Submit an Article | Bookmarked Articles
Viewing Articles About All - Page 23
| Taking The Oath | December 1, 2006, 11:03PM |
 by: life_on_1st_and_7th |
|
There has been some controversy here in Minnesota, and I'm sure it has reached national media by this time. Democrat Keith Ellison won the vote in Minnesota district 5, and will be sworn in to the U.S. House of representatives on January 4th. Why is this history, is it because he is the first black representative from Minnesota? No, Minnesota has seen a wave of very effective black public officials and the people here don't seem to vote on race . Why then? Keith Ellison is the first Muslim U.S. Representative in history. Given today's propaganda based, ignorant, media induced patriotic fear of Muslims, that is a big step. Having a muslim voted into the house of representatives today is near the equivalent of a Nazi in the 1940's, a communist in the 1950's or an African American in the 1960s. Why is it a big deal though? We have in the House Of Representatives today Jews, Agnostics, Atheists, even a self proclaimed Socialist. Once again, why is it a big deal? Here is why; Keith Ellison is planning to take his oath on the Qur'an instead of the Bible. Conservatives around the nation are in an uproar, Republicans are cringing at the idea of where this new Democratic majority are taking America, just after they worked so hard to make us afraid of our own shadows. "Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath," is what radio talk show host and author Dennis Prager wrote in his column this past week. The problem with all of this is that the constitution gives the right to take the oath for any sworn in position on any book someone prefers. In all reality, even a president could be sworn in on "Clifford the Big Red Dog" if he was so inclined. How is it so many are in such an uproar over the Qur'an? Do Muslims not deserve the same rights as an Agnostic or Atheist? Where is it these conservatives feel there is a right to make it mandatory to swear on the Holy Bible when the first amendment says congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or to establish a national church, yet the government dwells constantly on Christian values, inherently making it wrong to be a Non-Christian, makes it wrong to be a Non-White Anglo Saxan. If it is made mandatory to swear on the Holy Bible, then the oath will mean nothing to people who don't believe in the Bible. Keith Ellison choosing to swear on the Qur'an is a way for him to show his faith, to show his dedication to the US Constitution. If Every elected official must swear on a document, it cannot fairly be the Bible. The only fair document that could be made mandatory to swear on is the Constitution. | |
topic: Essays | |
[reply] [0 comments] |
|
| Wasting away | November 29, 2006, 2:46PM |
 by: inhuman |
|
America. The single most powerful country in the world. Almost unthought-of of to most kids my age is that my generation, friends and foes alike will soon be in control of were we are heading in the future. But will our youth be ready to take on this challenge? Although I am guilty of not caring probably as much as I should, I pride my self in having a little concern about how our country is running. I don’t like the current way it is being run and unlike the majority of teenagers, I belong to a small group of people who can provide arguments as to why I don’t like it. The averaged Sunday to a teenager would start by waking up at noon. Then “primping” or spending time making sure that you look your best for the mall. And wasting away you time going into store you’ve been in dozens of times and buying cloths that are over priced and improperly fitting, with the money you didn’t earn. Then going home and watching reality TV or shows like Laguna beach or The O.C. this group of people will lead our country one day, although I’m pretty sure they don’t know it yet. I, proudly, am different. I do treat my self to an extra hour or so of sleep, never sleeping past 8. I’ll read the Sunday paper, often to my disliking finding out this month has topped the last deadliest month in Iraq. Or find out that local business are closing because the store down the street has cheaper workers. And most of them are probably not even legal. But these problems are seemingly invisible to the average teens. And what I find the saddest is when teenagers attempt to be in a serious conversation with me. Say the situation in Iraq comes up. I will disagree with the reason we are fighting, and they will throw in a comment like “fighting over oil is pretty dumb”. For my amusement alone I like to ask why they think we are fighting over oil. The response is silence and frustration. Although I admire their general concern about the topic, I am dumbfounded at how their information gets to them, and how little of it sticks. Maybe I’m just not your normal teenager. But I see something wrong with a country run by people who grew up in a country influenced more by rappers rapping about rape and murder than politicians. I see something wrong with a generations who’s more concerned about who’s dating who in the celebrity world, than people that are starving in a third world country. I’m not saying that teens should care about every problem in this world, but some concern would make me feel better about our future. ”Apathy is leaving most of America’s youth sorely nearsighted, and that fact makes me nervous” Aimee Garcia. Age 17 That is a quote from a friend of mine just a year older than myself, so I have not given up hope all together. I admire her for her energy in caring about our country and her intelligence, and she feels the same way as I do. Maybe it’s me who is mistaken. Maybe the people who care outnumber the ones who don’t. Maybe this is just a stage in a young persons life, and it will pass with age. If that’s the case or not I think that our nation’s destined to fail without a dramatic change. If our youth doesn’t open their eyes, if they don’t start caring then we will be left in a very bad situation. When it comes out turn to run this powerful country, will we be ready? Written by: Kevin Kimball 11-29-06 | |
topic: Current Events | |
[reply] [0 comments] |
|
| God's Existance? A Reexamination. | November 24, 2006, 7:53PM |
 by: trigger.happy.jack |
|
What is God? How do you define God? What does God look like? Does God exist? Who created God? Can we become God? All these questions and more have been wracking the brains of humanity for the longest time. It is acceptable in society to contimplate more than one opinion on a matter of diverse and controversial importance. I hope to find answers by further analyzing facts, fictions, and presumptions of both fact and fiction. Please read on. It is said, that the christian Lord, God All-mighty, Jahova;Yawy;Allah, and whatever other name you can think of to call him, is known as Alpha-Omega. This meaning The Begining and The End. To or in what way you can even define such a mind numbing assumption is completely up to the perception of the individual. But to me, asking who created God, is equaly as fruitless as asking who created man. People don't really know indefinately, they just say they know or defy common belief with theory. All in all it is likely safe to assume evolution didn't evolve from itself, that would be ludacris. Somthing spun it along, nurtured it, and experimented with it. In my opinion, if there is indeed a "God", it seems to me that his/her character is more suited toward the charisma of a scientist, and the passion and intricate care of a gardener. When we speak of sciences and technologies such as cloneing human beings in the present time, perhaps that is all we are to begin with. The clone of a greater being of higher power with infinate knowledge and understanding, an alien perhaps? But perfection? Well, perfection to me is alot like what they say about beauty. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but even that is imperfect. Rather the imperfections is the beauty itself, or one's view of it. It is still less than absolute on any scale. There is also a story within the biblical scriptures, (though which one I am abored to attempt to recall), saying that he did infact appear to whole villages of man, and that his prescence was so terrifying and grand that the people died just by looking at him. In which case, he was so saddened by this that he swore not to appear in his full form ever again. That, is indeed just a story. It seems to me, that if man was created in the image, though not the divine sense, of the likeness of God, and by observing the various imperfections and flaws of man that it is safe to assume God is imperfect as well. That is, IF you believe there is a God at all. Should the bible be used as a historical tool? As you'll come to find out and discover on your own, likely by watching the history channel and other such sources of information. Not every story in the bible is complete bullshit. There is actual tangible evidence of things and occurences, and places written that coincide with actual historical findings and objects dug from the earth. If you do not believe me, you may look here. http://www.biblicalarcheology.net/ Or dig up whatever you can find here. http://www.history.com/ Either way, I hope those of you reading do your own research to help formulate your own opinion on the matter. The truth is, it is equaly foolish to deny God's existance as it is to believe every single word of a scientist equally skepticle as you or I in the affairs of human condition and religion. In fact, there are alot of seemingly ridiclous beliefs in the world. At one time, people thought the earth was flat but it wasn't. At one time, people thought the moon could speak to you through dreams and help grow crops, but they were wrong. People thought that superstitions of all kinds were acceptable, and yet humanity out grew them. The one, and only thing that has neither been confirmed or denied as truth or fiction is the belief of God, and yet, it is older than any other superstition, falsehood, or ridiclous theory that have all been broken long before now and up to this present day. That in itself says somthing to me, it says that if it can't be dismissed as a falsehood, and it can't be labeled as a 100% truth, than it is an enigma and shouldn't be labeled, altered, or missinterpreted by opinion, imperfection, or otherwise. You know the sun is not made of ice unless you're on crack. You know there's no oxygen in outerspace unless you're wearing a space hemlet. You know that there are 365 days in a year accept on leap year...because those are the acceptions to the rules. Therefor, it is safe to conclude that though nothing is indefinate, there is likely an acception to most solid occurences, including belief and the assumption of belief. The only thing that will dictate our direction as a civalisation entirely is time and momentum. As is the same to the individual, not just the whole. Everything else is interchangable. Everything else is subject to categorization, opinion, and absolution. "a work of (whatever) art can be either 'received' or 'used'. ...'Using' is inferior to 'reception' because art, if used rather than received, merely facilitates, brightens, relieves or palliates our life, and does not add to it ... When the art in question is literature a complication arises, for to 'receive' significant words is always, in one sense, to 'use' them, to go through and beyond them to an imagined something which is not itself verbal" -CS Lewis | |
topic: Philosophy | |
[reply] [9 comments] |
|
| War on Christmas! - Understanding the Conspiracy Theory | November 16, 2006, 6:17PM |
 by: Saturnalia |
|
There is a war on Christmas! The secular left of America are trying to eradicate any suggestion of Christianity and the baby Jesus from department store ads, public schools and public holiday displays! They are banning children from wearing red and green to school, forbidding store employees from saying the phrase "Merry Christmas" and excluding Christians from making public displays on community property! America is a Christian nation and we won't stand for this kind of oppression! Sounds scary, doesn't it? Believe it or not, there are actually people out there that believe this nonsense and are going around demanding that places like Wal-Mart change all their "Holiday" displays to "Christmas" displays. Despite the fact that Macy's department stores have been an icon for Christmas ever since Miracle on 34th Street and have been using all inclusive phrases such as "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings" for decades now, there are still people boycotting them for being anti-Christmas. But why all the uproar? What got people's panties all in a twist? Why now? It might actually surprise you to find out how this conspiracy theory has made it's way into popular culture. Well, if you've been watching Fox News, you might have noticed that this whole controversy seems to center around this one news channel, and particularly around one talk show host, Bill O'Reilly. It all started about 2 years ago, and it's back again this season for a third year of crazy conspiracy fun. On December 3rd, 2004, O'Reilly began a recurring segment on his show, The O'Reilly Factor, called "Christmas Under Siege." In this segment of his show, he presented "undeniable" proof that the secular progressives in this country were trying to push out Christmas all together. Here's a few of the anecdotes that he used: ---"city of Denver refuses to let Christian float into Holiday Parade" Every year, Denver holds a "Festival of Lights" around December 4th. it is true that they decided not to include the Faith Bible Church's religious float. What O'Reilly failed to mention was that, because of the small size of the parade and the limited time, the group that organizes the parade has to turn down many submissions each year simply because there isn't enough room for them. Furthermore, they have policies in place designed to keep them from making value judgements such as which religions get in. ---"Christian symbols are being banned in New York public schools" This is simply not true. The schools' public policy permits what it calls secular holiday decorations, including "Christmas trees, menorahs and the star and crescent," according to a memorandum that the schools chancellor's general counsel distributed 2 years ago. "If one symbol is displayed, so should those of other beliefs or customs," it said. So they were never excluding Christian symbols, but making an effort to incorporate symbols of other religions alongside the Christian ones. ---"Macy's department store replaces the phrase 'Merry Christmas' with 'Happy Holidays'" While it's true that Federated Department Stores, the company that own Macy's and Bloomingdales, has replaced one phrase with the other, this issue received very little attention before FOX's "War on Christmas." O'Reilly devoted an entire segment to this issue and to the so-called "Committee to Save Merry Christmas," which actually just turned out to be one man, Manuel Zammarano, and his website. ---"New York City mayor Bloomburg calls the Rockefeller Center tree a 'Holiday Tree'" Never mind the fact that the tree isn't even a Christian symbol, but a pagan one. Never mind that everyone else in the city calls it the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree. While he did refer to it as a Holiday Tree at the lighting ceremony last year, he has equally referred to it as a Christmas tree. Even so, why does it matter? Not only has O'Reilly and FOX News been bold enough to grossly exaggerate stories to hype up their War on Christmas, but they're also incredibly hypocritical. Last year, amid all the controversy, Bill O'Reilly was selling "Holiday" ornaments on his website. Wouldn't someone so concerned with the War on Christmas have made damn sure that his website were advertising "Christmas Ornaments"? This year, FOX News Corporation has announced it's "Holiday Party" in the same hypocritical fashion. I guess this War on Christmas just isn't as important to them as they make it out to be. Unfortunately for the sane ones among us, the War on Christmas has come back this year. O'Reilly is claiming a victory in this battle as Wal-Mart makes its announcement that it's changing 60% or it's "Holiday" ads to "Christmas" ads. O'Reilly praises them and even goes as far as to call them the "Christmas guy." I doubt they have so much of a concern with religion as they do with making an extra buck. As if that wasn't enough, the whole controversy seems to have become popular and spread beyond FOX News, so now we have to hear about it from many other conservative media people and some of those in the general public. This is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. There really is no "War on Christmas." Before this whole thing started on FOX, nobody really noticed or cared how they were greeted at a department store. In the past, the concern with Christmas was that it was becoming too commercialized and shallow. Gerald L.K. Smith, in the 1960s, also went as far as to say that Santa Claus was introduced by the Jews to suppress the New Testament accounts of Jesus and that the United Nations at the behest of "world Jewry" had "outlawed the name of Christ." Of course, these claims were absurd, much like the claims that secular progressives today are trying to kill Christmas, and that's what many people took them as. Now it seems like this is one of the biggest issues to the conservative right. But instead of politely requesting that Christmas be included with all the other winter holidays (as it already is anyways) as other minority religions have done in the past, they are demanding that Christmas be the only publicly observed holiday. If you're that concerned with preserving traditional Christmas, then you shouldn't even be stepping foot in a department. During the last "War on Christmas" in the 1950s, some Christians were becoming concerned that Christmas was becoming way too commercialized. Buying gifts became more important than the Nativity. Back then, the emphasis was on spending the day with your family worshipping Jesus and celebrating his birth. Many of the symbols that are "under attack" in the "War on Christmas" were never even Christian to begin with. When America was just starting out as a new country, almost nobody ever celebrated Christmas because they considered it to be a pagan holiday. Reindeer, wreaths, holly, red and green decorations, trees, gifts, yule logs; these are all traditions that came from paganism. Yet, we still hear complaints about people not calling it a "Christmas tree," which only shows how uneducated and gullible these people are. What exactly is wrong with saying "Happy Holidays?" First off, there is nothing secular about it, as these right wing weirdos like to suggest. If you break up the word "Holiday" you get "Holy-Day," noting that it is a day which is holy. There are, in fact, many religious Holy Days to many different religions during the winter months. If that's not enough for you, you could also consider that by saying "Happy Holidays" you are incorporating Christmas and New Years, which fall within a week of each other. Saying "Happy Holidays" is including all religions; yes, even Christianity. It's not an attack on anyone, it's just simply being thoughtful. The interesting part about this controversy is that nobody really cared before FOX News made this whole thing up. There weren't any Christian groups protesting. There weren't even any secular groups actively campaigning to eradicate the word "Christmas" in public advertisements. Nobody cared. Everyone just went along their merry way wishing each other a "Happy Holiday," "Merry Christmas," "Happy Chanukah" or "Happy Kwanzaa" without ever caring if it offended anyone because it never did. Some Christians in this country just cannot get over the fact that not everyone is Christian and more and more people are turning to other religions or secularism. They can rant all they want about the horrors of extremist Muslims forcing their religion onto others, but see nothing wrong with forcing their own morals on people. What's wrong with a cultural move toward inclusion? What's so bad about trying to be nice to everyone? Isn't that a Christian moral? Seriously, people... there are much more important things in this world to worry about, such as the War on Terror, our grossly incompetent and greedy Congress, our failing economy and the war in Iraq. This whole thing has been blown WAY out of proportion, all to give FOX News boosted ratings, make Bill O'Reilly more popular with the Evangelical right wingers of this country and distract us from what's really important. So until the holidays are over and the religious right gets back to complaining about fags and abortion, I'd like to wish you all a Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Kwanzaa, Eid al-Adha Saeed, Merry Solstice and Happy New Year. Fuck that, it's too long. Happy Holidays. You're smart enough to know what I mean. May you all realize what is most important in your life and in this world and may your God, whichever one you choose to worship, bless you with happiness and good fortune. | |
topic: Current Events | |
[reply] [34 comments] |
|
| Censorship in the US | November 15, 2006, 10:44PM |
 by: crazy_rocker_chick |
|
Censorship is definitely not as big of a problem as it once was. But it still exists and it is still there to take away rights and freedoms guaranteed to us by our government and our official documents written by our founders. What is censorship? Censorship is the prohibiting of certain material, whether it is music or literature, because of sexual, religious, or political ideas that the government may find inappropriate. According to the Bill of Rights, the first amendment especially, we have the freedom to write whatever we want and read whatever we want. Censorship therefore is going against our Constitution as the Bill of Rights clearly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” So how should we react? If all of a sudden, a writer that you enjoyed was being censored because of the contents of their books, would you just sit back and say nothing? Our government states that Congress can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of freedom of the press, and censoring books is undoubtedly going against that. In a way, I can understand the reasoning for why you would want certain books restricted. But shouldn’t that be the parent’s decision? It is a parent’s job to take of their child and set down the ground rules. If a parent is ok with their child reading that material or they just don’t care, then I say let them read it. It is a parent’s job, not the government’s, to choose what their child can and cannot do. The government needs to stop focusing in on our private lives and start worrying about bigger things, such as the war going on, laws that keep us safe from other people- not ourselves, and things of that sort. Lately they have been getting their panties in a bunch over whether gays should be allowed to marry, whether abortion should be made illegal or not, and what we can read. So therefore, I say read what you want. If the government has a problem with it, (personally I’d tell them to shove it but I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be too happy about that) throw the first amendment at them. Stick up for your rights as an American before our government tries taking away more of them. | |
topic: Rants | |
[reply] [31 comments] |
|
| Thanksgiving, Columbus and Modern Imperialism | November 11, 2006, 1:28AM |
by: life_on_1st_and_7th |
|
Thanksgiving- another part of history that needs to be exposed to students for the lie it is. I think that this is an appropriate time of year to present this article. I think most everyone has heard before of how the story of Christopher Columbus was a lie, but what about how that the nobel reasons for american conquest were lies and all based in economy and making people and nations richer? Manifest Destiny yhey say. It seems America likes to celebrate the worst parts of its history. The first thanksgiving dinner, which we all celebrate is a huge lie. Nothing is said about how the natives involved were actually poisoned by the meal. Moving past the pilgrims, say nothing about the fact that columbus came to the caribbean for profit. Say nothing about how within a short time The spanish had those people enslaved and would even make them carry the spanish around on their backs. Don't even try presenting a picture of columbus in a textbook as a non-anglo person. Never do the pictures show him as hispanic. Even as a spaniard he was drawn as a white character. White superiority prevalent even before the african slave trade. Now back to the pilgrims. The first british american settlers right? Wrong. There was already a booming slave trade and tobacco based economy in Virginia documented at least a year before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1619. The pilgrims were nowehere near the thankful, peace loving quakers who fled persecution as the textbooks say. They used the Native americans and their hospitality for everything they had. They killed the natives and took their land as soon as they had learned the techniques of farming the rough land. Try and say so around thanksgiving and everyone pipes in about the “good” values it promotes, in effect telling everyone to just wipe history under the rug. So many things are going on today that ruins other cultures. Everyone seems to try and say nowadays, that America is no longer an imperialist country. Explain to me why it is we feel the need to "bring democracy" to other countries? What other country has asked us for our form of goverment? Why are we so high and mighty as to honestly beleive that out form of government even works? One thing to look at how we destroy other cultures is tourism. Americans are the most destructive tourists on the planet. Other people travel to other countries, but they go to another country with the idea of experiencing their culture. Americans go to another country, and bring with them resorts, fast food, pollution, and in effect completely wipe out the cultures of the places americans bring theirselves to. An american will go another country and expect natives to speak english. The first thing an american will expect is something american. An american will get a kick out of the differences between McDonalds in different countries. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that america's effect on non-anglo saxon cultures and people needs to change. Starting all the way back in elementary school, we are taught lies, we are taught that not being a patriot is a horrible thing. We are made to feel like a criminal for not standing for the pledge of allegiance. We are given looks of horror if we say things like "I beleive in the idea of communism" or "Hitler had good ideas at first" or "Politically, I feel myself relating most to socialism." In the end, americans for the most part are just as ignorant as they were back in the 1600s. The terrible thing is, our education system and media make no efforts to change anything at all. | |
topic: Essays | |
[reply] [0 comments] |
|
| Genocide of the Australian Symbols | November 9, 2006, 10:54PM |
 by: Murderous_Breeze |
|
Recently, here in Melbourne, a 12 year old kid was bitten by a king brown snake, the 3rd most deadliest snake in the world, he didnt die and was treated immediatley, but as usual, our wonderful community spoke out that something must be done to stop the number of snakes nesting so close to home. Australia is home to the 10 most deadliest species of animals in the world, the first being the blue-box jellyfish, we have the most deadliest snake, the Australian small scaled snake (Taipan for the rest of the world), the most deadliest spider, the Sydney Funnelweb, and the most deadliest line up of marine and desert dwelling reptiles. The last reported Australian small scaled snake ever killing anyone in Australia was in 1994,yes almost 13 years ago. Now these people are demanding our local council to start getting rid of our beautiful and unique animals, so as they do not bite anyone again. Now for anyone who knows anything about snakes, its simple, they are territorial animals, they have many methods of warning people before they strike, and if the un-lucky person does decide to accidently stumble accross the striking range, they wont think twice to attack. I believe Australia is losing its beautiful wild life, i mean we have already brought our national animal, the Kangaroo, to near extinction, they are considered a pest and apparentley theirs just to much of them. AWI or the Australian Wildlife Institute estimated that farmers from accross Australia are killing over 3 thousand Kangaroos daily. These are Animals, their beautiful and cant be found anywhere else in the world, they have basic animal instincts to attack and protect their home, but we are defying that, our ignorance is causing hundreds of thousands of our native species of plants and animals to die. Due to the largely overwhelming industrial building, and the clearing of their grasslands and forests, they are forced to be driven into creeks and parks, where they are vulnerable. We have a great number of deadly animals here, as im sure the Americans and the rest of the world have found out due to the tragic death of Steve Irwin by another deadly animal, the Stingray. But these creatures must be understood and respected, not feared. Must we destroy everything in this beautiful country of ours before we decide that we have nothing more to fear? | |
topic: Current Events | |
[reply] [4 comments] |
|
| Mainstream Persuasions(?) | November 6, 2006, 12:34PM |
 by: The7thSon |
|
I thought I'd take a few minutes to rant about the general population of this community. I wonder how many DS members have really taken a look at the fine print on the bottom of the login page, where it says that this is a home for those looking for others who aren't NECESSARILY part of the mainstream persuasions. How many people here dance to Shonen Knife in their bedroom at 3 in the morning and rave about the stop motion clay in Frank Zappa's "Baby Snakes" video? How many people think more about photoshopping a picture of Sharon Tate to make it look as if her last hours weren't as terrifying as they were, rather than squeal over Joel Madden's latest "punk rock" hairdo? It seems that no matter what, Hot Topic emo kids will try as hard as they can to voice their juvenile opinions wherever they can. That kind of conversation should be reserved for the MTV chat line. Sure, I listen to Led Zeppelin, I listen to Pink Floyd, I am a fan of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, but my love and appreciation for these artists goes way before today's mainstream entertainment shoved it down our throats as a way of selling them all out to those who don't appreciate the value of the aforementioned bands/personalities. I'll stop here before I get redundant, but I simply would like to conlude these remarks with a suggestion: The next time you see a 12 year old wearing a Dark Side of the Moon t-shirt walking down the straight with his hair in front of his little face, ask him if he knows all the song titles on the album and who wrote the lyrics. | |
topic: Rants | |
[reply] [0 comments] |
|
| The Death of a Language | November 2, 2006, 7:33AM |
 by: Illuminatus |
|
This article will focus on English only since that is the language I speak. Throughout this article the phrase “English is dying” does not mean that people are not speaking it, it means that English is not as great a language as it used to be.” I’m tired of all the government articles so I wrote one that has absolutely nothing to do with the government. Some people have said that English is a dying language. They cite reasons such as 1337-speak, improper use, and profanity as the main reasons that the English language is dying out. But could not these same reasons also signify evolution? Who is to say that people using arbitrarily deemed “profane” words are killing the language? Maybe these “terrible” things are not so much a sign that the language is dying out. Two of these three “signs” are actually proof that the language is alive, and the other is certainly not a sign of death. “Leet can be defined as the perturbation or modification of written text.” (wikipedia.com). In other words, leet is the kind of typing people are using when they say things such as, 741k |\|3rDY 2 |\/|3. This is not to be confused with people typing “ur” [sic] instead of “your”. Leet was first used around 1980 to get around content filters such as porn (pr0n) and exploits (spl01tz). Leet is also used in computer security. A computer would deny the password “talk nerdy to me”, but would accept “741k |\|3rDY 2 |\/|3”. Leet has found a home in the multiplayer online gaming world where words such as “pwn” “n00b” and “1337” are used very commonly. This perturbation of English has been said to be a sign that English is dying since it was used to get around filters to keep ‘‘bad” things on the internet, and because the words are being purposefully misspelled. But it can also be seen as flourishing life. These people have used English to create an entire subculture. It may not be understood by athletes or adults. But every kid with a computer has probably used, if not at least seen these variations of English. When someone gets on the internet, the broadest, most unrestricted communications network in the world, they will undoubtedly come across this token of the internet gaming subculture. These gamers have changed the spellings and the proper usage of English around to create their own culture and that, if nothing else, is a sign that English is alive and kicking. This brings me to the next point. Improper usage of English is another major problem that people see in America. In another subculture in America, almost the polar opposite as a matter of fact, teenagers have immersed themselves in the rap culture. They say things like, “When is they havin they game?” The same sub cultural arguments can be made for this particular type of speech. But there could be something more to the story. A lot of rappers portray themselves as having had to grow up in the ghetto, never getting educated, and always being, for lack of a better word, a thug. They will try to fulfill this image onstage or in their records. These teenagers, as impressionable as they are, will imitate these rappers. They think it will make them cool when all that is really happening is these kids are forming bad habits that they will have to break when they are older. This may not be the “alive and kicking” sign that you see in the previous case, but it certainly is not killing the English language as a whole. This generation has also begun using words that most kids would never ever use, such as trifling. That is the sign that English is alive and kicking. These kids are bringing back dead words, and using them in a new, albeit not entirely proper, way. But who is to say what is proper? People have deemed words like “shit” “fuck” and “damn” as improper. But what is so improper about these words? Is it the meaning? No, it is not, if it were the meaning words like “poop” “making love” and “dang” should be inappropriate as well, but they are not. So, meaning (connotation and denotation) aside, what else about these words could be deemed inappropriate? Is it the sounds strung together to make the word inappropriate? “Duh-ah-guh” is a string of sounds that means a little animal. “Fuh-ah-kuh” is almost the same, slight variations in the sounds, but it is a string of sounds that makes people uncomfortable for totally arbitrary reasons. These inappropriate words change over time as well. Around 150 years ago, the n-word (I will explain later) was a totally fine word to say in public, now if you say it, people will think you are a terrible person. On the other side of the coin, saying words like breast 150 years ago would be considered risqué. These “cuss” words change with time, even though the meanings do not. So really, the only reason anyone is uncomfortable with “cuss” words is because of the sounds involved, a very superstitious reason. In fact another thing to back up the point I just made is what some people still call these “cuss” words. Some people still refer to these words as “curse” words; words that can harm you just by being spoken. That, my friends, is a very primitive way of thinking. These so-called cuss words are not “agents of death” as said by some crusaders against these words. Saying “I fucked her last night” is the exact same as saying “I had sex with her last night” or “I made love with her last night”. Cuss words are not the sign of a dying language, they are the sign of an evolving language, a language that is again, alive and kicking. Moving right along, I mentioned the n-word earlier in this article, I feel that the n-word is different from other “curse” words because it does have a history, and a very very strong meaning attached to it. It is not just a word that has been decided to be bad. There are some unacceptable words, but they are unacceptable because of the meaning they carry not because of the sounds that make them up. The English language is not dying, as some people put it. It is evolving. It is growing. Every new generation takes the English language and leaves its mark on it. The English language is a veritable history book of English culture full of little artifacts that show how each generation was. Actively trying to erase those artifacts, well, you might as well just forget entire generations. | |
topic: Essays | |
[reply] [25 comments] |
|
| Dumbfound with Aesthetic Sound | October 29, 2006, 10:46AM |
 by: EverybodyRunNow |
|
Dumbfound with Aesthetic Sound What are answers? Are they interpretations or factual analyzations? How can one prove that facts are factual? Written events aren't verified, they're merely documented articulately and believed by the general public, supposedly rendering them as socially acceptable. So if mass publications suddenly decided to print that skinny girls are unattractive, fat girls are unintelligent, black men are untrustworthy, white men are a guaranteed meal ticket, virginity is a automatic depreciation of one's social worth, loss of virginity is an automatic depreciation of one's social worth, blonde hair equals sluttiness, and Hitler was resurrected by a chronologically defiant time chamber and was seen bussing tables at various Italian restaurants in West Virginia, you'd accept it as the truth? Why? Because it was written by an overpaid elitist jackass with a thesaurus? By now I assumed we'd be mentally independent enough to form our own opinions. But what we fail to notice is our mental abilities are gradually depleting. Not because of age, but because of what we choose to let our minds consume. An excerpt from Fahrenheit 451 illustrates my point perfectly: "It’s perpetual motion; the thing man wanted to invent but never did. . . . It’s a mystery. . . . Its real beauty is that it destroys responsibility and consequences. Clean, quick, sure; nothing to rot later. Antibiotic, aesthetic, practical." Here, the character speaks about fire endearingly just seconds before his death. Ironically, his demise was inflicted by none other than a flame thrower. Metaphorically, it refers to the beauty we find in media. Television, radio, and magazine columns provide us with stencils for perfection. We believe we need stencils, however, because we've become too lazy and nonchalant to draw them for ourselves. We've come to think that our opinions are "wrong" because they're not what's being fed to you. You submit to outward influences exclusively. Consequently, you're compromising your own individuality. This beautiful, manipulative device we call media is apparently the flame thrower here. | |
topic: Rants | |
[reply] [6 comments] |
|
| pages: back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 next |