Chomsky’s theory about the role of education had many valid points, but the main problem I found with the theory is its comprehensive nature. He implies critical thinking is absent from all formal education, which clearly isn’t true. Case in point: SOC 119. But I do think the theory applies particularly well to a certain type of school: Sunday school.

As an Evangelical Lutheran, the church I have attended my entire life confirmed me into the Christian faith at age 13 when I was in eighth grade after two years of confirmation classes every Sunday. I also had the opportunity to attend communion classes in fifth grade, at age 10, that allowed me to eat bread and drink wine with the “adults.” I hadn’t really considered this until listening to Chomsky, but I realized this was a perfect example of education as breeding conformity. What never crossed my mind before was just how young I was when I was confirmed into the Church.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I know my ability to think critically wasn’t exactly at its peak. The highest level of critical thinking I did at this age probably involved what others would think if the shirt I wore to school that day. And that’s what I didn’t realize. I was confirmed into a Church at a time when I didn’t have the ability to think critically about faith or the Church. I accepted what I was told, not knowing any better at the time. So why would the Church teach me ideas that were way over my head at this point in my life? Enter Chomsky.

It seems the Church was trying to drill its ideas into my head before I developed an ability to question them. That seems the most logical explanation as to why the Church didn’t wait until I was able to fully understand what I was being taught to teach me the religion. Sounds like propaganda to me.

It’s a little ironic, too, that a religion that preaches honesty (“Thou shalt not bear false witness”) uses a means of deception to recruit members. There are times I have questioned the religion, but I still remain an Evangelical Lutheran. I have lost some respect for the process, though. It is somewhat disheartening to discover something you have always thought to be pure is flawed. I understand nothing is without flaw, but when the flaws are known and done purposely, some credibility is lost.

But the saddest part of all this is that there are people who fall for it, go through life without questioning or aren’t aware of such flaws. Again, I can’t speak for everybody, so giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming such people do realize what is happening, there are plenty of people who fail to speak out against it, which essentially produces the same results, and might as well be just as bad.

The growing presence of the Chinese language in America seems similar to the presence of the Spanish and Latino cultures in our country that have been on the rise for quite some time now. The presence of the Spanish language in America has reached the point where it is not uncommon to find English publications printed alternately in Spanish, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Chinese language reach an equal level of prominence sometime in the future. As China continues its rapid growth in the global economy (I’m not an economics major, but so I’ve heard), knowledge of the Chinese language will also rapidly grow in importance if the U.S. is to remain a top player in global economics.

As far as alternate English publications in Chinese, that may not happen as quickly, because the Spanish publications serve the large and growing population of Spanish-speaking residents in the United States, and, to the best of my knowledge, the Chinese population in our country is not nearly as large or expanding as fast. Regardless, the language will be important. But as useful, and possibly necessary to survival, as it may be to learn these languages, I think we need to take care that English remains the primary language in America.

OK, now hang on a second. I’m well aware that comment may have come off as closed-minded, but please, hear me out on this one. First of all, I want to make it known that I am in no way against the use of different tongues or, as some may extend my comments to mean, immigration. The melting-pot nature of America is something that shouldn’t be lost because of the differing and educational cultural experiences it provides us. If my comments were interpreted to mean we should establish a national language, they were interpreted wrong. But if they were interpreted to mean I’m not sold on the idea of translating ALL our printed English into Spanish, I’m not inclined to argue with that interpretation.

What I’m trying to say, perhaps in simpler terms, is that cultures vary by location, and if a person chooses to live in a given location, I don’t think it would be unreasonable to expect him or her to learn the culture, regardless if that person chooses to engage in the practices of the culture.

For example: If I choose to move to Germany, I could probably get by speaking English (granted, many European countries cater to English speakers more than America caters to people who don’t speak English), but I would hold myself to understanding the language and culture, if for no other reason than to help myself succeed. Slang terms and things of that nature are inherent in a culture and may not be effectively translated into another language, and if I was, say, a business man who wanted a step up on his competition, learning the language and culture would be necessary for success. I never said it would be easy to move to another country and learn a new language. I think it would be far from easy – difficult, in fact – but that’s just one of the things that comes with it.

Make no mistake, foreign languages should absolutely be taught in schools, and it is great for our country, both from an economical and a purely educational standpoint, to see foreign language programs sprouting in our nation’s schools. The fact of the matter, though, remains that English is the language the majority of Americans use to communicate, and in a democracy, the majority should continue to take precedent.

When it comes to criticizing public figures like professional athletes and politicians, I usually apply the if-you-can’t-take-the-heat-get-out-of-the-kitchen approach, but this is kind of like setting a politician’s kitchen on fire and then holding him to that same standard.

I believe that such public figures should be subject to the criticism of their public. I see it as part of the job description. If public figures don’t like it or can’t take it, well, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. I understand they are people with feelings and emotions just like everybody else, but it’s just one of those things that come with holding such a prestigious and powerful position. Of course, people thrust into the limelight unwillingly are exempt from this idea, but the men and women who sit on Capitol Hill knowingly and willingly put themselves there, so they should expect – and be expected to take – criticism.

Following that logic, I can’t really disagree with the words protestors used to describe Representatives Lewis and Frank. Were they disrespectful? Yep. Hurtful? Oh, yeah. Juvenile and emotionally inspired? Check and check. Do I agree with using the words the protestors did in the way they were used? Absolutely not. But as American Congressmen, this is something they should expect to hear in light of such hotly contested legislation that brings such immense change. I never said it was fair – and whether or not it is fair to subject people who are, well, just people, to such hurtful and disrespectful words is another debate – but I do think it comes with being a public figure.

But the line in the sand is drawn when violence enters the picture. Spitting and threatening someone with death? That doesn’t fly, not to mention that these protestors, who possess such closed minds and lack such self control, seem not to have been paying attention when we got the “respect others” lesson in way back in kindergarten. That public figures should be subjected to physical harm and fear, that isn’t in the job description. It is the right of protestors to express opinion – that’s written in the Constitution – but they forgot about the part that says it must be done in a peaceful and civil manner. It’s not the right of a person to commit acts of physical degradation, threaten violence or inspire fear against another, not to mention just how elementary that is.

The funny thing is, protestors like these often defend themselves by appealing to their own sense of patriotism – that is, that they’re American, and they’re exercising their rights as Americans. Last time I checked, being American allows for differing opinions and being able to express those opinions without threat or fear of physical harm. Sounds like a history lesson is in order. But hey, look on the bright side – Texas is looking into some new history books that supposedly tell the real story of what it means to be an American.

A basketball league for players who want to play at a slower tempo? That’s like a league for skinny sumo wrestlers. And at first, I was OK with it. I thought it was an awful business venture. I find hard to believe there is a market niche for this, that this could achieve the entertainment value necessary for success, considering how professional basketball has developed into a game where spectators have come to expect fast and flashy action. Not to say there’s zero demand for it. I’m just not convinced people interested in watching basketball would be interested in watching a game played at a slower place – essentially, settling for something lower quality than what basketball has become known to be.

But I was OK with it. Hey, we’re in America, right? This place was founded on radical ideas and taking chances, so if someone has an idea and wants to give it a go, why not? Maybe it’s just crazy enough to work. I was even OK with a league exclusively for white people. The way I saw it was, there is a Miss Black America pageant, so if that isn’t discriminatory, how is this different? Then, as if on cue, Lewis promptly pulled out the .22, aimed at his foot, and pulled the trigger.

Now I’m not OK with it. His stereotypical comments aren’t what did it, either. It was that his faulty explanation of logic suggests racist beliefs exist in his head and that those beliefs are the groundwork for the formation of the league, counter to what he suggests.

Racism isn’t the best word, because that would suggest these players are superior players, when the reason for establishing this league (though I don’t believe this is the sole reason, but I’ll give Lewis the benefit of the doubt), at least in the eyes if Lewis, is to provide an opportunity to play basketball for those who can’t or don’t want to compete in established professional leagues. But here’s the catch: It’s not providing an opportunity for underrepresented (which white players are in professional basketball, that can’t be argued) or underprivileged players to play, because the league isn’t including all underprivileged or underrepresented players. The fact that he won’t (I would call it naïve to say a professional promoter can’t) recognize there are people other than those with white skin who might want to play “white ball.” But if you believe there aren’t racial undertones in that logic, then you must also believe all those gifts really did come from a man in a red suit who squeezed down your chimney.

The funny thing about the whole situation is that Lewis is a sports promoter, someone who works professionally in public relations. Shouldn’t he have been able to see this? That’s precisely why I think he did, and if he is aware of what he is doing, then he can be held accountable for it.

That brings up an interesting thought, though. As a public relations professional, was this just an attempt at publicity for himself? They say no publicity is bad publicity, so was this just a self-serving maneuver, using others to satisfy himself? That’s unclear. We can only argue with facts, which, according to Lewis, apparently include that black players are better at shooting.

When I had a fifth grade education, interest was something I had in my roommate’s current girlfriend, not something I collected when people owed me money.

That just goes to show how impressive Baptiste’s knowledge is. Don’t get me wrong; Baptiste is an intelligent woman with an incredible work ethic and an inspiring story, but I want play devil’s advocate for a minute. If she lived in a more developed nation (the U.S., let’s say), would she really rise to the top of her profession?

Sam believes that “had the creator/fate decided that her spirit should enter a body in a more developed nation, she’d very quickly have risen to the top and won any race or competition that required guts, determination, stamina, and outside-the-box creative thinking.” Baptiste clearly has the skills necessary to get to the top, so that’s not the issue. The issue is the same one she faced in Haiti: lack of opportunity.

Based on Sam’s lecture yesterday, the fact Baptiste is a black woman harms her opportunities in the job market, even in the land of opportunity that is America. Sam cited studies that demonstrated, with every other factor constant except for skin color, black people would still receive less offers for the same job than white people. So would she really have “risen to the top and won any race or competition?” Even though she might deserve to, I’m not convinced she would have.

There’s no doubt if she’s going to get to the top, she has a much better chance of doing so in a more developed nation such as the U.S. Much better. The restraints on her opportunities in America aren’t nearly as restrictive as what she faces in Haiti, and she very well might be able to overcome them in America with the work ethic she possesses. In fact, I believe she could. I truly believe you can do anything you want to in America if you are willing to work hard enough at it, so I don’t doubt she could rise to the top. I just don’t think it would be the cake walk Sam implies, that’s all.

Again, not to discredit what Baptiste has achieved, but thinking about her story after hearing it, I began to wonder how much of her success was brought on by a need to survive. In other words, is her creativity something that really would have come out if her survival wasn’t on the line?

Think about it this way: If she was financially secure living in the U.S., would she need to enact the out-of-the-box thinking she did in Haiti, where she was backed into a financial corner? Not to say she couldn’t or wouldn’t want to, but would Baptiste need to go out of her way to be as financially savvy? In general, it seems when satisfied, we are willing to be complacent with what we have, but when it’s sink or swim, that’s when the creative thinking and risk taking are at their peak. Just a thought.

Gerard Butler said it best as the lead role in the movie “Law Abiding Citizen”: it’s not what’s true; it’s what you can prove in court.

Though we’re not a courtroom, the same principle applies to the situation of lewd metaphors and sexual innuendo in the Bible. The “Adam’s Family Jewels” post by Krausz presents some intriguing theories about the meanings of certain words in the Bible, theories that had never before crossed my mind. The theories and explanations of the theories make a lot of sense. The thing is, Krausz doesn’t include any hard evidence to support the claims, so I can’t fully bring myself to believe them. They’re very convincing, and very well may be true, but because there is no proof, I’m skeptical. And that demonstrates that it’s not necessarily the truth that counts, but what can be proved. That’s what is most believable.

For instance, should Krausz’s claim the word “tsela,” traditionally translated to mean “rib,” be taken in it’s literal sense, or is it, as Krausz claims, a euphemism for “penis bone?” It’s very convincing based on the argument presented, but the bottom line is, without proof, we’ll never know for sure.

As intriguing as Krausz’s post was, what is even more interesting is how defensive the Church can become when the Scripture is challenged. What popped into my head was author Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” and the reasoning the Church provided (or didn’t provide) against Brown’s portrayal of historical fact in his book. A Christian Web site endorsed by credible ministries and churches, allaboutgod.com, attempted to convince readers Brown’s claims of fact, such as the marriage and offspring of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, were not true. Key word: attempted. Attempts weren’t good.

The site claimed because Brown’s claims were presented in a fiction book, the claims were also fiction: “Even claims that something is true, when found in a fiction book, are still fiction. If Brown had truly wanted to enlighten the world about his true nature of Jesus and the Catholic Church, he would have done so in a non-fiction setting.” The site went on to suggest Brown did this to “conjure interest” in his book and “increase sales,” or because the world he created actually does exist, but only in his mind.

Or this one: “[Brown] claims that these extra writings defined Jesus as merely a man and not divine. That is simply not true.” Nothing more said on why that “is simply not true.” How much credibility is behind claims like these? Certainly no more than is behind the claims Brown made in his book.

Brown’s claims are based primarily on testimony, not the most credible proof, but those claims were intriguing and believable. The real question is, does the fact that the Church so heavily denies Brown’s claims aid Brown’s cause in demonstrating their truth? A lack of evidence against Brown may prove just as much as concrete physical evidence for his claims. And the scary part is this: There are people who accept what the Church says as true simply because the Church says so.

Gerard Butler said it best as the lead role in the movie “Law Abiding Citizen”: it’s not what’s true; it’s what you can prove in court.

Though we’re not a courtroom, the same principle applies to the situation of lewd metaphors and sexual innuendo in the Bible. The “Adam’s Family Jewels” post by Krausz presents some intriguing theories about the meanings of certain words in the Bible, theories that had never before crossed my mind. The theories and explanations of the theories make a lot of sense. The thing is, Krausz doesn’t include any hard evidence to support the claims, so I can’t fully bring myself to believe them. They’re very convincing, and very well may be true, but because there is no proof, I’m skeptical. And that demonstrates that it’s not necessarily the truth that counts, but what can be proved. That’s what is most believable.

For instance, should Krausz’s claim the word “tsela,” traditionally translated to mean “rib,” be taken in it’s literal sense, or is it, as Krausz claims, a euphemism for “penis bone?” It’s very convincing based on the argument presented, but the bottom line is, without proof, we’ll never know for sure.

As intriguing as Krausz’s post was, what is even more interesting is how defensive the Church can become when the Scripture is challenged. What popped into my head was author Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” and the reasoning the Church provided (or didn’t provide) against Brown’s portrayal of historical fact in his book. A Christian Web site endorsed by credible ministries and churches, allaboutgod.com, attempted to convince readers Brown’s claims of fact, such as the marriage and offspring of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, were not true. Key word: attempted. Attempts weren’t good.

The site claimed because Brown’s claims were presented in a fiction book, the claims were also fiction: “Even claims that something is true, when found in a fiction book, are still fiction. If Brown had truly wanted to enlighten the world about his true nature of Jesus and the Catholic Church, he would have done so in a non-fiction setting.” The site went on to suggest Brown did this to “conjure interest” in his book and “increase sales,” or because the world he created actually does exist, but only in his mind.

Or this one: “[Brown] claims that these extra writings defined Jesus as merely a man and not divine. That is simply not true.” Nothing more said on why that “is simply not true.” How much credibility is behind claims like these? Certainly no more than is behind the claims Brown made in his book.

Brown’s claims are based primarily on testimony, not the most credible proof, but those claims were intriguing and believable. The real question is, does the fact that the Church so heavily denies Brown’s claims aid Brown’s cause in demonstrating their truth? A lack of evidence against Brown may prove just as much as concrete physical evidence for his claims. And the scary part is this: There are people who accept what the Church says as true simply because the Church says so.

Gerard Butler said it best as the lead role in the movie “Law Abiding Citizen”: it’s not what’s true; it’s what you can prove in court.

Though we’re not a courtroom, the same principle applies to the situation of lewd metaphors and sexual innuendo in the Bible. The “Adam’s Family Jewels” post by Krausz presents some intriguing theories about the meanings of certain words in the Bible, theories that had never before crossed my mind. The theories and explanations of the theories make a lot of sense. The thing is, Krausz doesn’t include any hard evidence to support the claims, so I can’t fully bring myself to believe them. They’re very convincing, and very well may be true, but because there is no proof, I’m skeptical. And that demonstrates that it’s not necessarily the truth that counts, but what can be proved. That’s what is most believable.

For instance, should Krausz’s claim the word “tsela,” traditionally translated to mean “rib,” be taken in it’s literal sense, or is it, as Krausz claims, a euphemism for “penis bone?” It’s very convincing based on the argument presented, but the bottom line is, without proof, we’ll never know for sure.

As intriguing as Krausz’s post was, what is even more interesting is how defensive the Church can become when the Scripture is challenged. What popped into my head was author Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” and the reasoning the Church provided (or didn’t provide) against Brown’s portrayal of historical fact in his book. A Christian Web site endorsed by credible ministries and churches, allaboutgod.com, attempted to convince readers Brown’s claims of fact, such as the marriage and offspring of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, were not true. Key word: attempted. Attempts weren’t good.

The site claimed because Brown’s claims were presented in a fiction book, the claims were also fiction: “Even claims that something is true, when found in a fiction book, are still fiction. If Brown had truly wanted to enlighten the world about his true nature of Jesus and the Catholic Church, he would have done so in a non-fiction setting.” The site went on to suggest Brown did this to “conjure interest” in his book and “increase sales,” or because the world he created actually does exist, but only in his mind.

Or this one: “[Brown] claims that these extra writings defined Jesus as merely a man and not divine. That is simply not true.” Nothing more said on why that “is simply not true.” How much credibility is behind claims like these? Certainly no more than is behind the claims Brown made in his book.

Brown’s claims are based primarily on testimony, not the most credible proof, but those claims were intriguing and believable. The real question is, does the fact that the Church so heavily denies Brown’s claims aid Brown’s cause in demonstrating their truth? A lack of evidence against Brown may prove just as much as concrete physical evidence for his claims. And the scary part is this: There are people who accept what the Church says as true simply because the Church says so.

The rich on welfare? I never new that existed, let alone examined how many negative thoughts I’ve had about rich welfare recipients. But on the bright side, it’s nice to know Latrell Sprewell has somewhere to turn if $14.6 million isn’t enough for him because he’s “got [his] family to feed.”

In case you didn’t know, Sprewell, a former Minnesota Timberwolves basketball player, became irritated at the team when it hesitated to offer him a contract extension while he was making $14.6 million from the team that 2004 season. He then dropped that line.

Reading Bauer’s comments reminded me of another incident I found surprising – and it wasn’t the time Sprewell choked his former coach. As a high school senior, I volunteered at a local Red Cross through the school’s student council. Shortly before Christmas, we prepared food and gifts for needy families. Someone would come to the Red Cross to pick up a package, and we would help load their cars. The ironic thing about the situation was that there were people who came to pick up their packages in Mercedes with elaborate stereo systems.

Granted, I know there are fallacies in a statement like that. I had no idea of any one person’s individual situation. Volunteering really made me realize how fortunate I am in a lot of regards, and I felt pretty well-off compared to some of the people I saw, but it was hard to feel remorse for those who put wants before needs.

Don’t get me wrong – Bauer’s statements were harsh and inappropriate. It was disrespectful to compare people to animals, and I don’t disagree that welfare programs should provide aid to those who are struggling financially. I believe in second chances for people who make mistakes. But when I see people who struggle to feed their kids drive cars that do more than get from point A to B – living beyond their means, simply put – I can’t help but share in some of Bauer’s frustration. As a taxpayer, I don’t mind seeing my money go to others in the form of financial aid for their needs. But that’s the thing – for their needs, not their wants.

And that includes the wealthy. I don’t know anything about welfare for the wealthy other than what Sam posted, but that’s just as much of a crime as the poor who use welfare for luxuries. I look upon those wealthy just as negatively as those poor. I also don’t disagree with Bauer’s feeling that “welfare recipients should be required to submit to drug tests and attend parent-teacher conferences if they have kids in school.” For the poor AND wealthy welfare recipients.

Bauer’s comments were interesting in the sense that this was a case of a politician speaking his true feelings – a happening that doesn’t always occur in politics. Because politicians often mask their opinions to appeal to the masses in the game that is politics, it was refreshing, in a sense, to see this come out. Not what he said, but the fact that he said it. He’s already proving to be more honest than South Carolina’s last governor.

I’m no economics major, but it seems the production of irony in politics is about equivalent to the production of iron in the Steel City. Is there hypocrisy in government? Did Joe Namath like women? Each is an inseparable part of the other.

In a related note, the sky is blue.

Runciman made an interesting point in saying voters “resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best. There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.”

And I agree. I don’t want to be preached to or talked down to as if I’m an inferior. I want to make my own decisions based on what I believe. But voting is more than just a right. It’s a social responsibility.

I understand voters unappreciative of being viewed as idiots, and whether politicians portray voters as such intentionally or not, it’s undesirable nonetheless. Runciman reminded me of something I heard during the presidential campaign in 2008, and I’m not so sure describing some voters as idiots is unwarranted in this case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCipmnYCKB0.

This is a segment from a Howard Stern radio show during election season. One of Stern’s colleagues interviews Harlem residents, asking why they support Obama. Stern’s colleague intentionally states some of McCain’s policies as being policies of Obama to see if those interviewed pick up on the mistakes. The interviewer also asks if interviewees would support Palin as Obama’s vice president, to which interviewees responded they would support her. Now, I’m aware there are a lot of fallacies with this segment. A lot. Only the responses that show voters as uneducated are included, so the entire population isn’t represented. The segment suggests all Obama supporters are comparable to these, which is certainly far from the truth. The credibility of Howard Stern, primarily an entertainer, isn’t quite that of a Harvard-educated political scientist. Just to name a few.

But if you believe this segment isn’t fabricated, then it does demonstrate one important thing, though: There are voters out there who are this unaware of what they’re voting for. I’m also aware this makes liberals look bad, without showing the conservatives who undoubtedly make the same mistakes. Maybe that’s part of the reason the report was done. It’s unfortunate liberals were thrown under the bus for this, but the point is, this does exist.

Like the ignorance demonstrated by Runciman in his column and Sam in his blog post, the ignorance in this is that people voted for something without the knowledge base they should have had to make an informed decision. That’s the part of voting that’s social responsibility.

Obama was a much better orator than McCain during the campaign, and campaigned on the promise of change, undoubtedly winning over at least some who were unsatisfied with the stagnant nature of the Bush administration. In a flip of what the column discussed, this time the Democrat told better stories, stories of hope and change, and look where it got him.

The point of all this being: There are people who, when they vote, don’t fully understand what they’re voting for, which, in my mind, is just as bad as not voting at all. People scream hypocrisy when others don’t vote and then complain about our government, but really, isn’t that just as much of a crime as voting for something not fully comprehended, essentially falling for the deceit of the silver tongue because a voter went with gut instinct instead of correctly researching the issues at hand? That’s where social responsibility comes into play.

It just goes to show the power words hold. Sometimes people can be persuaded to vote against their interests, sometimes people can be persuaded to vote for something they don’t even understand.

And sometimes it seems the only people believable in politics are the Jon Stewarts and the Stephen Colberts who point out the irony of both parties, and do it in an entertaining way, to show just how funny politics can be.

Colbert/Stewart in ’12, anybody?