#61: 0.15 Cents To a Dollar

It's crazy to think that something so many people rely on could be wrong...or a complete lie. Sometimes nonprofit organizations don't do any good or do more harm than good. Check into your nonprofits before you give them money. In most cases, only a percentage of the money you give them actually goes toward the cause, usually a small percentage, like 0.15 cents of your dollar. In these cases, the bulk of your money goes toward advertising and the salary of representatives. A lot of nonprofits spend a lot of money that never goes anywhere. In lots of cases, nonprofits do things by force, without the approval of the people they're "helping." Lots of people don't want to be "helped." Also, lots of projects cost a lot of money but don't get finished. In a lot of cases, they build houses "for the poor," but government officials end up occupying them. A lot of nonprofit efforts are actually scandals, and the nonprofits are actually doing what they're doing for their own personal gain under the guise of being "helpers." You don't always hear about these scandals, because the nonprofits use propaganda to tell other people (like people in their home countries) that their efforts are a success, and that they're helping.

There is a particular case I want to bring to light, though. I watched a documentary called "Good Fortune" about a nonprofit organization that sought to relocate the people of the slums in Kibera, Kenya, but these people had nowhere to go after the slums were destroyed. The efforts of the nonprofit were to destroy the slums and have these people live in a richer area, but these people couldn't afford anything above the slums, so they were left homeless. The nonprofit wanted to flood the area of the slums to create rice fields to create more food and jobs. However, these people were forcibly moved from their homes, despite the fact they voiced that they didn't want to leave, and that they loved their home. Not only did they lose their homes, but they lost their jobs. In this case, many efforts had previously been made to house these people. A nonprofit had previously built plenty of homes for the people, but they ended up selling the property to the rich, and only government officials occupied the homes. Now the homes are unoccupied and privately owned by some rich guy, so the people of the slums are unable to occupy them. Many of the previous efforts to alleviate them of their lives in the slums have been to no avail, as the projects have gone unfinished. It turned out that the nonprofit that was trying to "help" these people were actually doing the project for their own personal gain, while telling people in their own countries (using propaganda) that everything was going great, and that they were helping the people of the slums. In the end, the project went unfinished, and tons of people were left without homes or jobs.

Make sure you know what nonprofit you're supporting, and make sure know where your money is going. Lots of nonprofits do some good things. I've worked with some nonprofits that I fully support and know are doing good things. I would love to work for a nonprofit or have my own one day. And I have all kinds of programs and nonprofits I want to donate to once I actually start making some money, and I support these groups and their efforts. However, do your homework. Because just because they call themselves a nonprofit organization doesn't mean they are doing what they say they're doing. Find some good nonprofits, and support them! By the way, you should check out the documentary I was talking about above. It's called "Good Fortune," and you can find it on Netflix.

According to this, the nonprofits aren't doing the best job, but most of them are doing at least a fair job. However, too many are doing more damage than good, many are scandals, and many are wasting money.

The Kibera, Kenya slums  before the nonprofit group came in and destroyed it.

This is just the beginning of the destruction the nonprofit did to the slums in Kibera, Kenya.

#60: This Animal I Have Become

Why is it so that, when given orders, some people commit torturous acts? For instance, everyone has heard of the scandals that went on at Abu Ghraib, a prison in Iraq. American soldiers were ordered to torture Iraqi prisoners, and they did so with no complaints. (There is a really great documentary on this called "Standard Operating Procedures," and it is available at the Georgia State University library, if nowhere else. I'm sure you can find it pretty much anywhere, including on the internet.) It was the same type situation in the Holocaust. Adolf Hitler ordered that his soldiers torture and kill millions of innocent people, and so many followed through without question. How is it that people are able to work in factory farms, having to kill and torture animals, and having to watch animals suffer? How do some people have the ability to (and the desire to) rape, murder, torture, and abuse people and/or animals? How does this happen, and why?

It all stems from oppression and the idea of dehumanization, or becoming less than human. I'm pulling my ideas and discussion from an article called "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Freire. He offers this perspective of dehumanization to explain why people have the ability, desire, or even need to do such things. For instance, maybe they've seen so much pain and heartbreak that it doesn't mean anything anymore. Maybe they were oppressed themselves and had something traumatic happen to them that made them immune to feeling sorry for people who are going through it now.

So if these dehumanized people feel oppressed, and that's why they carry out orders without questioning them and are, therefore, perfectly fine with torturing or killing or what-have-you, then what is their situation? Maybe they live in fear of what their master will do to them if they don't comply. Many of the soldier at Abu Ghraib said they feared being ridiculed by the other officers if they did not comply, and they feared losing their jobs. I'm sure the soldiers in the Holocaust did as they were told for fear of their own lives. People in the past have said fear can make anyone do anything. 

But in his article, Freire says there are a few other reasons why the oppressed do as they're told without question. He says that "the oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearful of freedom." Fearful of freedom. Wow. The oppressed fear what life would be like without their oppressors, possible because being oppressed is the only life they've ever known. They become used to it and, therefore, comfortable with it. And most people do not venture outside their comfort zones. Freire also says that "the oppressed find in the oppressor their model of 'manhood.'" Now that's interesting. So the oppressed look at their oppressors as their role models. Their oppressors are the only role models they've ever had, and they obviously exude power. So the oppressed, in a way, look up to their oppressors and want to be like them, because they long to have power that they've never had, even over their own bodies and minds. "The oppressed feel an irresistible attraction towards the oppressors and their way of life. Sharing this way of life becomes an overpowering aspiration. In their alienation, the oppressed want at any cost to resemble the oppressors, to imitate them, to follow them." So this reason and the one explained previously are two possible reasons why, for instance, kidnapped children do not try to escape from their kidnappers. Jaycee Dugard is an example of this. If you haven't read her autobiography, "A Stolen Life," on how she was kidnapped as a kid and raised into adulthood by her kidnappers, you should. A child's perspective on abuse and living in oppressive situations is interesting.

So this idea of some people being able to commit violent acts because they've been dehumanized is actually leading into the idea that oppressors are dehumanizing the oppressed, as in they "fail to recognize [them] as persons," as Freire puts it. "For the oppressors, 'human beings' refers only to themselves; other people are 'things.'" The oppressors do not view the oppressed as human beings, but as property. This is the idea behind why white people justified slavery way back when. This is why kidnappers and rapists feel no shame for doing what they do.

Something else caught my eye in Freire's article: He states that "conditioned by the experience of oppressing others, any situation other than their former seems to them like oppression. Formerly, they could eat, dress, wear shoes, be educated, travel, hear Beethoven; while millions did not eat, had no clothes or shoes, neither studied nor traveled, much less listened to Beethoven. Any restriction on this way of life, in the name of the rights of the community, appears to the former oppressors as a profound violation of their individual rights - although they had no respect for the millions who suffered and died of hunger, pain, sorrow, and despair. For the oppressors, 'human beings' refers to only themselves; other people are 'thing.' For the oppressors, there exists only one right: their right to live in peace." So, basically, Freire is saying oppressors are self-centered chauvinists. "In their unrestrained eagerness to possess, the oppressors develop the conviction that it is possible for them to transform everything into objects of their purchasing power; hence their strictly materialistic concept of existence. Money is the measure of all things, and profit the primary goal." This would be the mindset of people who enslave other people, including people who sell sex slaves for tens of thousands of dollars. As an example of what Freire says here, if a kidnapper's child victim runs away and is rescued, the kidnapper may feel oppressed, because his/her property fled from him/her or was taken from him/her. When Jaycee Dugard was rescued, her kidnapper may have felt oppressed, because his property had been taken from him. Interesting.

I also want to point out something Freire never touched on in his article. Oppressors make you believe what they want you to believe. They threaten you. They threaten your family. They manipulate you into believing whatever they want. They tell you your family won't love you anymore once you're reunited with them, so it's better to stay with the oppressor. They make you believe in false love. They make you think your oppressor is the only person who loves you. They brainwash you. They shape your mind into what they want it to be.

So now hopefully you have a better understanding of the term "dehumanization." Maybe now you understand why some people are able to commit violent acts - because they've been reduced to something less than human. Hopefully you understand that oppressors dehumanize their victims, and that is why they are able to do what they do. Maybe now you understand the mindset of oppressors and the oppressed. Maybe you understand the mental illness of the oppressors, and hopefully you understand why many oppressed people do not fight back and stay in their oppressive situations. I feel like an understanding of how the human brain works is important in being nonjudgmental toward people in different situations than your own.

This is the only picture of Abu Ghraib that I'm going to put up here, because the rest are too explicit. There are naked men, men with their heads bashed in and covered in blood, etc. So go google those images yourselves or watch the documentary I referred to above if you want to know more. 

Jaycee Dugard's autobiography. The picture of her is the famous picture of Jaycee when she was a kid. I'm pretty sure it was the last picture she took before she was kidnapped. 

Jaycee Dugard now in comparison to what she looked like at the time of her kidnapping. She was 11 when she was kidnapped and 29 when she was found with 2 kids of her own (ages 15 and 11.)

#59: Education Station

There is no doubt in my mind the U.S. education system is extremely flawed. It seems like we're paying for the degree, not the education. And it seems like schools use testing and grading systems that don't work for all types of people. Everyone is different, and therefore, everyone's learning style is different, and everyone's testing style is different. So why do we only use one method of teaching and one method of testing for every student? Finland's school system has been ranked the best in the world, because their students are allowed more recess time, and there's no mandatory testing. You can see this in the picture I posted below.

So what are some changes we could make to our education system? The no mandatory testing thing rings in my ear big time. I, personally, am a horrible test-taker, but I am one of the smartest people I know. (I know that sounds narcissistic, but it's true.) I am extremely A.D.H.D., and I can't focus. I study and study, but I blank when I get the test. I get very nervous and have some pretty extreme anxiety problems, which arise during test-taking. Test-taking is not an efficient method for me! And tons more people are just like me. If you give me a test with a bunch of essay questions, I will pass that test with flying colors, but if you give me some fill-in-the-blank questions, I won't know what in the world to put in the answer space, even if I know the information. And it seems like, on a lot of tests, especially multiple choice tests, so many teachers try to trick you! I just think that some people are good at test-taking, and some people are good at writing essays. So maybe some classes should have people do reports and write essays as their form of testing. For instance, I just took a really great sociology class, in which I learned all kinds of amazing things. I learned a lot, and it was interesting and probably my favorite class in college so far, and my final exam was actually a final paper I had to write. I think I did a great job, and this form of testing fit my learning style better and probably did a much better job at conveying the material to me. I think I learned more by using a writing style in the class. As another form of testing, I think having discussions either as a class or in small groups is very effective. Even one-on-one discussions with the teacher might be good for some people. The teacher could ask the student questions and discuss the material with them and see how much the student actually understands and can explain. (I do realize that not every kind of subject material allows for this kind of testing, and I do realize not all classes are small enough for this kind of testing. However, it's something to think about for some classes, especially primary school classes.) I also think major projects are very good ideas to take the place of test-taking.

One more thing. You know how people always say, "Why am I taking this class? I'll never use it in real life." A lot of the time that's true! I will never use organic chemistry in my life. That I can almost 100% guarantee you. But I had to take it. You know what would be a better use of time and money than taking random exploratory classes and excess core classes in college and high school? Taking classes that will help you prepare for your LIFE! High schools could have a class that teaches driving safety. High school and college classes should definitely have classes in which students learn how to properly budget their money! Other classes that would be helpful in preparing for the future would be classes on how to do taxes and classes on different things adults will need once they're on their own, such as information on different types of insurance, how to take out loans, how to engage in family planning, and how to apply for jobs and start careers. I also think classes on basic skills (such as fixing everyday appliances, househould objects, computers, and other types of everyday technology) should be offered. I think classes on politics, how to be participants in the voting system, how to get involved in the community, and how to be effective leaders should be mandatory. I think students should take classes on the environment, how we can help save the world, and how action is necessary on everyone's part should be mandatory, since saving our planet should be near the top of everyone's priority list. Also, I think more communications classes are a great idea, so communication is the key to success in pretty much anything and everything. We need to stop trying to cut back on the arts too! Those are very important in giving children a creative outlet and a chance to express themselves! I'm actually quite happy with how many English classes kids have to take in order to become efficient writers. Parents aren't always the best at teaching their kids these things, and some students don't even have parents to guide them. To me, the best education does not teach excessive math and science skills, but instead teaches students how to get through life. I have learned way more about math, science, and history than I'll ever need to know. But I'm seriously lacking so many of the areas I mentioned above! I try to educate myself, but it's hard to do it myself, and so many people don't take any interest in educating themselves. Some people don't even realize what they need to be educated on. And I've made all kinds of mistakes already that have stemmed from my misunderstanding of some things, such as the way insurance companies work, which I should have probably been taught by someone by now!

And I just feel like I need to say this. Teachers, please make your classes entertaining, informative, and fun. If you don't, your students will not learn, simply because they are bored stiff. And one more thing: We need to stop pushing our kids to go to college, and start pushing them to follow their dreams and do something with their lives and be hard workers. College is not meant for everyone. And everyone going to college makes the degree worth less for the rest of us. Some people need to go to technical schools for what they want to do. Some people should go to vocational schools. Some people should go to professional training schools. Not everyone needs to go to college for what they want to do. There are all kinds of options. I do think education is a good back-up, and seeking some kind of professional education is a good idea. But some people want to be professional actors and are really good at it, so if they are offered a big time role on Broadway, we shouldn't push them to go to college instead. We shouldn't push our kids to anything specific unless they're sitting at home on their butts doing nothing all day, and their parents are having to take care of them at the age of 24. There are all kinds of career paths, and not one is greater than any other.

***Disclaimer: I hope no one misunderstood anything I said above. Just to be certain no one did, I want to say that I do not believe we should get rid of math, science, history, etc. classes at all. I think they're very important. I am a science wizz myself, so I definitely root for the sciences. But say we got rid of one science class, one math class, one history class, and one literature class for each student in their entire high school careers, and then replaced them with classes for basic skills, tax management, insurance information, driving lessons, etc.? That wouldn't be a terrible loss to any core field. Or think about how many exploratory classes kids get in high school. What if there were a bunch of practical classes offered as exploratory classes, and the kids got to choose between practical classes to take as exploratory classes, if they so choose? Also, I want to make sure you guys understand that I'm not condoning totally pushing kids into not going to any kind of school after high school. Especially in the U.S., education is important. I just think people should choose the proper type and amount of education based on their skills and hopes and aspirations. If college won't help you become a firefighter, but that's really what you want to do, then maybe you should look into going to a physical training school or a firefighting program after high school. (That's totally just an example.) Finally, I want you guys to know that I don't want to simply do away with traditional testing. A lot of classes need that form of testing. However, I do think it's overused. I think some classes would be more efficient in teaching the material if the tests were based on writing papers or doing large projects. That does not work in all situations or in all classes, and I wouldn't expect it to become the new "traditional testing," but it's something to think about in some classes and for some teachers. Ok, I just didn't want anyone to think I'm going completely out of my mind and suggesting that we abolish a bunch of things I don't particularly like.

It seems like many other countries have education systems that better cater to individual needs, capabilities, and strong suits.

The top picture is the one I'm referring to in the note.

Sorry for the profanity, but this sums up exactly what I'm trying to say. The only thing on this list that I learned in high school is how to create a resume.

It's not an uncommon idea. I found this on Facebook.

#58: ObamaSCARE

So I feel like I need to bring some light to the current healthcare reform situation for some people who may not understand a few issues that may come from it. I don't know absolutely every detail of it, but I had this discussion with my mom, and I think there are some things we need to think about. I think everyone agrees we need healthcare reform, and many healthcare systems in other countries are really great, especially those in some countries in Europe. I know Greece isn't the greatest example to use right now, since their economy is imploding, but their healthcare system was fantastic when I was there in the summer of 2008. I woke up one morning on my vacation with strep throat, so the owner of the hotel where I was staying drove me to the hospital. I probably waited about 5 minutes to be seen, the doctor knew exactly what he was doing and got me in and out and diagnosed in maybe 10 minutes tops, and everything was just super efficient. He prescribed me medication that was really easy to find at a pharmacy down the road, and the medicine only cost me about $6. The hospital visit didn't cost me a penny. And guess what? I took the medicine and felt 90% better the next morning. My vacation was saved! I missed going on a donkey ride that day due to having to go to the hospital instead, but hey, I ended up riding a donkey later on on that vacation anyway, so all ended well. The point is, there are so many other healthcare systems that are better than the one the U.S. currently has.

Problems with our current healthcare system: We rely way too heavily on insurance companies. They are blood-sucking leeches that make you pay out the wazoo for insurance and then can decide not to pay or to only pay a certain percentage when you need them the most. They essentially decide who lives and who dies. If you are considered high-risk of dying on them (like if you're too old or too sick,) then they can decide not to cover you and not to pay for your medical bills. And then some people can't afford health insurance. So if something happens to them, they're screwed. People refrain from going to the hospital, because they can't afford it, and sometimes these people have serious problems that need immediate medical attention. It's sad to think that so many people don't get the healthcare they need, simply because they don't have the money to pay. And it's crazy how one minor injury that needs medical attention before it becomes serious can cost a person hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Very few people have that kind of money in their back pocket these days.

I'm not going to sit here and say I'm a huge Obama supporter. I'm not. I don't hate him, but I'm not a huge supporter. However, I do also realize that his original Obamacare plan looked really great, but since our majority Republican Congress didn't like the idea of a universal healthcare system, they completely re-shaped Obamacare and turned it into the mess that it currently is. So to be fair, we can't really blame Obama for this ridiculousness. Nonetheless, it is ridiculousness. It is a system that only works by an idealistic view, not a realistic one. For instance, the conversation my mom and I had about this was the fact that is is now illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to someone who has a pre-existing condition. This means that anyone who ends up with cancer or has a heart attack or anything of the sorts will not be denied insurance coverage. That sounds great. That sounds so incredibly perfect and valiant - in theory. In reality, we can expect that insurance companies are going to be spending way more money covering all these people, which means either they aren't going to be able to pay and will go out of business, OR they will charge way more for their services. Which one do you think they'll do? They're going to end up charging so much for health insurance that only the rich will be able to afford coverage, which means the poor and middle class will be stuck with no health insurance. This is going to cause an even bigger problem than we already have! Of course I agree that we need healthcare reform. Of course I think healthcare is a right, not a wealthy privilege. Of course I think something needs to be done, and of course I want a better system. But going about it in an idealistic way is only going to make the problem worse.

And there's another big problem I'd like to bring to light. Under Obamacare, now any employer who hires an employee to work at least 25 hours a week has to provide health insurance for that employee. This sounds amazing - but again, only in theory. Now, employers are cutting back on their employees' hours and laying people off, because they can't afford to pay their health insurance. I actually know a guy who had to go from working 40 hours a week to less than 25 hours a week because of this mandate. So now he has to find another job on top of the one that he has, just so he can pay his bills, AND he still doesn't have his health insurance paid for!

Now there are all kinds of other arguments that can be made on this matter, but those are the only ones I wanted to address, because I think a lot of people, including Congress, are not thinking logically on that particular matter. There are all kinds of arguments to be made and all kinds of flaws in Obamacare, though. I've actually included some of them, along with statistics, in the pictures below. That being said, there are a lot of good things coming from it too. I, being a female, am quite happy that birth control is now going to be easily accessible come January 1, 2014. Please, anyone feel free to make any kind of argument about Obamacare below. I welcome feedback, rebuttals, and add-ons.

 Interesting.

Some interesting statistics in argument FOR Obamacare, which are interesting.

Another criticism of Obamacare: Wait time for surgeries are expected to increase dramatically. You could die while waiting to get that kidney transplant.

There is no doubt that Obamacare comes from some good intentions, and there's no doubt some people are benefiting... But it really just benefits the impoverished, and then the rich are able to afford whatever they need on their own, which completely ignores the middle class, which I bet this woman is not apart of.

#57: Some LAWgic

Ok, here's where I'm really going to need some feedback. I'm pretty sure EVERYONE has differing opinions on this, and we won't know the answer unless we try it. The question is: If we legalize (reasonable) things, will the problem go away, or will the problem get worse? I'll give you a couple examples. Everyone always says that, if we legalize the consumption of alcohol and change the limitations to 18+ in age, then the problem of underage drinking will diminish, because it won't be difficult to obtain alcohol for young people who are at the age where they want to drink. The consensus for a lot of people is that, if we did this, people would drink alcohol like it's tea (as some people put it.) Some people say that, when the threats and scandalism of it all go away, kids are not attracted to it. When there's no danger of getting caught, there's no rush to be had, so kids don't care anymore. That seems to be reasonable. I mean it seems like that's the way it is in England, at least. Some of my family lives there, and they say they look at alcohol as being completely normal and not at all taboo. (If you want to read more about my views on this, read my note "Blame It On the A-a-a-a-a-a-alcohol.") This is why I'm inclined to say that, if we got rid of the laws, the problems would go away.

However, here's another example: prostitution. If we let people sell their bodies if they want, (which in prostitutes' defense, their bodies should be theirs to do as they please with,) then people probably would. I actually knew someone who got a prostitution-type offer from someone, and she was so desperate for money that she probably would've taken the offer had prostitution been legal. So I'd say, in some cases maybe the legalization of the law would make the problem worse. I think it's like this in many cases.

Another example: murder. Do you think more people would commit murder if it wasn't against the law? I'm inclined to think people who murder do so because they're sick or evil or whatever. I don't think some people sit around and think "Hmmm, yea, I'd like to murder that guy, but it's illegal, so I better not." No, people who want to murder actually do it. And people who aren't mentally ill in that way don't even think (seriously) about murdering other people. So if we got rid of the law against murder, I don't think we'd see more murders. I think, instead, we'd see the same number of murders, but committed by people sloppily - as in, murderers wouldn't spend time and effort cleaning up after themselves to cover up what they did. They wouldn't need to, because they wouldn't fear going to jail for getting caught. However, getting rid of the law against murder might eventually lead society to accept murder as a proper punishment by common folks, and it might become kind of a norm to kill people when you get really mad at them. I mean, we've seen it in all kinds of cultures and time periods. So, in this way, yes, maybe eventually we would see more murders after decriminalizing murder.

So I guess you just have to pick and choose which laws are necessary in order to keep people from committing those crimes, and which laws are actually encouraging people to commit the crimes. Get rid of the ones that encourage people to commit the crimes (such as, possibly, the drinking age law.) I mean, our whole point of creating and enforcing laws is to get people to do what we want or refrain from doing what we don't want them to do. So sometimes, I think we have to lighten up and get rid of the laws in order to get people to do what we want or refrain from doing what we don't want them to do. In order to be effective, you have to play the game right!

#56: Paint With All the Colors Of the Wind and Don't Be an American Idiot

If you guys don't think I'm weird yet, wait til you read this. Keep an open mind. As almost always, I'm not saying we should do this. I'm just saying it's fun to think about. Oh, but I'm also not saying we SHOULDN'T do this...just to be clear. Anyway, you should probably read my note called "A Beautiful Chaos" before reading this, because I'm going to reference it in here. It's about anarchy. Anyway, this note actually is kind of the idea of anarchy. Anarchy is not quite what people think it is - it's not actually necessarily just a bunch of chaos. It's where, instead of having a government that rules over everyone and screws people over every chance it gets, there are small communities with leaders, which make up larger communities, which make up even larger communities. There's leadership and authority figures, but the system is just set up differently, so that a government can't get so big that it runs everyone's lives. Anyway, it's a fun thing to think about. I have no idea if it would ever work, but it's kind of a cool idea. Anyway, so be advised that this note kind of encompasses-ish what true anarchy would be comparable to.

So the idea is living like Native Americans...or the indigenous people of any culture. But for the purposes of this note, we'll use the Native Americans as my example. So they lived in tribes that had a generally fair leader. Everyone worked together and shared what they had. There was even sharing between tribes. And they were very peaceful. They hunted and gathered, and there was plenty of food to be found, hunted, and made. The Native Americans made things they needed, such as tools and pottery and jewelry. They didn't need money, because they traded actual items they made and found and hunted. They gave each other what they needed. They even had doctors, and everyone did things for each other, simply to be kind and helpful. The doctor didn't get paid for doing his job. Instead, people did nice things for him in return for his medical aid. Everyone looked out for each other, and greed didn't exist - at least not in the way it exists in our world. This goes back to another note I wrote. It was one of my very first notes. It's called "Is the Use Of Currency Making Us Greedy?" I do believe that currency = greed. Maybe if we didn't have such a thing and just did things for each other out of the goodness of our hearts, then society would be better. Maybe everyone should just each other's backs, give and take. For the Native Americans, there was no hierarchy to speak of. I mean, there was a leader. Every group needs a leader. But the chief wasn't a tyrant, and everyone was, more or less, equal. No one was super rich, while others starved. Everyone had equal amounts of food and other things they needed for survival. It seems like they had a pretty nice set up, if you ask me.

In contrast, we currently live in a world where the government controls everything. They are the top dogs. They take our hard-earned money and do with it what they please. They kill people (through war and capital punishment,) and they run the show in any way they want. They pull the wool over our eyes and make us think they're doing one thing, while they're doing something completely different. They disobey the law they make, and nothing can be done about it, because they make the law, and therefore, they can disobey that law if they want. Because who is going to put the president in jail for phone-tapping without a warrant? Who's going to stop a cop for speeding and give him a ticket? And the government does all kinds of crazy, horrible things behind our backs, and half the time we don't find out about it...at least not until it's too late. And there's a hierarchy. Those who know people and have connections make it to the top and have so much money, they throw it away. All the while, there are children from poor families who starve. In today's society, it's every man, woman, or child for himself. And there's nothing anyone can do about it, because if you defy the government, you'll be put away for treason. If you try to start a revolution, you'll be killed. We use currency, which makes everyone super greedy. It makes people want more and more money. No amount of money would ever be enough. And people don't help each other just to have each others' backs. They don't offer medical care, because they know they'll get something in return later. They don't offer to share the meal on their table, because they care about their neighbors and want to help them, for sake of being good people. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there where people die, because no one will help them. And it's really hard to make it to the top. If you aren't born into a rich family or have some kind of means to get an education, then you're screwed, and you'll work as a waiter your whole life, and your kids will go hungry some nights. And even when you have education, it's super hard to get a decent job with decent pay, because your government has screwed over the economy so badly that no one has a job, and even those who do don't get paid worth a crap, because the only people who have high salaries are government officials! Even when people are starving, the president takes more taxes from the poor, so that congress officials can have a pay raise and make $250 thousand a year. We live in a country where it's literally illegal to take pictures at factory farms. So not only are they feeding us a bunch of crap processed food from animals that were tortured, but they don't even allow us the knowledge of what's going in our bodies. We live in a country where animal testing is fine, torturing animals for food is normal, and poverty is not taken seriously. (I've written notes on each of these topics. They are called "Animal Tips, If You Will," "Don't Be a Vegetarian; Instead, Change the System," and "The Reality of Poverty," respectively.) We live in a society where the environment doesn't matter near as much as money and success do, so it takes a backseat. (Read my note "Environmental Tips" to see what you can do to help the environment.) We live in a country that will actually consider passing a bill that allows the government to view our social networks, take down anything from our sites that they don't like, and delete our profiles if they don't like them (CISPA bill, which thank God, did not pass.) There's so much corruption in this country, and honestly, pretty much everywhere in the world today, that the world is pretty much oozing corruption out of every orifice it has, and it's hard to imagine we can really do anything about it.

Benefits of being in the society we live in: We do have (sort of) a chance to become really successful and have lots of money. We have a chance to work the jobs we want to work. If we want to become a vet, we can work for it and (hopefully) become one. If we want to be a lawyer, we can work as hard as we can and try to become one. We have job choices (if we can make it.) And we have opportunities to become rich and successful. However, it's make it or break it in this kind of set up we have. It's really hard to make it. There's a chance we can, but it's hard, and if we don't, then we're screwed. So we could either live the way we are living and all be equal and have no chance of being super rich (but the pay off would be far greater than what we'd be giving up,) OR we could take our chances and live in a corrupt society with a corrupt government and try our darndest to become successful and rich. Take your pick. I know which one I'd pick, and I'll give you an extremely blatant hint: IT'S NOT THE SOCIETY I'M CURRENTLY LIVING IN. We either work to make money to buy what we need, or we hunt and gather for what we need and share it with everyone, and in return we get all kinds of other things we need. We either work our nails to the bone to feed our families and don't get to spend any time with them, or we spend every waking moment when the people we love. We either live in a dog-eat-dog world where there's so much competition that we fight for what we need, or we depend on each other and form great friendships with each other that ultimately keep us alive. I bet you're thinking the Native Americans weren't such savages now. I bet you're thinking they were peaceful and had the right idea.

Here's another thing that was great about the Native Americans. They loved and appreciated nature. They didn't screw over their environment and their world like we do. They thanked their animals for providing them with meat for food. You might think it's weird, but it's very respectful. They didn't build factories to omit all kinds of noxious gases into the air and kill everything, including the earth itself. The Native Americans stopped and smelled the roses. They appreciated everything and found beauty in everything. If you haven't actually paid attention to the lyrics of the song "Colors of the Wind," by Pocahontas, which is where the title of this note came from, then you should read it. The link to these lyrics are at the bottom of this note. My favorite part, I think, of the song is the very end which says "You can own the earth, still all you'll own is earth until you can paint with all the colors of the wind," which means you can own the all of the earth, but you'll only own a bunch of dirt if you don't appreciate what the earth has to offer. It really is a beautiful song.

There are a couple more songs I want you guys to take a look at. I'm sure you guys know that Greenday is a (great) band that has written many songs about corruption and the United States government. Well, their best songs are "American Idiot" and "Holiday," which are about American government corruption. Take a look at the lyrics, which can be found in the link at the bottom of this note. The lyrics to both songs are on that page. They're the first and third songs on the list. The other songs are good too, so you can totally check out those lyrics if you want too. And there's one other song I'd like to have you guys look up, and I'm pretty sure you guys haven't heard of this one. It's called "Patriotism" by Company Flow, and it is also about American government corruption. The lyrics can be found (you guessed it) in the link at the bottom of this note.

Anyway, my point in all of this is just to show you guys all the corruption in our system, and that there are alternatives. I think it's a really big thing to at least be aware of the corruption, instead of being bamboozled. And I think it's fun to think about living like the Native Americans. And I'd like to, again, point out that this is basically the idea of anarchy - except it's more like a splice between living like the Native Americans did and living like we do now. There's no government, but there are leaders and communities. Look up more about anarchism if you're interested in learning more about it, because it is a neat concept to think about, and everyone should understand what anarchism really is, rather than just assuming it's total chaos with no authority figures or leadership. Afterall, I've always thought that knowledge and awareness are power and freedom.

So here are the links to the songs I mentioned above:

Pocahontas's "Colors of the Wind": http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/classicdisney/colorsofthewind.htm

Greenday's "American Idiot" and "Holiday": http://lyrics.rockmagic.net/lyrics/green_day/american_idiot_2004.html

Company Flow's "Patriotism": http://www.elyrics.net/read/c/company-flow-lyrics/patriotism-lyrics.html

 A Native American tribe peacefully spending time with each other and caring for each other.

This is just really neat.

#55: Rationality and Reasonability

I want to talk about the logic that people need to use when voting for/against certain laws and policies to pass. I feel like so many people vote for/against laws and policies for the wrong reasons, so I want to give you guys some things to think about when you're deciding what to vote for:

1. Think about whether or not the policy affects you. If it doesn't affect you or someone/something you care about, then you probably shouldn't try to be all super against it. For instance, gay marriage. If you are straight, and it's not going to affect you if your gay neighbors get married, why deny them that pleasure (or that right?) I mean, you might say it's because it's against your religion or against your beliefs, but does that really matter when it isn't going to affect you and is only going to bring joy and equality to the people it actually affects?
2. Think about things that are universally wrong vs. only wrong in one or a few religions, if religion is your basis for why you're voting against something. Using the gay marriage example again, if it's only wrong according to your religion, but all of the rest of society (and the world, for that matter) doesn't see what's wrong with it, then maybe you should just let this one go and become neutral on the matter. ESPECIALLY if the policy in question isn't going to affect you.
3. Think about whether or not you're voting against something that is actually wrong or just something you don't like. I've had a few people tell me they vote against gay marriage on the basis that they feel it's "unnatural" for people to be gay, rather than there being a religious basis there. That, my friends, is you simply not liking something. You're not saying gay marriage is wrong, or that homosexuality is wrong. You're just being irrational and disliking homosexuality and gay marriage. And you're probably being homophobic. I'm not judging, since I don't know who you are or what you're thinking about this, but that's what it comes off as, in my opinion.

So think about these things before deciding to vote for/against the passage of a law/policy! Be rational and reasonable thinkers! If you go through these 3 questions in your head, and you still want to vote against something based on it being a generally bad thing to pass, then vote against it! But don't vote against something for the wrong reasons.