Written In Gray

Charity

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Palmer) — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 07:58:43 PST

I am routinely emotionally assaulted by television commercials exhibiting a poor malnourished child in a third-world country wearing a pitiful expression as a commentator paces nearby pleading with the viewer to do something about it. It's a matter of course that the "something" they want you to do is to send them money. But I can't help but notice how blithely the commentator can ignore the presence of the child a mere arm's length away from them while begging viewers thousands of miles away to take action. Isn't the commentator the closest and most logical person to aide the child? Obviously he/she has more money than I do to be able to travel to these parts of the world, so they certainly can afford the insignificant two or three dollars they request.

Right about now, half my readers have moved on to the next blog post, shaking their head at my insensitivity to human suffering. The truth is however, that I am incredibly touched by this demeaning exploitation of children and equally offended at there obtuse nature. Hunger, famine, war and poverty are very real and much more common than we can easily imagine here in America with our decadence and self-consumed lifestyles motivated by greed and momentary personal gratification. I will never deny the existence of such tragedies. But do we really need to spend several hundred hard-earned dollars to travel to a foreign country in order to find these tremendous needs? Are ALL Americans so well-off that hunger, poverty and famine have no footholds in our own communities?

I firmly believe that charity begins at home. I use the word home in an ever-expanding and progressive globally encapsulating manner, yet simultaneously in the most common and literal way. How many families have you observed in an Escalade with a custom paint job, elaborate decals and spinning rims parking at the liquor store while the children run barefoot on the dirtiest streets in town and barely able to put one to two meals on the table per day? I have also seen families that could ill-afford to pay their rent, set aside grocery money to put in the offering plate at church to help some starving children in Africa. Do I begrudge the starving children in Africa the aid they may receive? Absolutely not. (I use the word "may" deliberately in light of the numerous scandals involving these so-called charitable organizations). I begrudge financial sacrifices offered by the "pious" and "generous" on the altar of their own families. Our duties are to those closest to us first. That is not to say that it should end there, only that home is where it should begin.

After the home is secure, then we should look to our local community, starting with next-door neighbors. At one time, neighbors were those from whom you could borrow a cup of sugar in exchange for lending a cup of flower next week. Now most of us don't even know our neighbor's names, let alone how they are doing in other aspects of life. How many CEOs pass by the beggar on the street because they already donate to charities? This is a blatant reversal of the true order of things and demonstrates greed instead of charity. It is easy to condemn those who utilize the aid of Welfare, but are unwilling to assist people ourselves. The sense of community has vanished from the American horizon. This also applies to corporations, maybe more so since their available funds for charity vastly dwarf those of the individual. Yet they pursue the tax deductions and write-offs they get from charitable organizations rather than the true spirit of charity. They pursue the bottom line and highest profits. How many jobs could, for example, be created by Walmart if it were to remove all its self-checkout lines and replace them with real live people? That would be far more charitable than for walmart to send "charitable" donations overseas.

Is this perspective selfish? Not even close. It is simple common sense. If your next door neighbor is starving, and you are barely making ends meet, you might be able to buy them a meal or two, but beyond that, they are still going to be having a rough go of it. In the long run, you haven't helped them a bit. But if you first improve your own situation to where you can afford to send them to college to get a more useable degree, and assist them in their job hunting by offering them transportation, then you have truly helped and been charitable. The same principle applies to global charity. How can we expect to end world hunger if we refuse to help alleviate local hunger. Your town is part of the world too. Let's not feed foreigners to spite the local citizens. Lets revive the true neighborhood spirit, and become more charitable in fact instead of show.

Cruel Messiah

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Palmer) — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 22:44:04 PST

My cruel savior
Divinity wrapped in messiah black
Consume my soul for my penance
Depraved and unwilling
I'll find my redemtion within the gates of hell
Kneeling before him
Receiving his stripes upon my back
Is this your forgiveness?
I'll opt for your vengeance
Received standing proud upon my feet

Deific tyrant
Proclaim with your dove his innocence
Your son and your honor
You hang like a coat upon the nails
Saint's envy, sinner's boon
Ignored, disowned, condemned
Is this your forgiveness?
I'll opt for your vengeance
Received standing proud upon my feet

Written by Sam Palmer

America: Nation of Christianity or of Religious Freedom?

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Palmer) — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 22:42:18 PST

The problem with America is that ever since its establishment, it has attempted a duplicitous approach to government. Christians have gasped in horror for years at the mention of nations dominated by other religions, presuming such precluded the resident Christians from freely practicing their religion. Yet America would make us believe that a "Christian" nation is a nation of religious freedom. How much religious freedom did "Christian" Europe experience during the dark ages? Any time a government subscribes to a religion, it favors that same religion, negating religious freedom.
To those who would seek to eliminate the religious freedom side of America's duplicity, I would ask them to point out a time in history when a religiously biased government resulted in ought but mass hysteria and pointless bloodshed. I would ask when any but a select few ever benefited from such an environment. Would these individuals hold the same views if their children's flesh fed the inquisitorial flames?
To those who hold that the current duplicitous nature of the government can be maintained to the mutual benefit of all and improved to embrace its own claims, I would ask how an atheist can feel free in a nation that requires him/her to swear their most solemn vows upon the sacred document of an alien faith. I would seek to know how a Muslim president could fulfill his/her duties without the criticism and fear of the people he/she governed, without feeling constraint on his/her devotional life. I would require a respectable treatment of all religions in the media, including all from the Orthodox churches, Bible thumping baptists, hysterical Pentecostals and celebrity-funded Scientologists, to the Ancestor worshiping Hindus, peaceful Buddhists, devotional Muslims, Goddess blessing Pagans and self-empowering Satanists. When I see the witness stand oath taken with hand upon the sacred text of the individual's faith, unbiased rendering of minority religions in the media, mutual respect betwixt all faiths and lacks thereof combined with a national spirit of cooperation and family, then I will believe that our idealistically duplicitous Christian nation can truly achieve religious freedom instead of the current governmental multiple personality disorder we glibly overlook while reciting the pledge of allegiance in monotone.
To those who seek a better, brighter future, pregnant with potential and of mutual benefit to all, I would ask to give our children that which our forefather's in their short-sighted wisdom refused to give us: a nation that can truly claim to be the land of the free. A nation that releases its age-long claim to be of one religion. Let it bear a new motto in lieu of the hypocritical and unrealistically idealistic "E Pluribis Unum (Out of many one)". Let our children salute a flag that states unequivocally that "We are many" for to celebrate diversity we must first accept diversity and cease to seek unification of mind where there will never be. Let us rather work together, as a many mind toward a common goal bringing our assorted perspectives and gifts to the table that all may mutually benefit. Thus will the millennium of peace begin, and thus only can the nation shed its current shameful personality disorder upon which the world now rests its laughter, disdain and hate.

Public Chooses Supposed Modesty Over Child's Basic Needs

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Palmer) — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:11:44 PST

I am absolutely appalled, but never speechless. A woman breast-feeding her four-month-old child at a public pool was asked to desist and remove herself and the child to the restroom facilities to feed her child. The lifeguard addressing her, stated that she was not allowed to breastfeed her child there, and that there was a policy against eating and drinking in the pool area.

While the law defends a mother's right to nurse her child when and where she deems it necessary (provided both the child and the mother are otherwise allowed to be present), some feel that nursing a child in public is offensive, or even lewd.

What I find more shocking than an isolated lifeguard and pool manager displaying their ignorance of life in this regard, is the public opinion I find expressed in the comments under the article. Here is a brief list of selected quotes:

"Just another situation of "I'm going to do what I want to do and to heck with anyone else."
"Why not take care of your baby's needs before running to the grocery store."
"I think breast feeding should be a private thing. I for one, would rather not witness it in a public place. It creeps me out."

Amazing! I recommend that you watch the video accompanying the article. You will observe the mother's breastfeeding practices, and she does not perform her motherly duties in a lewd or immodest manner.

One comment made in the mother's defense definitely had a valid point: "you don't have to look." If another person's individual choices regarding their modesty offend you while still abiding by the laws of the land, then put your eyes back in your head and look somewhere else. How many people do you think have attended a Mar Dis Gras festival or at least wanted to? How many people would like to either hand out beads during such an event, or collect them? How many people enjoy the form of the female body? And yet, the thought of a woman's breasts serving their primary natural function by feeding a helpless infant when he/she is hungry "creeps" them out? Oh for the love of sanity! America would rather starve an infant than MODESTLY look away while he/she nursed.

Moreover, the act of breastfeeding is an act of bonding, connection and care between a mother and a child. The rest of the world is excluded from that interaction. If you see a woman suckling her infant, she isn't trying to flaunt her body for your freudian voyeuristic pleasure. It isn't a lewd act. A child's needs are being attended. The mother cannot (and I mean CANNOT) prevent herself from having to care for her childs needs in public from time to time. Any parent knows this.

In short, anyone who objects to the respectable feeding of a child by natural means when the need arises in a public venue, is not being ridiculous, is not being irrational. They are being stupidly naive.

The Caustic Nature of Humanitarian Concern

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Palmer) — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:12:27 PST

I just read an article in the New York Times describing our current society as the “incarceration generation,” and detailing the profound negative effects of parental incarceration on their children. Sarah S. McLanahan, a sociologist at Princeton University was quoted as saying "this inter-generational transfer of problems should be included as an additional cost of incarceration to society," when citing how physical aggressiveness, homelessness, clinically significant social isolation, depression and anxiety, as well as tendencies to follow in the path of crime and incarceration are consistently higher in children whose parents are or have been incarcerated.

I would definitely recommend the article to my readers, as it states clearly the pathetic status of our supposedly cultured society. While many anthropologists and humanitarians might see this as yet another opportunity to cast ourselves fully and completely before these poor floundering citizens, and offer them numerous services at the taxpayer's expense, I have several reasons for approaching the topic from a different perspective.

1) These poor children may be the victims of our society, but they are not the root problem. To apply a band-aid to a severed head will heal no wound, and a stench will certainly reward any who wait in the belief that it will.

2) Some of the younger children referred to in the article may yet piece together a successful life for themselves from the wreckage left to them. Many however, will not only pursue a frightfully self-destructive path, but will do so with determination, and any attempts to help them will end in futility due either to the subjects disinterest or to the perspective of "take what you want from others, then leave them behind without a backward glance." What is that old saying, "do not cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample the pearls, then turn about and rend you?"

3) The root of the problem lies, not with the impoverished, lower class, minority groups capitalizing on the only opportunities that they see before them, but with the philosophies of a nation, which condones lenient punishments for heinous crimes under the sanctimonious guise of human rights.

In nations that provide harsh punishments for crimes (even if some crimes punished harshly are mild according to our standards) the rates of such crimes are monumentally lower, whereas in nations (such as our own beloved and poorly ordered United States of America) that support "high" standards of human rights and shun such harsh brands of punishment as hanging, beheading, stocks, starvation, and torture enjoy the ever-increasing crime-rates currently blessing our land. Former President Bill Clinton expressed the outrage of a blissfully naive nation when a young man faced caning for spray-painting graffiti on several parked cars, yet such punishments evoke a great degree of respect for a country's laws in its citizens.

Here I will call a point into question: in regards to humanitarian interests, has locking criminals away from society in temples of derelict behavior (where they can smoke cigarettes, watch television, read books, gain an education, work out in a gym, and exercise in open air, all at the expense of the taxpayer) improved the human experience? These punishments obviously have no positive impact, as repeat offenders are an ever-increasing trend. Now add this new information regarding the effects of parental incarceration on children, and I ask once again, how humanitarian is it to provide human rights to those who disregard those same said rights? How much benefit has our merciful mindset provided? How long will it take this nation to pull its head out of its ass and realize that rather than housing, feeding, clothing, and providing creature comforts to hardened criminals, perhaps it is time to practice some old wisdom and throw out the bad apples before they spoil the barrel?

Our nation is under siege by its own stupidity, and it is only a matter of time before the walls of society crumble into ruins of anarchy, mercenary justice, and lawless tyrants. Welcome to the new world everyone! You would never believe how nice and comfortable we have made it for criminals and corrosive minds.

Click HERE for another excellent article written by a like-minded blogger.

Presidential Church Attendance: A National Concern?

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Palmer) — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:13:06 PST

Click here for a link to the article that inspired this post.

So the Obamas still haven't decided on a church to regularly attend in Washington D.C.. This has the nation watching eagerly, and not without concern, hoping to see the presidential family choose a church soon. The sentiment of the media is that a president should be in regular attendance at a local congregation by now, and that such is not the case demonstrates a serious problem for the country.

The United States prides itself on freedom of speech and religion. Yet we dare express concern that its president, who should be an icon of such liberties, is undecided on which church to attend with his family? Is this nation so steeped in Christianity that it fails to grant religious freedom to those of other faiths, including but not limited to atheists?

America is supposedly a nation where the citizens are free to practice the religion of their individual choosing, or to practice none at all, without the fear of any socio-politico-economic repercussions for so doing. Yet a factor affecting the Obamas indecision regarding regular attendance at a local church is the political drama that would ensue from concluding on one congregation as opposed to another. How petty people can be!

How would this nation react to a Islam president, or a buhdist? How about the recent re-emergence of paganism in modern societies? Would our nation feel horror at having a pagan president? When we ask ourselves these questions, it becomes immediately obvious that this country is not one of religious freedom and equality for all, but only for those who abide by a "christian" lifestyle. What does the christian community have to offer that other religious groups cannot give: politicians and presidents alike commit adultery while in regular attendance at local churches; ministers, pastors and priests molest and sodomize children, or sleep with parishioners' wives; theft, murder, money-laundering, and treason have been authorized and committed by those under the auspices of christian presidential administrations; a woman's money is stollen while she is kneeling in a church ; a church volunteer sunday-school teacher allegedly rapes and kills an 8-year-old girl; a church minister encourages parishioners to bring their guns to church.

(Please note: Regarding the last item in the previous list, I am NOT A SUPPORTER of gun-control legislation, and I DO SUPPORT the citizen's right to keep and bear arms.)

My point in listing the above is not to defame or blame Christianity for society's problems, but to point out that Christianity is not an intrinsic solution to them. For all the purported morality and pious wordplay, Christians exercise their free-will to make bad choices as much as those of others faiths.

It all boils down to the fact that the citizen's common subconscious belief about America is that it is still "One nation, under god," and that anyone failing to pay homage to the wording "in god we trust" is a heathen and thereby unworthy of public office. This in turn causes the majority to question a president's suitability for office until he has demonstrated a piety to match the public's expectation. "With freedom and justice for all?" Not even close. Until the president's choice of a church reverts to a personal right instead of a public declaration of suitability for office, this country will offer no more than freedom and justice for ecumenically-minded Christians.

OF AMERICA, I AM ASHAMED!

Patriotic Ignorance or Ignorant Patriotism?

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Palmer) — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:16:32 PST

Take a good look at the short video clip above, and tell me what you see. They're so cute and adorable, reciting so proudly, a vow they don't even understand. It makes you all warm and fuzzy inside to see their innocent little faces as they swear their undying love to their country.

HELLO! Have we become so desensitized to reality that we don't see this for what it really is? These children are graduating from preschool! They don't know what the Pledge of Allegiance means. They're doing impressively to be pronouncing the word "allegiance!" Take a brief look at what these children are saying.

"I pledge
allegiance
to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands:
one nation
under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice
for all."

Those are some pretty heavy words to be recited numbly by preschoolers. Hey, I have an idea! Let's teach those sweet little ones this little pledge. They can recite it daily to their favorite classmate.

"I take you,
[name],
to have and to hold
from this day forward,
for better for worse,
for richer for poorer,
in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish,
till death us do part."

What? Horrified? I sure hope so! After all, they are only children, and have no comprehension of the kind of commitment they would be making with that vow. Do you think I am making a drastic and poorly applied comparison? Think about what the words pledge and allegiance mean.

PLEDGE

pledge (plej)

noun

the condition of being given or held as security for a contract, payment, etc. a thing held in pledge
a person or thing given or held as security for the performance of a contract, as a guarantee of faith, etc.; something pawned; hostage
a token or earnest
a drinking to someone's health to express good will or allegiance; toast
a promise or agreement
something promised, esp. money to be contributed in regular payments
☆ a person undergoing a trial period before formal initiation into a fraternity, sorority, etc.

(from http://www.yourdictionary.com/pledge)

(Numbers 3, 4 and 7 really don't apply in this context, but I included them for the sake of accuracy.)

The condition of being GIVEN or HELD AS SECURITY for a CONTRACT? A PERSON or thing GIVEN or HELD AS SECURITY... SOMETHING PAWNED, HOSTAGE? Forgive me for noticing some relatively strong and binding legal overtones here. These terms do not strike me as a casual "yeah, sure." Rather, they tell me that short of signing your name in blood, you can't make a more binding promise. Oh yeah, that looks a LOT different from the marriage vows doesn't it?

ALLEGIANCE

al·le·giance (ə lē′jəns)

noun

the duty that was owed by a vassal to his feudal lord
the obligation of support and loyalty to one's ruler, government, or country
loyalty or devotion, as to a cause, person, etc.

(from http://www.yourdictionary.com/allegiance)

Duty, owed, vassal, feudal lord, obligation, loyalty, ruler, government, country, devotion... all words I doubt your average 5-year-old truly comprehends. Once again, these words are legal, binding, contractual terms reserved for serious commitments and obligations.

An oath of devotion and loyalty to a government, recited dumbly from the lips of children; should not an comparatively significant relationship with the child's family be of greater importance at such an age? So why is the Pledge of Allegiance instilled in our children from the moment they learn to speak?

BRAINWASH

brain·wash (brān′wôs̸h′)

transitive verb

To indoctrinate so intensively and thoroughly as to effect a radical transformation of beliefs and mental attitudes

(from http://www.yourdictionary.com/brainwash)

To indoctrinate so intensively and thoroughly as to effect a radical transformation of beliefs and mental attitudes

In my never humble opinion, the Pledge of Allegiance is nothing but brainwashing, ingraining a pseudo sense of loyalty and national pride by indoctrination. As we grew up, we were TAUGHT that we were proud to be an American, proud of our country, and loyally patriotic to the core. Where is the personal choice in that? Where is our freedom to our opinions? Where is our freedom of speech, if we have been programmed to regurgitate the Pledge of Allegiance on demand?

My challenge to every American, patriot or anarchist, is this: refuse to be a mindless audio file on replay, automatically puking up what you have been programmed to say. REFUSE TO RECITE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE OR TO MAKE YOUR CHILDREN LEARN IT! That is the TRUE American way!

The Decline of Democracy

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Palmer) — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:28:07 PST

Disclaimer

I do not support the use of anarchy, revolution, civil unrest, warmongering, or any other anti-government ideology involving illegal methods. The article below is purely a philosophical dissertation on my own theories and predictions regarding the future of America and so should not serve to promote the taking of any actions into one's hands. As I state below, there is little we CAN do to stop what is already set in motion. I take no responsibility for any rash or unwise actions taken that could in any way be conceived as illegal.

The Decline of Democracy
I risk redundancy by asking, what is wrong with our country? A question asked rhetorically or honestly by every American with an awareness of national politics, it returns in many forms for the simple reason that the root issues have never been addressed and rectified. Our nation is racing headlong down a tight rope, stretched between glorious history and ignoble ruin, yet most are concerned only that it refrain from falling either into anarchy and revolution or tyrannical dictatorship.
The Debatable Glory of Our History
What red-blooded American is ignorant of the religious persecution that drove the pilgrims to the open arms of the vast Americas? Who cannot recite the struggles and hardships of the “old days?” What cannot be said for the tenacity and determination of our forefathers? The struggles they willingly endured, for the sake of freedom from the suppression they fled, was noble. However, in their flight from suppression, they brought its most basic elements with them.
Is it noble for a peasant in some medieval tale to dethrone a tyrant king, only to take his place as the next draconian monarch? Would that not be a coupe rather than a revolt in the name of justice? He would simply become the next successor in a long line of tyrannical monsters.
Similarly, the pilgrims brought the persecution that they fled with them, removing themselves from the headsman’s block only to pick up his axe. The cycle of government corruption, like violence, revolves again.
The pure intent of the sanctimonious retreat to American soil was short-lived. The moment a dissenting voice spoke from the placidity of religious freedom, the fires of persecution burst once again into blossoming flame. Settlements divided, split over some doctrinal difference, until once side either crushed or banished the other. This story has yet to reach its end, even today.
Missionaries and soldiers stood sided-by-side in their fight against the indigenous “heathens,” giving them the chance to convert and conform, or flee the persecution brought by those caustically expounding the values of religious freedom with their swords. America certainly does have a history rich with nobility, honor, and fighting for freedom, but only the freedom of those in power.
The untainted truth is that the pilgrims and pioneers were no less inquisitorial tyrants than those from whom they fled. Yet this is the heritage to which we point with pride, these the forefathers we idolize and praise for their achievements in the fight for freedom and religious liberty.
A Nation Doomed from Birth
Pogo Stick Pilgrims
Two types of government tend to last longer than any other. The first is the one established as a purely secular establishment, with the sole purpose of controlling the actions of the people by way of an unbending set of laws and funded by money commandeered from the citizens. Socialism and communism have demonstrated this by effectively outlawing religion and establishing a dictatorship. Other types of governments have employed purely secular styles, but their weakness has always been the uprising of religious sects.
The second government, outshining even the first type in terms of longevity, is that which boldly embraces a religion. Examples of such forms of government are India, Saudi Arabia, and England.
The great empires of history started out as one of these two general types of government. How did they come to ruin? By trying to join the two into one.
Rome is an excellent example. She conquered her way though much of the then-known world, spreading her power and influence through force and fear. While most Romans shared the same basic religious beliefs and practices, the nation did not dictate any belief system on those they conquered.
While it may be argued that many Christians were mercilessly slaughtered during the time of Nero, it should be noted that other religions fell victim to no such animosity.
Not until Rome “converted” did she begin to fail. The decline of an empire, after its compromise of the two forms of government, is seldom immediate, but it has always proved to be nonetheless imminent. Within a few hundred years, it was little more than a center for a new government housed within its borders. The original empire existed only as a shell, possessed by the second type of government, the Church of Rome.
How does this history lesson relate to modern America and its debased economy and political squalor? The answer lies in history, where the wise can discern a discouraging pattern.
The United Stated of America did not start out on the wrong foot. In fact, there really isn’t a wrong foot for a government to start out on. Just as a pilgrimage begins with a single step, regardless which foot is employed, so does government. However, to further the pilgrimage analogy, the pilgrim’s first step is not made with both feet. The most forward motion said pilgrim could hope to make in such a manner would be by hopping, and any pilgrimage involving hopping is bound to be short-lived.
Yet our beloved pioneers and forefathers started in with an energetic hop, to hell with consequences and inevitable ruin. They determinately established a nation where democracy, the core element in anarchy, joined hands with a Christian state, the key element of the inquisition and crusades. This, they did, in the name of religious freedom. Freedom, by their definition, for Christians alone, as was demonstrated in the Salem with trials. Was this the greatest of their crimes against the future of the red, white and blue? Hardly.
Comfort: The Neurotoxin of Civilization
Believe in creation, in evolution, or don’t believe either theory. Regardless of your view of the origins of terrestrial life forms, all evidence points to a rough start for the human race. Whether that period of gradual progression spanned millions of years, or a few millennia, mankind had to fight for its existence. There were periods of civilization along the way, a plethora of comfort and wealth amassed by some sovereign with more foresight than most, but none lasted.
Strangely, while mankind struggled, straining at the yoke of survival, it thrived politically as a species. Yet when it reached a climactic point, where life ceased to be a struggle, the decadence of the society would give rise to internal struggles. The easier life became, the more the nature of man demanded that its need for struggle be sated. Instead of laboring each day, sweating to supply the basic needs of one’s family, the mind of the relatively care-free person began to seek its struggle for life by quarreling with others. Issues that never touched the thoughts of men when fighting against the elements for survival began to surface as monumental obstacles to the growth and prosperity of the society. Factions split, the nation turned on itself from the inside. At first the controversy might be violence free and “civilized,” but in the end, it would result in bloodshed.
Our nation, our land of the free and home of the brave, was born out of the desire to obtain a utopian society. Many believe even today that there is no better type of government than that under which we live. Yet as technology has eased the travail of survival, the trend of discontent has swelled in direct synchronicity. The better this country is made to be, the less fulfilled will be the men and women inhabiting it. More and more issues are rearing their heads as diabolical evils, which were no more than a passing notion a hundred years before. The times are not worse, the perception of the mind deprived of the struggle to survive is simply skewed by its need to find something to fight for, until it begins to fabricate a cause, in whose name to do battle.
The Necessity of War
No sane human likes war. Yet the nature of man is imperfect in its masochistic need for struggle. War has ever and anon been a defining characteristic of our race. In supposed times of peace, societies seek strife within their borders by erecting a supposed evil among their midst, simply to occupy themselves by casting it down.
I have no need for historical examples, not just because they offer themselves up to the scholar as freely as carrion offers itself up to flies, but because our modern society, here in America, gives all the example I need to amply demonstrate my point.
During the Revolutionary War, the Americans were divided into two distinct and clearly defined groups: the loyalist patriots, and the revolutionary rebels. No petty rivalries or faction differences separated the two sides within themselves. A man either wanted to be ruled by the king of England or by a new free America. Together, each side banded together to fight for the cause.
The World Wars, brought upon the nation by tyrants on distant shores, presented to the American people, once again, a common enemy, and they banded together to survive, each fighting in his/her own way.
Gradually, as our society became farther removed from the struggles and hardships of life and death, the notion of a common threat receded beyond the horizon, giving precedence to internal conflict and struggle. Such were the origins of the civil war, bloods vs. crips, white vs. black, etc.. How many petty issues have arisen due to an overlong period of peace.
September 11, 2001, shook the foundations of our stuffy, self-absorbed nation. In a moment, all differences were forgotten in the face of a common enemy. Three months later, a sign reminiscent of the Vietnam era, hung from a college room window bearing the flower-child slogan, “Make love, not war.” The longer our nation has enjoyed the respite of peace, the more desensitized it has become to the reality that is our existence as a race.
I shudder to think of foreign armies setting foot on American soil, yet all the patterns of human behavior through history show that until such an event transpires, we will not know peace among ourselves. A gruesome and terrible admission regarding our race, but without war, we are nothing but rats in a cage preparing to cannibalize one another.
Predictions
Two fundamental problems rest at the base of our nations dysfunction. First, any nation attempting to join democracy with a republic, maintain a Christian state, and advocate the right to religious liberty all in the same breath, will unerringly plunge itself into a convoluted revolution with more sides and factions than a diamond has facets. Second, the United States of America has enjoyed so much peace, that it will either rally together under hostile assault that may rend its foundations, or tear itself apart from the inside with internal struggles erupting into a cacophonous civil war.
Did you want me to present a solution to this horrid mess? Frankly, the bowling ball is on the lane, and there isn’t much to do at this point but watch the pins fall. Someone should have possessed the foresight to think these things through before they established such a confused system of government in the first place. In my opinion, the only way for any of this to be resolved is through a total restructuring of the government in all its functions and forms. Whether it is accomplished through war, or through anarchy and revolution, it will happen. The only question in my mind, is when.

Disclaimer

I do not support the use of anarchy, revolution, civil unrest, warmongering, or any other anti-government ideology involving illegal methods. The article above is purely a philosophical dissertation on my own theories and predictions regarding the future of America and so should not serve to promote the taking of any actions into one's hands. As I previously stated, there is little we CAN do to stop what is already set in motion. I take no responsibility for any rash or unwise actions taken that could in any way be conceived as illegal.

Discrimination in Georgia Public Elementary School -- Sarah Cobb Extorts Money From its Students for Uniform Code Leniency

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Palmer) — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:29:51 PST

Sarah Cobb Real World Academy in Americus, Georgia, has employed a fund raising tactic that is fraught with bullying, extortion and discrimination. Under the guise of charitable fund raising, the school seeks to exploit their draconian uniform dress code, offering students the chance to purchase the right to wear clothes outside of the school’s normal established guidelines.

On February 11, 2009, Sarah Cobb sent fliers home with their students regarding “School Wide Fundraiser Activities” due to take place on the following day, February 12, 2009. The flier offered students the opportunity to pay two dollars to be able to wear jeans and a hat to school without recrimination.

An accompanying flier regarding “Important Dates” contained an entry for February 12, reading, “As part of our school wide fundraiser, students may pay $2 and wear jeans and their favorite hat. Students not participating must wear their regular school uniform.” To ensure the motivational weight struck deep, the school accented the second sentence with underlined, bold characters.

The original intent of the ill-devised school uniform was to make the schools a safer place for students. While a national controversy rages on whether a t-shirt or pair of pants can harm a student, the parents of Sumter County have dutifully leaned their shoulders into the burden of purchasing school uniforms for their children, while dust collects on entire wardrobes of perfectly acceptable clothing. For many this burden is more than a couple extra hours of back-to-school shopping or dealing with their children’s complaints.

For a city with poverty rates almost doubling those of the nation, purchasing these demoralizing uniforms is a tremendous financial stress on nearly a quarter of Americus’ households. While a two-dollar, “charitable donation” may not appear as intimidating to the majority, 1 out of 4 households might have to resort to cleaning out the couch cushions for any unscheduled cost, no matter how small. Many children from these families would more than likely have to attend school in the normal uniform attire, simply because their financial background is not as pleasant as that of some their classmates.

The purpose for employing the uniform dress code was to make schools a safer place, but this “fundraiser” creates a school environment in which the child living in poverty must also garner ridicule, scorn, and embarrassment, as they lay their financial status bare for all to see.

The school flier employs guilt-trips on parents to ensure their donations, employing words like “students not participating” to describe those that cannot afford to pay the two dollars, reminding them that should the child be unable to “donate” he/she will have to wear regular school drudgeries.

The portion of the dress code regarding the wearing of hats indoors teaches valuable manners, but this “fundraiser” teaches children that manners can be substituted with money. While, to a certain degree, it is true that with money comes privilege, it is hardly a moral to be taught in the public school environment.

Sarah Cobb Real World Academy has employed the tactics of the schoolyard bully who, taking another child’s lunch, offers to give it back for a price. Sumter County would frown on a police officer extorting money from drug dealers to let them run free, yet sits placidly by as their local school extorts money from our children. Discrimination is morally bankrupt, no matter what the basis, and Sarah Cobb has employed discriminatory practices to extort money from the more financially fair, while punishing those living on the wrong side of the poverty line.

Note: This article was first submitted to the Americus, GA newspaper, the Americus Times Recorder, but received no response for over a week. The town of Americus has no qualms about arguing the rights of a member of a minority group, but will turn its backs on its own children when their teachers take advantage of their innocence.

Anyone desiring copies of the two fliers mentioned in the above article, please send me an email at sammael_ben_nephilim@live.com I will give you my address where you can send me a written request and a SASE. I would love to make hard copies available entirely free to email requests, but I do not have a working scanner at the moment and funds are tight, so paying for the copy is the most I can offer to do at this time. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Want to make a difference?
Protest these injustices by contacting one or more of the following.
Sarah Cobb
Americus Times Recorder
American Civil Liberties Union