adds to the annoyance. I live in one of the most populated US cities, and my original political stance, one that is of a modern liberal color, has made me very aware and familiar with such a mentality and outlook.
I won't be dropping any of my interests - okay, maybe my quest to an advanced degree in the social sciences - but it does make what I have to hear and experience all the more frustrating.
For example, urban transportation geeks tend to salivate at high-speed rails (I sorta as well), but I don't go about complaining in a way that makes the US like some underdeveloped country (it's not, besides Japan it's the most technologically advanced for its size). I'd love a high-speed rail system connecting Midwestern cities like Milwaukee, Madison, Chicago, Champaign-Urbana metro, Peoria, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Detroit, Louisville, Cincinnati, Columbus and Pittsburgh. The geeks that go about it tend to direct their anger at two sets of people: the first being the car drivers (Hello, LA!) and the second are politicians who are in bed with business men. They, the geeks, never bring up costs, never bring up the positives in being in debt nor do they ever bring up job replacements for those who make a living manufacturing cars (ironic because almost all car manufacturers are overseas -- globalization of American interests have created jobs, European interests? Not so much.). "Feel-good" types don't understand how an economic system works, or if they do they are of the Keynesian bent. People who focus on urban planning are morons at math and finance. It's like their brain rejects it because it makes things too complicated and in the end finances are dream killers.
Monday, September 7, 2015
If I were President of my Catholic high school
This would be my proposed curriculum. The academic schedule will run on a semester system. Teaching methods, depending the subject, will be either the Socratic Method with usage of the Harkness table or the traditional form of desks in columns. Certain classes will meet three times a week (1 hr 15 min.), others four (45 min.); the four-a-week classes will have Wednesday off. This will be for an all-male school.
Math & Science
Algebra
Algebra II
Geometry
Pre-Calculus
Calculus I
Calculus II
Physics
Chemistry
Biology/Genetics
Human Anatomy
English (Great Books program)
History/Government (Great Books implemented)
Early Civilization (Ancient Societies)
Modern Civilization (rise of the modern world)
American History
Western European History I (England, Ireland, Spain, France & Germany)
Eastern European History II (Russia)
US Government
Local & State Government
City & State History
US Military History
Business/Economics
Basic Accounting (elective)
Basic Financial Management (with talks about investment & banking)
Macroecnomics (year long)
Entrepreneurship (junior/senior)
Religion (year long)
Religion I (History of the Roman Catholic Church + Understanding the Extraordinary Form)
Religion II (Scripture Interpretation + Bible Versions)
Religion III (Philosophy of the Sacraments)
Religion IV (St. Thomas Aquinas Metaphysics)
Ethics & Morality
Communications
Speech I (meets once a week for 1hr 15min.) - year long
Speech II (meets once a week for 1hr 15min.) - year long
Into to Radio/Broadcasting/Creative Media (elective)
Audio/Video Production (elective, prereq Intro to R/B/C)
Broadcast Ethics (elective)
Broadcast Performance (elective)
Foreign Language (since I live in a heavy Polish area, Polish is included)
French I-IV
Spanish I-IV
Polish I-IV
Latin I, II
Visual & Performing Arts (Western focus)
Art History I (early movements)
Art History II (modern movements)
Sculpture
Intro to Drawing & Painting (year long)
Intermediate Drawing & Painting (year long)
Advance Drawing & Painting (year long)
Men's Fashion (elective)
Photography I (year long)
Photography II (year long)
Band (concert & symphonic)
Jazz Band
Marching Band
Guitar I (elective)
Intermediate Guitar (elective)
Piano I (elective)
Intermediate Piano (elective)
Men's Glee Club
Drama/Film (junior/senior)
Computer Science
History of Technology (computers, phones, social media)
Coding (HTML, CSS, Javascript) - year long
Programming (PHP, Python, C++, SQL) - year long
Graphic Design (Adobe)
Physical Education
Nutrition I + workout (year long)
Nutrition II + workout (year long)
Weightlifting I
Weightlifting II
Vocational
Car Mechanics
Bicycle Mechanics (elective)
Woodwork (elective)
Apprentice Carpentry (elective)
Apprentice Electrician (elective)
Apprentice Plumbing (elective)
Apprentice Welding (elective)
Besides athletics, the following will enrich the student life.
Student Activites (these are 'core' activities; any student wanting to create a special interest group must petition & be approved by Activity Committee)
Speech & Debate
Model UN
Scholastic Bowl
Mathletes
Gardening Club
Broadcasting Club
Computer Building Club
Digital Start-up Club
Prayer Group
Catholics for Life
Baby Politicians
Classics Club
Chess Club
Film Club
Big Brother
WYSE
Latin Club
Graffiti Club
Slam Poetry
B-boying
Anime Club
Finance Club
Gun & Ammo Club
Publications
Student Newspaper (focusing on education trends, local, city & state level politics)
Literary Magazine (poetry & short stories)
Yearbook
Leadership
Student Government
Class Government
Activity Committee
Survivor
leadership talks from staff, Sisters, Brothers, priests and community leaders
Spirituality
monthly masses (Extraordinary Form)
junior/senior retreat (Kairos)
Service
summer service trips to New Orleans, Appalachians
soup kitchen - year long
food & clothing drives - year long
tutoring to young children
Athletics
Baseball
Basketball
Football
Soccer
Track & Field
Cross-Country
Tennis
Wrestling
Hockey
Bowling
Lacrosse
Golf
Rugby
School Traditions
Rucksack Run for Charity
Mother/Son Dinner Dance
Multicultural Week
Awards Night
Black & Gold Games (school colors are black and gold)
Other
Mother's Club
Father's Club
Religious Ministry
The high school I went to were associated with Edmund Rice's Christian Brothers. Since I graduated they have moved off campus (for reasons I do not know) and have dwindled in numbers. I do not believe they have had any new discerning souls. If I ever become president of my high school I'd petition for Brothers to come and to teach - that is if teaching is their apostolate, and if they're competent enough to execute the given curriculum.
If I cannot do this or if there aren't any interests from the Brothers themselves then I'd need to hire a new set of religious order, therefore breaking the Irish connection between the order and the school's saint by which it was named after, with an order dedicated to teaching preparatory and AP classes, and service to the poor. What's sad is the school is a relatively young private school when compared to others since it opened in the late 1950s, just a few years before the Sexual Revolution. When I walked through its doors as a student, the number of Brothers that worked in the school were only a handful, and many of them today are retired if not dead.
Student population
Ideally I would like the total student population to be no larger than 1,400 yet no small than 1,200. A class of 350 students per year seems like the right amount - it was approximately the size I graduated with.
Campus layout
It would resemble a small liberal arts school, but unlike a typical layout of that kind it would be more compact. I'd combine the following disciplines together.
Building 1: Foreign Language, History/Government, Business/Economics
Building 2: Science/Math, Computer Science, Religion
Building 3: English, Communications, Visual & Performing Arts
Building 4: Vocational, Gym, Cafeteria
Building 5: Library, The Forum
Building 6: Admissions, Financial Aide, Gifts & Fundraising, Institution Development, Academic/Personal/College Counseling
Building 7: Brothers' living quarters
Building 8: Chapel
Buildings 1-6 will surround the chapel and Brothers' living quarters making the layout into a wagon wheel.
Issues I have with my high school
The new president is a West Point graduate who received his MBA from a university not known for its MBA program. He took over the job in the summer of 2012. I do not have issues with his educational credentials. The issues I have is his vision for the school. Now, I haven't taken much interest in my high school since I graduated, which was a handful of years ago, and only did its existence inspired me to write this post after the retirement of the school's band director.
Apparently, from fellow graduates that the high school has "improved" since the he came on board. Good. What does this "good" actually mean? Better sports programs? Has the school graduated more students on full athletic scholarships before? TImproved ACT scores overall? Are new teachers replacing our legendary ones and continuing their activities (e.g. English teacher ran a spectacular drama course that was historical/comparative in nature; another English teacher did the senior honors class as a mixture of logic and literature analysis; and a History teacher taught a course on our city's history)? This what made my experience unique, and when I talked about this to my peers in college they expressed awe and wished they had that type of teacher available to them. Mind you, when I had these teachers they were about a few years away from retiring.
The answers to these questions remain open.
1. Music is a secondary thought. Since the school's band has shrunken to embarrassing low numbers since I've graduated, aided with the retirement of the school's band director this year, the organization was moved out from its original room (from which it has occupied at school's conception) and into a classroom -- without any sound proofing. Where has the old band equipment gone? That remains a mystery to me. We had a "cage" housing about 100 instruments and a small cramped storage space holding sousaphones and the battery. I do not know if these instruments are still there, or if they have been donated somewhere else to make room for whatever. The original band room has now been renovated to be a wrestling room.
2. 16 AP courses are offered through the high school. Great. Who's teaching them? Do they earn any AP awards? The school hasn't mentioned any of this, just the following.
3. The school's site says the NHS's (National Honor Society) average ACT score is 28. So what. What about the average ACT score overall. Publish both, not just the average of the NHS. It makes it seem like you're trying to put your best foot forward when it's obvious you're selling out the rest of the senior class not in NHS.
4. Non-existent college/university matriculation list. Most of the top privates in the northeast, and the very top Catholic high school in my city (which isn't my school), have a page solely dedicated to where their seniors, and the few previous classes, matriculate to. My school has a pathetic video of the president saying "our students are accepted into the nation's most prestigious universities and colleges .... " Again, so what. Almost every high school within a 20 mile radius can say the same thing. I found no page dedicated to a matriculation list and absolutely zero information on how college counseling is done with rising juniors and seniors set on attending college. I hate to bring up top private high schools, but they got this all written on their site. They got this aspect covered like bees on honey.
5. When I visited the school, it showcased brand new flooring - both in the main foyer and in the gym. Before the new president came, the lockers were expanded to make them larger by the then-new principal. All very nice features. The sports fields also have been upgraded to a certain degree. Good for the sports. What about the academics?
6. Since the move of the Christian Brothers off-campus it seems their presence at the school is non-existent. Only did I bump into one at the local pizza parlor recently. He was picking up an order and heading back to the house where the Brothers were living. I'm not sure if the new president has done anything to breath new life into the Brothers' presence at the school, or if he even cares about this very important aspect of the school's identity. Saying "We carry on the tradition of the Edmund Rice's Christian Brothers blah blah blah" carries so much weight when their presence is near non-existent. The presence of Brothers teaching courses helped make my experience memorable.
7. My school is not immune the very trendy STEM program (this is the knee-jerk reaction from the public education system when hearing that the US lags far behind in worldwide science & math competitions).
Since my high school's official motto is "Where Leadership Begins" the president has turned that STEM acronym into "StL STEM", which stands for Leadership, Science, Technology, English (not engineering in this case) & Math. He has created a schedule were science and math are given more class time. This is no surprise since (A) he majored in System Engineering at West Point and (B) STEM is the new "it" program besides the 1:1 iPad dance which several schools in the archdiocese have adopted. Which me brings to -
8. The "Leadership Center." This is absolutely the most dearest thing to my school. It's a bit odd, really, the constant touting of it. Its implementation with STEM is "what makes the school unique," says the president. No, not really. Our "sister" school has also implemented STEM as well as many other schools across the country. The "sister" school as of late has seen its numbers drop drastically, not because of the STEM program, but of other reasons being. STEM isn't the grand attraction like it's advertised, nor is it a curriculum booster.
Even with the combination of the "Leadership" component it still doesn't make it a novelty. (And with that link I just exposed where I went to high school.)
Since the president is a West Point graduate and has served in the Army for till his discharge, he has adopted the Army Values in the already existing "Leadership" motto. It's a convenient situation, and I think it's actually a good idea (finally, a point to the president) to do such a thing. The school, as I reflect back on my experience and on the motto "Where Leadership Begins" naturally lends itself to this army-like mentality. Now, how he implements the Army Values is an entire thing besides talk.
What drives me to disdain this program is that it, after all its years in existence, seems to be a glorified team-building program with little to show. As it grew, and as the Brothers' numbers dwindled and eventually moved out, the then-head of the program has used the living quarters as the program's own building. The school has an entire building dedicated to "leadership." It definitely cost money to renovate and make
suitable as a two story conference building, so I'm interested if they reap any monetary profits from hosting conferences e.g. how many requested it to hold a conference. I do not know what program based on "leadership" could possibly demand a two story building. It's not like the bizarre Gender Queer Studies where at least people pay money to take its courses in order to be an "educated" and "open-minded" individual. I don't even think any classes, for credit, are held in this Center.
What's equally maddening is how the program got started. An alumnus who was a businessman (not a prominent one, say, like Donald Trump or Samuel Cathy - at least I never heard of this alumnus) saw that other businesses were need of good leaders, and that he was aware of colleges and universities starting their own leadership programs to teach leadership skills, so he contacted the high school in order for them to "get ahead of the curve." What followed was the most useless and shallow investment the school has ever directed its efforts in. Hence, the "Leadership Program" was born. In the words of the school's blog itself about this startup, "[the program gives] students a distinct advantage over other high school students by providing them the skills, confidence and knowledge of effective leaders."
An empty building that once housed the school's Christian Brothers became "Leadership Center." Let me be blunt: it's nothing but a Hilton Conference room in high school form. This center is one of the main driving points in selling the school and the people involved seriously think it makes the school unique, offering the acquired leadership skills to grammar schools and other high schools. Because every school wants to do "trust games."
What do I take away from this assessment?
It's a unique fact. Ever since the birth of the this "leadership" program, back in 2001, the school has not even produced more than five students going to military academies when compared to its peers. There were a number of young men one year ahead of me that entered the military as enlisted who weren't even in the program.
Unless more students are seeking out the military academies in record number due to this "unique" aspect, or that the school is gaining mad dough by offering the Center as a place to rent, I think "Leadership Center" needs to retire. The program has been alive almost 16 years and it hasn't produced anything that warrants its existence in its current form. That building could've been used for something else that would've beefed up the school's curriculum.
Math & Science
Algebra
Algebra II
Geometry
Pre-Calculus
Calculus I
Calculus II
Physics
Chemistry
Biology/Genetics
Human Anatomy
English (Great Books program)
- basic grammar & analysis summer course prior first semester for freshmen & transfers
- organization of thoughts in essay/research form
- upper level courses dedicated to logic combined with literature analysis
- senior "thesis" demonstrating mastery of grammar, vetting of first/secondary sources and thought organization
History/Government (Great Books implemented)
Early Civilization (Ancient Societies)
Modern Civilization (rise of the modern world)
American History
Western European History I (England, Ireland, Spain, France & Germany)
Eastern European History II (Russia)
US Government
Local & State Government
City & State History
US Military History
Business/Economics
Basic Accounting (elective)
Basic Financial Management (with talks about investment & banking)
Macroecnomics (year long)
Entrepreneurship (junior/senior)
Religion (year long)
Religion I (History of the Roman Catholic Church + Understanding the Extraordinary Form)
Religion II (Scripture Interpretation + Bible Versions)
Religion III (Philosophy of the Sacraments)
Religion IV (St. Thomas Aquinas Metaphysics)
Ethics & Morality
Communications
Speech I (meets once a week for 1hr 15min.) - year long
Speech II (meets once a week for 1hr 15min.) - year long
Into to Radio/Broadcasting/Creative Media (elective)
Audio/Video Production (elective, prereq Intro to R/B/C)
Broadcast Ethics (elective)
Broadcast Performance (elective)
Foreign Language (since I live in a heavy Polish area, Polish is included)
French I-IV
Spanish I-IV
Polish I-IV
Latin I, II
Visual & Performing Arts (Western focus)
Art History I (early movements)
Art History II (modern movements)
Sculpture
Intro to Drawing & Painting (year long)
Intermediate Drawing & Painting (year long)
Advance Drawing & Painting (year long)
Men's Fashion (elective)
Photography I (year long)
Photography II (year long)
Band (concert & symphonic)
Jazz Band
Marching Band
Guitar I (elective)
Intermediate Guitar (elective)
Piano I (elective)
Intermediate Piano (elective)
Men's Glee Club
Drama/Film (junior/senior)
Computer Science
History of Technology (computers, phones, social media)
Coding (HTML, CSS, Javascript) - year long
Programming (PHP, Python, C++, SQL) - year long
Graphic Design (Adobe)
Physical Education
Nutrition I + workout (year long)
Nutrition II + workout (year long)
Weightlifting I
Weightlifting II
Vocational
Car Mechanics
Bicycle Mechanics (elective)
Woodwork (elective)
Apprentice Carpentry (elective)
Apprentice Electrician (elective)
Apprentice Plumbing (elective)
Apprentice Welding (elective)
Besides athletics, the following will enrich the student life.
Student Activites (these are 'core' activities; any student wanting to create a special interest group must petition & be approved by Activity Committee)
Speech & Debate
Model UN
Scholastic Bowl
Mathletes
Gardening Club
Broadcasting Club
Computer Building Club
Digital Start-up Club
Prayer Group
Catholics for Life
Baby Politicians
Classics Club
Chess Club
Film Club
Big Brother
WYSE
Latin Club
Graffiti Club
Slam Poetry
B-boying
Anime Club
Finance Club
Gun & Ammo Club
Publications
Student Newspaper (focusing on education trends, local, city & state level politics)
Literary Magazine (poetry & short stories)
Yearbook
Leadership
Student Government
Class Government
Activity Committee
Survivor
leadership talks from staff, Sisters, Brothers, priests and community leaders
Spirituality
monthly masses (Extraordinary Form)
junior/senior retreat (Kairos)
Service
summer service trips to New Orleans, Appalachians
soup kitchen - year long
food & clothing drives - year long
tutoring to young children
Athletics
Baseball
Basketball
Football
Soccer
Track & Field
Cross-Country
Tennis
Wrestling
Hockey
Bowling
Lacrosse
Golf
Rugby
School Traditions
Rucksack Run for Charity
Mother/Son Dinner Dance
Multicultural Week
Awards Night
Black & Gold Games (school colors are black and gold)
Other
Mother's Club
Father's Club
Religious Ministry
The high school I went to were associated with Edmund Rice's Christian Brothers. Since I graduated they have moved off campus (for reasons I do not know) and have dwindled in numbers. I do not believe they have had any new discerning souls. If I ever become president of my high school I'd petition for Brothers to come and to teach - that is if teaching is their apostolate, and if they're competent enough to execute the given curriculum.
If I cannot do this or if there aren't any interests from the Brothers themselves then I'd need to hire a new set of religious order, therefore breaking the Irish connection between the order and the school's saint by which it was named after, with an order dedicated to teaching preparatory and AP classes, and service to the poor. What's sad is the school is a relatively young private school when compared to others since it opened in the late 1950s, just a few years before the Sexual Revolution. When I walked through its doors as a student, the number of Brothers that worked in the school were only a handful, and many of them today are retired if not dead.
Student population
Ideally I would like the total student population to be no larger than 1,400 yet no small than 1,200. A class of 350 students per year seems like the right amount - it was approximately the size I graduated with.
Campus layout
It would resemble a small liberal arts school, but unlike a typical layout of that kind it would be more compact. I'd combine the following disciplines together.
Building 1: Foreign Language, History/Government, Business/Economics
Building 2: Science/Math, Computer Science, Religion
Building 3: English, Communications, Visual & Performing Arts
Building 4: Vocational, Gym, Cafeteria
Building 5: Library, The Forum
Building 6: Admissions, Financial Aide, Gifts & Fundraising, Institution Development, Academic/Personal/College Counseling
Building 7: Brothers' living quarters
Building 8: Chapel
Buildings 1-6 will surround the chapel and Brothers' living quarters making the layout into a wagon wheel.
Issues I have with my high school
The new president is a West Point graduate who received his MBA from a university not known for its MBA program. He took over the job in the summer of 2012. I do not have issues with his educational credentials. The issues I have is his vision for the school. Now, I haven't taken much interest in my high school since I graduated, which was a handful of years ago, and only did its existence inspired me to write this post after the retirement of the school's band director.
Apparently, from fellow graduates that the high school has "improved" since the he came on board. Good. What does this "good" actually mean? Better sports programs? Has the school graduated more students on full athletic scholarships before? TImproved ACT scores overall? Are new teachers replacing our legendary ones and continuing their activities (e.g. English teacher ran a spectacular drama course that was historical/comparative in nature; another English teacher did the senior honors class as a mixture of logic and literature analysis; and a History teacher taught a course on our city's history)? This what made my experience unique, and when I talked about this to my peers in college they expressed awe and wished they had that type of teacher available to them. Mind you, when I had these teachers they were about a few years away from retiring.
The answers to these questions remain open.
1. Music is a secondary thought. Since the school's band has shrunken to embarrassing low numbers since I've graduated, aided with the retirement of the school's band director this year, the organization was moved out from its original room (from which it has occupied at school's conception) and into a classroom -- without any sound proofing. Where has the old band equipment gone? That remains a mystery to me. We had a "cage" housing about 100 instruments and a small cramped storage space holding sousaphones and the battery. I do not know if these instruments are still there, or if they have been donated somewhere else to make room for whatever. The original band room has now been renovated to be a wrestling room.
2. 16 AP courses are offered through the high school. Great. Who's teaching them? Do they earn any AP awards? The school hasn't mentioned any of this, just the following.
3. The school's site says the NHS's (National Honor Society) average ACT score is 28. So what. What about the average ACT score overall. Publish both, not just the average of the NHS. It makes it seem like you're trying to put your best foot forward when it's obvious you're selling out the rest of the senior class not in NHS.
4. Non-existent college/university matriculation list. Most of the top privates in the northeast, and the very top Catholic high school in my city (which isn't my school), have a page solely dedicated to where their seniors, and the few previous classes, matriculate to. My school has a pathetic video of the president saying "our students are accepted into the nation's most prestigious universities and colleges .... " Again, so what. Almost every high school within a 20 mile radius can say the same thing. I found no page dedicated to a matriculation list and absolutely zero information on how college counseling is done with rising juniors and seniors set on attending college. I hate to bring up top private high schools, but they got this all written on their site. They got this aspect covered like bees on honey.
5. When I visited the school, it showcased brand new flooring - both in the main foyer and in the gym. Before the new president came, the lockers were expanded to make them larger by the then-new principal. All very nice features. The sports fields also have been upgraded to a certain degree. Good for the sports. What about the academics?
6. Since the move of the Christian Brothers off-campus it seems their presence at the school is non-existent. Only did I bump into one at the local pizza parlor recently. He was picking up an order and heading back to the house where the Brothers were living. I'm not sure if the new president has done anything to breath new life into the Brothers' presence at the school, or if he even cares about this very important aspect of the school's identity. Saying "We carry on the tradition of the Edmund Rice's Christian Brothers blah blah blah" carries so much weight when their presence is near non-existent. The presence of Brothers teaching courses helped make my experience memorable.
7. My school is not immune the very trendy STEM program (this is the knee-jerk reaction from the public education system when hearing that the US lags far behind in worldwide science & math competitions).
Since my high school's official motto is "Where Leadership Begins" the president has turned that STEM acronym into "StL STEM", which stands for Leadership, Science, Technology, English (not engineering in this case) & Math. He has created a schedule were science and math are given more class time. This is no surprise since (A) he majored in System Engineering at West Point and (B) STEM is the new "it" program besides the 1:1 iPad dance which several schools in the archdiocese have adopted. Which me brings to -
8. The "Leadership Center." This is absolutely the most dearest thing to my school. It's a bit odd, really, the constant touting of it. Its implementation with STEM is "what makes the school unique," says the president. No, not really. Our "sister" school has also implemented STEM as well as many other schools across the country. The "sister" school as of late has seen its numbers drop drastically, not because of the STEM program, but of other reasons being. STEM isn't the grand attraction like it's advertised, nor is it a curriculum booster.
Even with the combination of the "Leadership" component it still doesn't make it a novelty. (And with that link I just exposed where I went to high school.)
Since the president is a West Point graduate and has served in the Army for till his discharge, he has adopted the Army Values in the already existing "Leadership" motto. It's a convenient situation, and I think it's actually a good idea (finally, a point to the president) to do such a thing. The school, as I reflect back on my experience and on the motto "Where Leadership Begins" naturally lends itself to this army-like mentality. Now, how he implements the Army Values is an entire thing besides talk.
What drives me to disdain this program is that it, after all its years in existence, seems to be a glorified team-building program with little to show. As it grew, and as the Brothers' numbers dwindled and eventually moved out, the then-head of the program has used the living quarters as the program's own building. The school has an entire building dedicated to "leadership." It definitely cost money to renovate and make
suitable as a two story conference building, so I'm interested if they reap any monetary profits from hosting conferences e.g. how many requested it to hold a conference. I do not know what program based on "leadership" could possibly demand a two story building. It's not like the bizarre Gender Queer Studies where at least people pay money to take its courses in order to be an "educated" and "open-minded" individual. I don't even think any classes, for credit, are held in this Center.
What's equally maddening is how the program got started. An alumnus who was a businessman (not a prominent one, say, like Donald Trump or Samuel Cathy - at least I never heard of this alumnus) saw that other businesses were need of good leaders, and that he was aware of colleges and universities starting their own leadership programs to teach leadership skills, so he contacted the high school in order for them to "get ahead of the curve." What followed was the most useless and shallow investment the school has ever directed its efforts in. Hence, the "Leadership Program" was born. In the words of the school's blog itself about this startup, "[the program gives] students a distinct advantage over other high school students by providing them the skills, confidence and knowledge of effective leaders."
An empty building that once housed the school's Christian Brothers became "Leadership Center." Let me be blunt: it's nothing but a Hilton Conference room in high school form. This center is one of the main driving points in selling the school and the people involved seriously think it makes the school unique, offering the acquired leadership skills to grammar schools and other high schools. Because every school wants to do "trust games."
What do I take away from this assessment?
It's a unique fact. Ever since the birth of the this "leadership" program, back in 2001, the school has not even produced more than five students going to military academies when compared to its peers. There were a number of young men one year ahead of me that entered the military as enlisted who weren't even in the program.
Unless more students are seeking out the military academies in record number due to this "unique" aspect, or that the school is gaining mad dough by offering the Center as a place to rent, I think "Leadership Center" needs to retire. The program has been alive almost 16 years and it hasn't produced anything that warrants its existence in its current form. That building could've been used for something else that would've beefed up the school's curriculum.
Friday, September 4, 2015
Ban machetes, if not stricter background checks.
Machete attack.
According to the AP article -
According to the AP article -
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — Officials say a man with a machete injured two people during an attack in a wooded area of the University of Arkansas campus.
University spokesman Steve Voorhies says the attack happened around 7:15 Thursday night. He says no one involved is believed to be a student and campus operations weren't affected. One of the victims was in critical condition.
University police Capt. Matt Mills says the suspect was also injured in the incident. He was taken to a hospital and has since been arrested.
Mills said police were collecting evidence at the scene and conducting interviews at the hospital late Thursday. He says it isn't immediately clear what prompted the attack. No identities were released.
Is it a coincidence that the spokesman's last name is Voorhies? Though the spelling of the horror character, Jason Voorhees, is different I can't help but think aloud, "That's a bit creepy."
Voorhies says the attack happened in the same area as a homicide earlier this year.
New links.
New links added.
Reddit's sub-forum TumblrInAction.
Showing the stupidity of SJWs, feminazis, leftists (modern day liberals) and the tears of fragile psyches.
A big "Thanks!" to Michelle Malkin, who describes herself as "little brown woman with a big mouth," on her twitter profile for Twitchy.
Twitchy stops the "he-said-she-said" telephone game when it comes to all things politics, and aids any wannabe journalist (and real ones) for the actually proof of "He really said this. Here's the proof." It captures tweets and twitter conversations before they are deleted for quality control, and it exposes the bias and contempt of non-conservatives. Free speech is amazing. The late-Andrew Breitbart would be proud.
Reddit's sub-forum TumblrInAction.
Showing the stupidity of SJWs, feminazis, leftists (modern day liberals) and the tears of fragile psyches.
A big "Thanks!" to Michelle Malkin, who describes herself as "little brown woman with a big mouth," on her twitter profile for Twitchy.
Twitchy stops the "he-said-she-said" telephone game when it comes to all things politics, and aids any wannabe journalist (and real ones) for the actually proof of "He really said this. Here's the proof." It captures tweets and twitter conversations before they are deleted for quality control, and it exposes the bias and contempt of non-conservatives. Free speech is amazing. The late-Andrew Breitbart would be proud.
I don't need it, so why do you?
As I noted in previous posts, I am not a believer in that the LGBT suicidal rate is due to society's marginalization of such a demographic, at least in the United States. When you need a project like The Trevor Project to prevent LGBTQ(uesting) suicides then I think it's mainly due to the fragile psychological makeup that resides in the minds of those who are not 100% straight than the supposed backwards, bigoted and hateful society that's accused of pushing to put on a sad face and putting a plastic bag over their head.. I mean, you don't have blacks having their own free hot-line to call if they experience any direct or perceived racism. Nope. Not that I'm aware of any hot-line.
When you need to film your "coming out" to your parents and post it on youtube, then that's a huge sign that you're emotionally and psychologically fragile. When you cry "coming out" to your parents that's a huge sign that your sexual orientation isn't "normal." Parents don't do any of them - their kids and society at large - a favor when they support their children's same-sex relationship.
I don't think I'm being insensitive. I'm just really tired of the LGBT and their supporters puffin out their chest like they just cleared a 20 ft height pole vault jump when they walk these types of red carpets.
Thanks Chris Colfer. I'm Asian. When I see another Asian in my mostly white neighborhood I say quietly to myself, "I am not alone," as small droplets of tears run down my cheeks.
Look, I support such non-profits but in no ways would I walk the red carpet like I'm fighting some kind of bigotry. I just don't support the approach and tone. I would walk the red carpet in support to curb suicides. Because suicide, for whatever reason, ain't cool. Oh, and to get same-sex attraction back in the APA as a disorder.
The whole "It Gets Betters" organization (which is also its slogan) and "You are not alone" slogan, as I reflect on the nature and tone of each, is just filled with self-righteousness. I would loathe to be in such at an event hearing speaker after speaker talk rail about "being strong" and shit like that. Many of these events - and I say this after talking to people who attend - are just events to inject a high dose of "Oh god! Oh god! My energy is up! It's gay all day!" I suppose the end justify the means. Whatever it takes for you to not cut off the oxygen to your brain or leap off a building crushing vital bones and spilling intestines on the concrete below.
Note: Apparently if a girl wears a snapback there's a good chance she isn't straight as said by these two girls. If true, that sucks. I think girls look mighty cute in snapbacks (not all, of course). It's a signal to other women who may not be straight as an invitation to "come hither," sorta like how men wear a gold chain around their neck to tell women they're available or when women wear a gold ankle bracelet to signify the same thing.This doesn't account for every person who wears a bracelet - some just wear it as jewelry without any sexual meaning, but the "availability" talk is the "heard it through the grapevine" working.
When you need to film your "coming out" to your parents and post it on youtube, then that's a huge sign that you're emotionally and psychologically fragile. When you cry "coming out" to your parents that's a huge sign that your sexual orientation isn't "normal." Parents don't do any of them - their kids and society at large - a favor when they support their children's same-sex relationship.
I don't think I'm being insensitive. I'm just really tired of the LGBT and their supporters puffin out their chest like they just cleared a 20 ft height pole vault jump when they walk these types of red carpets.
Thanks Chris Colfer. I'm Asian. When I see another Asian in my mostly white neighborhood I say quietly to myself, "I am not alone," as small droplets of tears run down my cheeks.
Look, I support such non-profits but in no ways would I walk the red carpet like I'm fighting some kind of bigotry. I just don't support the approach and tone. I would walk the red carpet in support to curb suicides. Because suicide, for whatever reason, ain't cool. Oh, and to get same-sex attraction back in the APA as a disorder.
The whole "It Gets Betters" organization (which is also its slogan) and "You are not alone" slogan, as I reflect on the nature and tone of each, is just filled with self-righteousness. I would loathe to be in such at an event hearing speaker after speaker talk rail about "being strong" and shit like that. Many of these events - and I say this after talking to people who attend - are just events to inject a high dose of "Oh god! Oh god! My energy is up! It's gay all day!" I suppose the end justify the means. Whatever it takes for you to not cut off the oxygen to your brain or leap off a building crushing vital bones and spilling intestines on the concrete below.
Note: Apparently if a girl wears a snapback there's a good chance she isn't straight as said by these two girls. If true, that sucks. I think girls look mighty cute in snapbacks (not all, of course). It's a signal to other women who may not be straight as an invitation to "come hither," sorta like how men wear a gold chain around their neck to tell women they're available or when women wear a gold ankle bracelet to signify the same thing.This doesn't account for every person who wears a bracelet - some just wear it as jewelry without any sexual meaning, but the "availability" talk is the "heard it through the grapevine" working.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Welcome to tumblr. The Land of Freaks and ... More Freaks.
Let's presume this person is a woman aka has a real vagina and breasts, no matter how flat chested. She's a lesbian who has no sexual drive, hence the "asexual" description. I'll also presume she's "white" because she doesn't mention anything about race, just what sex she romantically likes and that her libido is practically dead. Gender? Well, if the questions marks are suppose to say, "What's gender? A social construct?" or "I don't subscribe to any," but whatever it meant it's pretty much par for the course with this type of being. Given the "INTF" from the Myers-Briggs personality test, and her interests she's the vagina version of a pasty pimple face, totally-sucks-at-sports, gamer.
I suppose this is a good thing. Her ilk is basically given the middle finger by Darwin. "Sorry, bitch, but you're practically useless unless you build shit and/or manage a company. Your ovaries are a waste."
I have a tumblr (see: sidebar). If I were to follow this sexual identity politics as user "Ode to Abigail" did, I'd write this.
- he/him is fine
- likes ladies
- libido is working properly aka I dream of what my future wife's children will look like once we consummate our relationship
- gender??? I'm a guy. I don't cross-dress. I'm not limp wristed.
- i talk when i need to, move when i need to, achieve what I need to achieve in order to be awesome
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
There are some stupid Catholics out there.
"I think having priests being allowed to marry is good. It says nothing in the Bible that they cannot marry. Go and be fruitful and multiply!"
So if a particular act wasn't outright condemned or not allowed, then it's totally A-OKAY to approve of it. I guess that allows nuns and sisters to be married then.
But wait, let's raise the intellectual atmosphere here: how will once celibate secular church authorities finance a family of more than one child? What will become of the vow of poverty? What will become of deacons? Are they just "junior priests"?
You don't know? Well don't seriously suggest it then, you dumbass.
So if a particular act wasn't outright condemned or not allowed, then it's totally A-OKAY to approve of it. I guess that allows nuns and sisters to be married then.
But wait, let's raise the intellectual atmosphere here: how will once celibate secular church authorities finance a family of more than one child? What will become of the vow of poverty? What will become of deacons? Are they just "junior priests"?
You don't know? Well don't seriously suggest it then, you dumbass.
Modern Pathos: Personal Relationships & Economic Social Justice
So how many significant others do you go through like a pair of jeans? I'm just wondering before I (a) make-out with you and (b) have sex with you.
Wait, each past relationship "had a voice"? Interesting. What did you learn from each? Oh, you "grew" as a person and "learned" what you "wanted." What is it that you learned and wanted?
*crickets*
[mouths off some generic, cliche standard devoid of anything transcendent]
I see.
So I head you traveled to India and Ghana and Mexico. How was that? Oh, you learned a lot about yourself and now consider yourself a "global citizen." What did you learn about yourself? Ah, we're all the same and now you're a human rights advocate teaming up with Emma Watson and Angelina Jolie to save women from poverty in Africa. Well, I'm gonna go down to my city's soup kitchen and volunteer while I mentor a young black teenager in the inner city. I'm thinking of donating at least five percent of my income to the charity of my choice even though I make less than 40K a year.
What happened?
I suppose it was her goal, but the evolution of Miley Cyrus - an obnoxious yet somewhat charming young girl to a an even more obnoxious pansexual tongue wagging girl with weird as heck hair styles - is a case that a psychologist should be jumping on like Cyrus getting excited over a penis cake. I just find the transformation outright sad, embarrassing and puke worthy. And it practically out of the blue. This "new me" was most definitely planned - a calculated PR move.
Not surprisingly a number of child entertainers, who have been established well before they were 18, tend to follow the path similar to Cyrus. Now many will say it's "the system" that forces such transformations in a retaliation to the "be a good girl" but I feel that's a cop-out. Rarely does anyone blame parents, the kids turn young adults and the hedonistic and, at best, amoral atmosphere that permeates the entertainment world, especially the movie/film/theater sect.
Not surprisingly a number of child entertainers, who have been established well before they were 18, tend to follow the path similar to Cyrus. Now many will say it's "the system" that forces such transformations in a retaliation to the "be a good girl" but I feel that's a cop-out. Rarely does anyone blame parents, the kids turn young adults and the hedonistic and, at best, amoral atmosphere that permeates the entertainment world, especially the movie/film/theater sect.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
Conservatism dearly needs people who have sophistication – I wouldn’t say the educational pedigree that many on the left have – but it needs to evolve into an urbane image, both inside and out. We sorta have that in some of the current GOP candidates, but The Right needs more and such people need to take over the current GOP party, and for good.
Too long have conservatives wanted to be “left alone” and with this attitude have failed to engage in the world, when need be. And when they do it’s often times awkward and embarrassing. Take a lesson out of the left: infiltrate society’s institutions with the pedigree and slowly gain authority, but given how the American conservatism works it’ll twice as long as the left slogged away when they gained entrance.
September 24th, 2015 at 2:22 pm @ GRA: that’s sort of what conservatism is – the people who want to be left alone and have a life. We have businesses, families, charities, houses, and hobbies that we want to put our time into. What you say about engaging the culture is absolutely true, but it is never going to happen. When things are going badly wrong in the country, we will each do our bit, but we don’t tend to be the indefatigable SJW’s obsessed with fixing everyone else so that the world “finally looks right.”
If we limited the franchise to married people who have raised two children to the age of eight, the Democratic Party would shrink to unimportant size. Those of you here who don’t fit that description fully would likely sign off on it once you saw the results.
Never gonna happen, of course. But it illustrates my point.
September 24th, 2015 at 4:40 pm Also articles like this one makes me think the “not conservative enough” types are low in gray matter.
https://www.conservativereview.com/Commentary/2015/09/7-reasons-voters-are-questioning-fiorinas-outsider-status
@ AVI: True, many are busy in those things you’ve listed. What I don’t see why there isn’t a hard push to fight for elbow room in the cultural institutions I’ve noted. Even the military is bowing down to “equality” and “inclusion” and losing its identity. Not all conservatives have the mentality to run a business and ironically, businesses that become corporations tend to support whatever social issue becomes the flavor of the months (LGBT). So even the land of suits and “bottom-line” are in bed with the social tide.
>>When things are going badly wrong in the country, we will each do our bit,
Too little, too late. If there’s one thing I admire about The Left is their feverish will to “win.” They got a plan and they execute it. Even if they achieve just 80% of their goal, it’s far more than what conservatives have done. Conservatives don’t have that, and if any there’s not enough to go around.
I just see it as immensely pathetic how The Left dominates cultural institutions. It truly is pathetic. If leftism the tide and conservatism is cliff getting pummeled by the tide, causing slow erosion, there’s talk how to fix the erosion but no agency. I don’t households with conservative values encouraging their kids to enter academia if they show an aptitude for such a thing; I don’t see conservative families encouraging their kids t become playwrights or writers in fiction if they show talent in expressing their thoughts on paper. I don’t see conservative families encourage their kids to work in the media, even with all the technology that surrounds their kids. I don’t see any of that. It’s the weird obsession with STEM and business (and business is growing more left every day).
When it comes to education, there seems to be a fundamental difference in philosophy: conservatives see college as job training (STEM) while the left sees it as a cultural pathway to further push whatever agenda. You don’t gain cultural influence through STEM – STEM is behind the scenes. For all the talk about gaining back the culture, conservatives need a new strategy because their aim is aiming at the wrong target. As I said, you fail to engage in academia, arts & entertainment and journalism and you lost half the battle.
“Politics is downstream from culture.” – Andrew Breitbart
You gain a firm footing in culture, you can effectively change the culture – while not being the laughing stock.