What are your strengths? I'm sure you can come up with a few of those.
What are your weaknesses? I'm sure you can come up with a few of those as well.
We are all fairly okay when it comes to analyzing ourselves. Now, look at another person you know. What are their strengths and weaknesses? I'm sure you'll be able to analyze them pretty well.
So, what is the point of this?
The point of this is quite simply. Be sure you can recognize the faults in yourself before you analyze the faults in others. This comes to be an annoying thing to people. The purpose of this experiment is to help people realize they are not perfect before they go and criticize others.
No one is above criticism. Even if you believe you are perfect, believe it or not, you are not. To grow as a person, you must recognize your faults and work on improving those faults.
For instance, assume that Eric is doing something. He is doing a horrible job at it (or just isn't as good as you are). Now, assume that he sees you doing the same job and starts complaining about how you are doing your job. How do you feel?
I'm sure you'd be pretty angry with him. You would probably start criticizing about the many things that he did wrong. In the end, there would be a big fight. The problem here isn't the fact that errors were done on the job. The problem is the failure to recognize fault.
And the fight really heats up when he doesn't recognize or believe that he is doing the job wrong. He could sit there and insist that he knows how to do the job and that you are just incompetent. He failed to recognize his faults, and as a result, he as failed as a worker.
What both people need to do is to recognize the faults they possess with the task to be done. When you recognize the faults you possess, you can better learn to improve upon them. While you may address the faults that exist in your abilities, you will grow to be more competent at the job. Eric, however, still remains the crappy worker as before. Why? Because he didn't recognize the faults existed, and he never worked on them. Therefore, he never grew as a worker.
Now, I'm not a man of religion, but I used to be as a child. I recognize my lack of faith as a fault in my character to some, and I may hope to work on that some day. But one thing I will not do, is be a man of religion. Religion, to me, has a tendency to be faulty. One of the reasons religion can be faulty (and will never change) is because of its tendency to judge. Which, if we want to really think about it, finding faults in others is pretty much the same as judging them. The Bible has a verse about that. In Matthew 7:1-5, it says "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce
you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to
you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not
notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your
brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log
in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye,
and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's
eye."
So, what it says is this. Do not judge others unless you expect to be judged yourself. Eric can not be trying to help you with your problem if he doesn't recognize his own problems. So, I offer this advice, if you are to judge someone else on how they do their job, just be sure that you are excellent at the job yourself.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
The TRUE America
How many people have seen comments along the lines of "This is America, get out!!" And how many of those people have seen those comments directed towards Mexicans (or Latinos for that matter). Yes. Those are comments directed usually towards illegal immigrants. And I understand the issue of illegal immigration (and I am sure I will be expressing my views on that in a later blog post). But this one is for those who believe that this is America... You are wrong.
Let us define America. America is actually the name of what is referred to as a "supercontinent." That is right. A supercontinent is a group of continents that are connected by land. In this case, I am referring to North AMERICA and South AMERICA. That's right. the Americas are two continents. In fact, the United States constitutes a mere 23.27% of America. Blows your mind, doesn't it.
So when did the United States claim stake to America? Let us look at the name of the country. We are the United States OF America. That means the United States belongs to or are part of America. It is NOT the other way around. We are not America of the United States.
So, to tell people that "This is America, we speak English here" is completely ludicrous. There are A LOT of countries within America that do not speak English. The United States does not compose the entirety of America.
And if people want to make the claim that United States is big, then one must consider this. Canada is bigger. Canada makes up approximately 23.66% of the total area of the Americas. So, size has nothing to do with it either.
But what makes us claim stake to "America?" Is it that America appears in the name of our country? Or is it that we as a country feel that we have the right to take what isn't ours to be taking? After all, the United States has a tendency to police the globe and get involved in wars that we have no business participating in. We have a tendency to push English as a global language instead of respecting the rights of other countries to speak how they choose to speak. We for a long time there would push Democracy through out the world when in some countries they prefer Communism. Who are we to dictate the views of the world? We are just 23.27% of America, and we are only 6.59% of total land area in the world. We are a very small part of the world, and we should accept our roles as a part of the world.
Seriously. What's next? The United States of America of Earth? I am just waiting to read a comment that says: "This is Earth... get out!!" Please.
Let us define America. America is actually the name of what is referred to as a "supercontinent." That is right. A supercontinent is a group of continents that are connected by land. In this case, I am referring to North AMERICA and South AMERICA. That's right. the Americas are two continents. In fact, the United States constitutes a mere 23.27% of America. Blows your mind, doesn't it.
So when did the United States claim stake to America? Let us look at the name of the country. We are the United States OF America. That means the United States belongs to or are part of America. It is NOT the other way around. We are not America of the United States.
So, to tell people that "This is America, we speak English here" is completely ludicrous. There are A LOT of countries within America that do not speak English. The United States does not compose the entirety of America.
And if people want to make the claim that United States is big, then one must consider this. Canada is bigger. Canada makes up approximately 23.66% of the total area of the Americas. So, size has nothing to do with it either.
But what makes us claim stake to "America?" Is it that America appears in the name of our country? Or is it that we as a country feel that we have the right to take what isn't ours to be taking? After all, the United States has a tendency to police the globe and get involved in wars that we have no business participating in. We have a tendency to push English as a global language instead of respecting the rights of other countries to speak how they choose to speak. We for a long time there would push Democracy through out the world when in some countries they prefer Communism. Who are we to dictate the views of the world? We are just 23.27% of America, and we are only 6.59% of total land area in the world. We are a very small part of the world, and we should accept our roles as a part of the world.
Seriously. What's next? The United States of America of Earth? I am just waiting to read a comment that says: "This is Earth... get out!!" Please.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Shows on MTV
I'm going to rant about shows on MTV. I'm sure I'm not the only one
who has noticed this... Why do they favor the rich or the preppy??? I
look at every show on there, and they ALL have rich, wealthy people or
just absolutely clueless preppy snobs. Examples include: "Exposed," "My
Super Sweet 16," and "Parental Control."
The majority of the population who watches this crap aren't rich or preppy. They are average college and high school students just growing up and living their life. They are at the age where they are the most insecure about who they are. They are still trying to form their identities
I thought the mission of a television show was to appeal to the most people. Why would shows appeal to a small group of rich, wealthy people?
In my personal opinion, I feel that these shows should feature people from all walks of life. Shows like "Exposed" and "Parental Control" can still be successful with average people, rich people, poor people, etc. Why must they limit themselves to people who obviously have absolutely no clue about the real world.
Does stupidity really sell? I guess it does. Jessica Simpson made "Newlyweds" sell with her stupidity. What happened to originality? What happened to "intelligent programming?" Jerry Springer makes more sense than this. Despite the fact that Jerry Springer is on the complete opposite side of the spectrum, it makes more sense than putting up with shallow people reject people for the smallest reasons. And on top of that, Jerry Springer attempts to teach you something at the end of the show. These preppy shows don't do any of that. All shows like that do is promote eating disorders and create a lack of self respect.
The majority of the population who watches this crap aren't rich or preppy. They are average college and high school students just growing up and living their life. They are at the age where they are the most insecure about who they are. They are still trying to form their identities
I thought the mission of a television show was to appeal to the most people. Why would shows appeal to a small group of rich, wealthy people?
In my personal opinion, I feel that these shows should feature people from all walks of life. Shows like "Exposed" and "Parental Control" can still be successful with average people, rich people, poor people, etc. Why must they limit themselves to people who obviously have absolutely no clue about the real world.
Does stupidity really sell? I guess it does. Jessica Simpson made "Newlyweds" sell with her stupidity. What happened to originality? What happened to "intelligent programming?" Jerry Springer makes more sense than this. Despite the fact that Jerry Springer is on the complete opposite side of the spectrum, it makes more sense than putting up with shallow people reject people for the smallest reasons. And on top of that, Jerry Springer attempts to teach you something at the end of the show. These preppy shows don't do any of that. All shows like that do is promote eating disorders and create a lack of self respect.
The Lunacy of Mother's Day and Father's Day
Every year, we get together to honor our mothers and our fathers.
Honestly, I think that is kind of a joke. First of all, allow me to
explain.
I had posted that Mother's Day and Father's Day should be renamed "Mom's Day" and "Dad's Day." The issue with the world view is that people believe that mom and mother are synonymous. The same can be said with Dad and Father. Let us define the two:
Father - A man in relation to his natural child or children.
Mother - A woman in relation to a child or children to whom she has given birth.
Quite simple. Is it not?
Let us define Mom and Dad:
Dad - One's Father
Mom - One's Mother.
Ok. So, according to a dictionary, they are synonyms. So far, my point doesn't hold merit at all, does it?
However, let's look at it from a different perspective. Let's look at "formality." Mother and father are in their strictest terms... the formal terms you would use to describe your parent. Simple enough. However, how many people actually refer to their mother as their mother. Not many. Most people call her "mom" or "mama" or "mommy." As you see, depending on your relationship to your mother, the term changes. If you don't know her, or don't respect her, then she is no longer really your mom. She's your mother. If you have a good relationship with someone, you tend to be a little less formal, and go with casual terms. Same with your father or your dad. As you develop a kinship or a casual relationship with your father, he becomes your dad. Does this matter?
Yes, it does.
Suppose you have a biological parent out there you have never met. Like, for instance, you were adopted at a young age. You grew up knowing that you were adopted. Would you dare ever consider your adoptive parents your mother or your father? Doubtful. You would never call them your mother or your father. That adoptive woman did NOT give birth to you. She can not be your mother. However, I am sure you may eventually call her "mom." The same applies to the male side of the coin.
Another point here. Suppose your mother got knocked up and the male just fled. He up and left her to fend for herself. Suppose she remarried before the baby was born. Would you call that man who was there to watch you grow up and take care of you your father? Probably not. Not if you knew the truth. But you probably WOULD call him dad. Your father would be the man who knocked up your mother and left the scene. Formal definition must apply here. This also means that while everyone has a mother and father, not everyone has a mom and a dad.
So, from a definitive stand-point. Mother and father are the people who brought you into this world. Who are the people that watch you grow up, take care of you, and raise you? They are your mom and dad, or your mommy and daddy, or even your mama and papa. Doesn't matter. Let's recognize THOSE people. The people who raise you, shelter you, and teach you the way of life. They are the true heroes in all of this.
Thanks for reading,
Feel free to comment. :)
I had posted that Mother's Day and Father's Day should be renamed "Mom's Day" and "Dad's Day." The issue with the world view is that people believe that mom and mother are synonymous. The same can be said with Dad and Father. Let us define the two:
Father - A man in relation to his natural child or children.
Mother - A woman in relation to a child or children to whom she has given birth.
Quite simple. Is it not?
Let us define Mom and Dad:
Dad - One's Father
Mom - One's Mother.
Ok. So, according to a dictionary, they are synonyms. So far, my point doesn't hold merit at all, does it?
However, let's look at it from a different perspective. Let's look at "formality." Mother and father are in their strictest terms... the formal terms you would use to describe your parent. Simple enough. However, how many people actually refer to their mother as their mother. Not many. Most people call her "mom" or "mama" or "mommy." As you see, depending on your relationship to your mother, the term changes. If you don't know her, or don't respect her, then she is no longer really your mom. She's your mother. If you have a good relationship with someone, you tend to be a little less formal, and go with casual terms. Same with your father or your dad. As you develop a kinship or a casual relationship with your father, he becomes your dad. Does this matter?
Yes, it does.
Suppose you have a biological parent out there you have never met. Like, for instance, you were adopted at a young age. You grew up knowing that you were adopted. Would you dare ever consider your adoptive parents your mother or your father? Doubtful. You would never call them your mother or your father. That adoptive woman did NOT give birth to you. She can not be your mother. However, I am sure you may eventually call her "mom." The same applies to the male side of the coin.
Another point here. Suppose your mother got knocked up and the male just fled. He up and left her to fend for herself. Suppose she remarried before the baby was born. Would you call that man who was there to watch you grow up and take care of you your father? Probably not. Not if you knew the truth. But you probably WOULD call him dad. Your father would be the man who knocked up your mother and left the scene. Formal definition must apply here. This also means that while everyone has a mother and father, not everyone has a mom and a dad.
So, from a definitive stand-point. Mother and father are the people who brought you into this world. Who are the people that watch you grow up, take care of you, and raise you? They are your mom and dad, or your mommy and daddy, or even your mama and papa. Doesn't matter. Let's recognize THOSE people. The people who raise you, shelter you, and teach you the way of life. They are the true heroes in all of this.
Thanks for reading,
Feel free to comment. :)
The Fallacy of Normalcy
How many people in this age have been told, "That is not normal?"
Or, even better yet, how many people have been simply told, "You are not
normal?" Take a moment to relish in the obviousness of that statement
for a moment, instead of being offended. Why?
Because normal does not exist, and then again, it does.
Allow me to explain what I mean by this. This note may end up getting long-winded, but there is a lot to explain. The public perception of "normal" is not accurate. In fact, the public perception of "normal" DOES NOT EXIST!!! In fact, logically and mathematically, normal does not exist.
Now, you may be thinking, "Huh?" People have been telling me my whole life, what is normal and what is not normal. But I guarantee you, that if you ask someone else, somewhere else, what is normal, the answer will be completely different. There is a sound reason behind this.
We are going to break this down mathematically first, and then it will be applied to the real world.
First of all, let us define what "normal" is. Normal is in the real world, average. It means that for a person to be normal, they must be average. There is a problem with this assumption however... how do we find an average personality. What does it mean for a person to be "average" or "normal?" This herein is where the definition because elusive.
We must assume that to be "normal" you must fall within a specific set of personalities. Therefore, to find an average, we must therefore take the total quantitative value of personalities divided by people. That's right, we must define this average to be based on how many unique personalities there are, divided by the total number of people which contain this personalities.
How many times have we heard this mantra: "No two people are alike." This mantra has a MAJOR part to play in this proof. Because logically speaking, if no two people are alike, that means every person is unique. Being that every person is unique, we must also consider that the population is forever circulating. People are being born, and people are passing away. It is ever-changing, it is dynamic. With this in mind, we must also consider that even identical twins, (while are alike in many ways), are NOT the same person. Different situations cause different personalities. One may be wild, and the other tame. Siamese twins even have different personalities. The fact of the matter is, no two people are alike. Genetics, environment, and far too many other variables change our personalities. They change who and what we are. The fact of the matter is, given this dynamic population, the ONLY WAY that no two people can ever be alike, is if there is an infinite number of personalities. Personalities are also dynamic within each person. For instance, you could have a cheeky demeanor, and then the death of cat or dog could turn you into a crazed psychopath or a suicidal person. People with multiple personalities could exhibit many different "alters" with their own strengths and weaknesses.
If there were a finite number of personalities, eventually there would be an overlap where two people were exactly alike. It's like saying that Earth is a one in a million planets. That means that the odds of finding another planet are remote, but if we assume the universe to be infinite, and there's more than a million other planets out there in the vastness of space, then there is bound to be another planet somewhere out there just like Earth (hence the belief in life in other planets).
Getting back to the point at hand, we have an infinite number of personalities and despite being ever-changing and dynamic, a FINITE number of people. (There is a quantitative number to the world population, therefore finite). Obviously, to find the average, we would divide. This is where the problem arises. We are dividing infinity by a finite number. What is the average of that? The answer just happens to be INFINITY! That's right, folks, if we, for instance, attempted to divide an infinite number by lets say, 2, we STILL end up with an infinite number. It doesn't matter if that denominator is 2 or 6 billion, the answer still remains infinity.
Where does this leave us? Well, it means that average or normalcy in terms of the human condition just does not exist. In fact, the only way to even come close to approximating "normal" is to grab a seemingly random set of people, come up with traits that show up the most often and boom, "close enough."
But we know, it is much more complicated than that. See, because for a finite population, there is still an infinite number for average. And given this result, there is only one logical conclusion. WE DEFINE OUR OWN NORMAL. That's right!! Normal DOES exist, within us. Each person's perception of normal will differ than the next person's. And this continues ad infinitum. And as new people are born into this world, they will continue to define their own normal as well. What we as people must understand is that we must accept our own place and define our own normal.
Our own interpretations of "normal" define us as people. Given mathematics again, this also means you must cherish your interpretation of normal and abide by it. Go back to the logic of averages. What happens when you change the average? For instance, suppose your average grade in school was a 80, and then it was 85. What does this mean? That means a grade changed, or a new one was added that caused an increase in your average. Now, bring this back into your "normal." When another person attempts to change your interpretation of "normal," that means that something in your personality must change. Somehow, you must change who you are as a person, to strive to achieve another person's idea of "normal." And to change who you are as a person just to strive towards someone else's "normal" is in irony, IMPOSSIBLE. It is impossible to achieve someone else's "normal" both logically and mathematically. Our personalities and our own personal "normals" is what makes each of us, unique. And unique does NOT equal normal.
So, remember all of you unique people out there... You define your own normal. When someone tells you, "You are not normal," you can just sit back, smile, and reply, "And neither are you." :D
Because normal does not exist, and then again, it does.
Allow me to explain what I mean by this. This note may end up getting long-winded, but there is a lot to explain. The public perception of "normal" is not accurate. In fact, the public perception of "normal" DOES NOT EXIST!!! In fact, logically and mathematically, normal does not exist.
Now, you may be thinking, "Huh?" People have been telling me my whole life, what is normal and what is not normal. But I guarantee you, that if you ask someone else, somewhere else, what is normal, the answer will be completely different. There is a sound reason behind this.
We are going to break this down mathematically first, and then it will be applied to the real world.
First of all, let us define what "normal" is. Normal is in the real world, average. It means that for a person to be normal, they must be average. There is a problem with this assumption however... how do we find an average personality. What does it mean for a person to be "average" or "normal?" This herein is where the definition because elusive.
We must assume that to be "normal" you must fall within a specific set of personalities. Therefore, to find an average, we must therefore take the total quantitative value of personalities divided by people. That's right, we must define this average to be based on how many unique personalities there are, divided by the total number of people which contain this personalities.
How many times have we heard this mantra: "No two people are alike." This mantra has a MAJOR part to play in this proof. Because logically speaking, if no two people are alike, that means every person is unique. Being that every person is unique, we must also consider that the population is forever circulating. People are being born, and people are passing away. It is ever-changing, it is dynamic. With this in mind, we must also consider that even identical twins, (while are alike in many ways), are NOT the same person. Different situations cause different personalities. One may be wild, and the other tame. Siamese twins even have different personalities. The fact of the matter is, no two people are alike. Genetics, environment, and far too many other variables change our personalities. They change who and what we are. The fact of the matter is, given this dynamic population, the ONLY WAY that no two people can ever be alike, is if there is an infinite number of personalities. Personalities are also dynamic within each person. For instance, you could have a cheeky demeanor, and then the death of cat or dog could turn you into a crazed psychopath or a suicidal person. People with multiple personalities could exhibit many different "alters" with their own strengths and weaknesses.
If there were a finite number of personalities, eventually there would be an overlap where two people were exactly alike. It's like saying that Earth is a one in a million planets. That means that the odds of finding another planet are remote, but if we assume the universe to be infinite, and there's more than a million other planets out there in the vastness of space, then there is bound to be another planet somewhere out there just like Earth (hence the belief in life in other planets).
Getting back to the point at hand, we have an infinite number of personalities and despite being ever-changing and dynamic, a FINITE number of people. (There is a quantitative number to the world population, therefore finite). Obviously, to find the average, we would divide. This is where the problem arises. We are dividing infinity by a finite number. What is the average of that? The answer just happens to be INFINITY! That's right, folks, if we, for instance, attempted to divide an infinite number by lets say, 2, we STILL end up with an infinite number. It doesn't matter if that denominator is 2 or 6 billion, the answer still remains infinity.
Where does this leave us? Well, it means that average or normalcy in terms of the human condition just does not exist. In fact, the only way to even come close to approximating "normal" is to grab a seemingly random set of people, come up with traits that show up the most often and boom, "close enough."
But we know, it is much more complicated than that. See, because for a finite population, there is still an infinite number for average. And given this result, there is only one logical conclusion. WE DEFINE OUR OWN NORMAL. That's right!! Normal DOES exist, within us. Each person's perception of normal will differ than the next person's. And this continues ad infinitum. And as new people are born into this world, they will continue to define their own normal as well. What we as people must understand is that we must accept our own place and define our own normal.
Our own interpretations of "normal" define us as people. Given mathematics again, this also means you must cherish your interpretation of normal and abide by it. Go back to the logic of averages. What happens when you change the average? For instance, suppose your average grade in school was a 80, and then it was 85. What does this mean? That means a grade changed, or a new one was added that caused an increase in your average. Now, bring this back into your "normal." When another person attempts to change your interpretation of "normal," that means that something in your personality must change. Somehow, you must change who you are as a person, to strive to achieve another person's idea of "normal." And to change who you are as a person just to strive towards someone else's "normal" is in irony, IMPOSSIBLE. It is impossible to achieve someone else's "normal" both logically and mathematically. Our personalities and our own personal "normals" is what makes each of us, unique. And unique does NOT equal normal.
So, remember all of you unique people out there... You define your own normal. When someone tells you, "You are not normal," you can just sit back, smile, and reply, "And neither are you." :D
Gun Control - Yay or Nay
Yes. I am going to weigh in on the gun control issue, because it has
become a big one. Everyone from lobbyists to the NRA to politicians
are fighting on this, and I think it is so stupid.
Why? Because no one sees the problem.
Everyone thinks that if we put a bandage on a skin tumor, that the tumor has magically disappeared!!! People think that if it is out of sight, it is out of mind. The harsh reality is, that tumor will continue to grow, and will continue to spread, and eventually result in casualties.
So, what is the problem then?
People are still continuing to insist that guns kill people. Now, yes, guns kill people. So do knives, hack saws, axes, golf clubs, and bare hands. All of those can be used as weapons and kill someone. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find ANYTHING that can not kill someone if used for that purpose. People kill people, plain and simple.
Now, while everyone is trying to ban guns, why is no one working on the real problem? The real problem is not guns. The real problem is: people. That's right. The real problem is the people.
Let us look at the ages of these people who are going on these mass killing sprees. You'll find most of them are young (or younger). They are people in school or secondary education. I would not be surprised to find that a lot of these mass killers came from unhappy homes (or unhappy school situations). They are probably either victims of neglect, child abuse, or bullying. They are people who spent most of their lives in fear. They were afraid and stuck in a situation that they felt they had no control over. I would understand this, because I was in the same situation.
I grew up in an unhappy home. My mother would constantly remind me of how worthless I was if I made a mistake. If I did something wrong, I was worthless. If I didn't do it fast enough, I was worthless. And then I'd go to school. And I would deal with kids picking on me. (Still remember being told that they didn't want to be my friends). I would have kids just randomly run up to me, punch me in the stomach, and run away. I didn't provoke any of this from any of them, and it was a hopeless situation. I would tell my mother about it, who would then proceed to scold me for not fighting back.
I didn't fight back. I didn't do anything. And it is a good thing too... because one thing held me back. Fear.
Yes. Fear was the one thing that kept me grounded. Now, many would argue that being afraid is a bad thing, but it can be a good thing too. For instance, fear kept me from acting out on the thoughts that raced through my mind as a child. As a child, I considered the possibilities of punishing the people who hurt me. I considered it for a long time. I considered the possibility of starting up both vehicles in the garage of my house and closing the door and letting the carbon dioxide put me down for the eternal slumber. Yes, I considered homicide and suicide. But one thing kept me from acting out on it... fear.
For me, by the time the fear lifted, I was out of those situations. My life turned into the long arduous process of trying to rebuild myself. To go to therapy and to try to put the past behind me. I was out of the situations that made my life hell, and things have been on the mend...
However, that fear is lifting at a much earlier age.
Kids shouldn't have to live in fear. Kids shouldn't have to deal with the fear of going to school and getting beat up and pushed around. Kids shouldn't have to be afraid of going home. Kids need a support structure where they feel loved and happy. They need to know that if they are being bullied in school, that they can talk to someone about it. They need to know that when they go home (wherever that may be), that there is someone there who loves them and wants the best for them. But no, kids live in fear.
When when these kids grow up into teenagers, they will see articles and news stories from the media about the next massacre. In a world where fearful children want to no longer be afraid, news stories about the person who committed the most recent massacre catch their attention. The media gives that killer a name. The media gives that killer a face. And that person lives in infamy. But one thing is true... that person who committed the atrocities... lost their fear.
This person becomes a role model. Someone who overcame their fears and went down in infamy. We, as adults, see the person as a murderer and a monster. The media sees this "monster" as a money making opportunity (ratings) and will continue to posts more and more stories about this "monster." The kids living in fear see this "monster" as a soldier against fear. As a survivor. They see this person as someone who probably understands what they've been through, and so the kids begin to idolize the killer. This is why so many mass murders and massacres happened shortly after Columbine.
The problem is not the guns. The problem is: how do we give these kids the support they need while they are young, so they don't become the killers of tomorrow. For instance, when I was a kid, social services came over and investigated claims on a couple of occasions, but nothing was ever done about it. We still lived in that house, and I still continued to live in fear. More programs need to be put into place to protect the kids. For instance, every so often, all kids should have a meeting at school with a child therapist. Yes, counselors can help with some of that, but a therapist might be able to see things that a counselor might have missed. Either that or schools should have more than one counselor. And kids should have a couple of sessions during the course of the year to see how the kid is doing. (And yes, this should be mandatory). Kids who seem to have problems can then get a little more time to talk about what is going on.
People in the community should also be more aware of their neighbors. I do not mean spying, but often the community becomes the eyes and ears if there is abuse going on. If there is child abuse, more than likely, the child will be too afraid to talk about it. So, it often is up to other adults (or even other kids) to recognize the signs of abuse. And when child abuse is suspected, action should be taken. There were neighbors who suspected abuse was going on, but no one ever reported it. They may have felt it was none of their business, but in this day and age, it is now more than ever everyone's business. More programs need to be made available for kids who have been abused, and kids need to be removed from houses if abuse is going on. Kids who are growing up in houses of people who are alcoholics and/or drug addicts, should also be removed from that house.
To the parents who have kids, make sure you remind your kids of how much you love them, even if you aren't able to see them often (working, etc). While you are working the thoughts in your head is: "I am working so that my kids can eat and live." In the mind of that kid, they may be thinking, "My parent isn't around because he/she doesn't love me." So, every once in a while, remind your kid that you work because of your love for them. :)
So, in summation: The problem with the whole gun control issue is not guns. It is people. It is a troubled younger generation looking for role models and finding them in the killers that are plastered all over the media. The media is helping in creating more mass murderers (unintentionally), and with no positive role model for young kids to look up to, troubled kids are finding it in killers. We as a society need to protect the youth of this country. We need to worry about our kids, and we need to step in when we suspect that a kid is in trouble. Even if the government posted a ban on guns, people will find a way to get them regardless, or find other (possibly more creative) ways of killing others. We can not just put a bandage on this problem.
Why? Because no one sees the problem.
Everyone thinks that if we put a bandage on a skin tumor, that the tumor has magically disappeared!!! People think that if it is out of sight, it is out of mind. The harsh reality is, that tumor will continue to grow, and will continue to spread, and eventually result in casualties.
So, what is the problem then?
People are still continuing to insist that guns kill people. Now, yes, guns kill people. So do knives, hack saws, axes, golf clubs, and bare hands. All of those can be used as weapons and kill someone. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find ANYTHING that can not kill someone if used for that purpose. People kill people, plain and simple.
Now, while everyone is trying to ban guns, why is no one working on the real problem? The real problem is not guns. The real problem is: people. That's right. The real problem is the people.
Let us look at the ages of these people who are going on these mass killing sprees. You'll find most of them are young (or younger). They are people in school or secondary education. I would not be surprised to find that a lot of these mass killers came from unhappy homes (or unhappy school situations). They are probably either victims of neglect, child abuse, or bullying. They are people who spent most of their lives in fear. They were afraid and stuck in a situation that they felt they had no control over. I would understand this, because I was in the same situation.
I grew up in an unhappy home. My mother would constantly remind me of how worthless I was if I made a mistake. If I did something wrong, I was worthless. If I didn't do it fast enough, I was worthless. And then I'd go to school. And I would deal with kids picking on me. (Still remember being told that they didn't want to be my friends). I would have kids just randomly run up to me, punch me in the stomach, and run away. I didn't provoke any of this from any of them, and it was a hopeless situation. I would tell my mother about it, who would then proceed to scold me for not fighting back.
I didn't fight back. I didn't do anything. And it is a good thing too... because one thing held me back. Fear.
Yes. Fear was the one thing that kept me grounded. Now, many would argue that being afraid is a bad thing, but it can be a good thing too. For instance, fear kept me from acting out on the thoughts that raced through my mind as a child. As a child, I considered the possibilities of punishing the people who hurt me. I considered it for a long time. I considered the possibility of starting up both vehicles in the garage of my house and closing the door and letting the carbon dioxide put me down for the eternal slumber. Yes, I considered homicide and suicide. But one thing kept me from acting out on it... fear.
For me, by the time the fear lifted, I was out of those situations. My life turned into the long arduous process of trying to rebuild myself. To go to therapy and to try to put the past behind me. I was out of the situations that made my life hell, and things have been on the mend...
However, that fear is lifting at a much earlier age.
Kids shouldn't have to live in fear. Kids shouldn't have to deal with the fear of going to school and getting beat up and pushed around. Kids shouldn't have to be afraid of going home. Kids need a support structure where they feel loved and happy. They need to know that if they are being bullied in school, that they can talk to someone about it. They need to know that when they go home (wherever that may be), that there is someone there who loves them and wants the best for them. But no, kids live in fear.
When when these kids grow up into teenagers, they will see articles and news stories from the media about the next massacre. In a world where fearful children want to no longer be afraid, news stories about the person who committed the most recent massacre catch their attention. The media gives that killer a name. The media gives that killer a face. And that person lives in infamy. But one thing is true... that person who committed the atrocities... lost their fear.
This person becomes a role model. Someone who overcame their fears and went down in infamy. We, as adults, see the person as a murderer and a monster. The media sees this "monster" as a money making opportunity (ratings) and will continue to posts more and more stories about this "monster." The kids living in fear see this "monster" as a soldier against fear. As a survivor. They see this person as someone who probably understands what they've been through, and so the kids begin to idolize the killer. This is why so many mass murders and massacres happened shortly after Columbine.
The problem is not the guns. The problem is: how do we give these kids the support they need while they are young, so they don't become the killers of tomorrow. For instance, when I was a kid, social services came over and investigated claims on a couple of occasions, but nothing was ever done about it. We still lived in that house, and I still continued to live in fear. More programs need to be put into place to protect the kids. For instance, every so often, all kids should have a meeting at school with a child therapist. Yes, counselors can help with some of that, but a therapist might be able to see things that a counselor might have missed. Either that or schools should have more than one counselor. And kids should have a couple of sessions during the course of the year to see how the kid is doing. (And yes, this should be mandatory). Kids who seem to have problems can then get a little more time to talk about what is going on.
People in the community should also be more aware of their neighbors. I do not mean spying, but often the community becomes the eyes and ears if there is abuse going on. If there is child abuse, more than likely, the child will be too afraid to talk about it. So, it often is up to other adults (or even other kids) to recognize the signs of abuse. And when child abuse is suspected, action should be taken. There were neighbors who suspected abuse was going on, but no one ever reported it. They may have felt it was none of their business, but in this day and age, it is now more than ever everyone's business. More programs need to be made available for kids who have been abused, and kids need to be removed from houses if abuse is going on. Kids who are growing up in houses of people who are alcoholics and/or drug addicts, should also be removed from that house.
To the parents who have kids, make sure you remind your kids of how much you love them, even if you aren't able to see them often (working, etc). While you are working the thoughts in your head is: "I am working so that my kids can eat and live." In the mind of that kid, they may be thinking, "My parent isn't around because he/she doesn't love me." So, every once in a while, remind your kid that you work because of your love for them. :)
So, in summation: The problem with the whole gun control issue is not guns. It is people. It is a troubled younger generation looking for role models and finding them in the killers that are plastered all over the media. The media is helping in creating more mass murderers (unintentionally), and with no positive role model for young kids to look up to, troubled kids are finding it in killers. We as a society need to protect the youth of this country. We need to worry about our kids, and we need to step in when we suspect that a kid is in trouble. Even if the government posted a ban on guns, people will find a way to get them regardless, or find other (possibly more creative) ways of killing others. We can not just put a bandage on this problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)