Three's a Crowd

     I did not know there was a presidential debate on Tuesday until I was told about it yesterday. From the show of hands or lack of same, neither did most people. The Republicans were not present. Neither were the Democrats. So who could have possibly been there?

     Just the other four candidates, that's all. No one you'd know.

     Held in Chicago, the debate featured would-be presidents from the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, and Justice parties. I'd only ever heard of two of those before I read this New York Times article. I had never heard any of the candidates' names. And I wouldn't have had a clue what their views were like without this article. I wouldn't have expected the Green Party to have a stance on much besides the environment. I would never have expected anyone so opposed to the idea of the melting pot to be a part of a party called Constitution. And the only time the Libertarian party was mentioned to me was by an adult, to remain nameless, who compared them to anarchists.

     Why does America pay so little attention to these "also-runnings"? In the land of the voice of the many, how can two people monopolize our attention? Consider the effort these four people have gone to, and are going to, and how they must feel, being marginalized like that. Consider also that, in their debate, the third-party candidates covered issues that have not been touched by the the other two. Furthermore, note the lack of theatricality in their speeches, and how it contrasts to Obama's and Romney's incessant back-and-forth.

     What are your opinions of the third-party presidential candidates? Are they an important part of America and minority viewpoint, or are they wasting their time and should just give up? How do they affect the election? Do they at all?

It's Not the Predestination But the Journey

     Tuesday in class, we discussed a main tenet of Puritanism: "predestination". Basically, this is the concept that God arbitrarily decides who goes to heaven and who goes to h-e-double-hockey-sticks. While good behavior is an indicator that He may have chosen someone, they cannot change God's mind with their behavior. This is reminiscent of another belief system we talked about: college apps. This is how the stereotypical college application procedure goes:

     1: I go to the college visit.
     2: On the basis of very little information about my character or academic abilities, the people from the college decide if they will let me attend their school.
     3: I bow my head and accept my fate. If I have been chosen for a good (or "good" - but I would need another post to discuss that) school, I will naturally act like the perfect person I am.

     Phrased like that, it does seem kind of odd, doesn't it? But the logic is nearly identical to that of predestination. The only real change is the substitution of one higher power (the college admissions board) for another (God). Extreme difference? Well, maybe. You would be surprised at how widespread the image is, of college admissions boards as mysterious entities whose minds cannot be swayed by our actions, whose thought processes cannot be understand by mere mortals, and who have total control over our destinies. Call me crazy, but that sounds a lot like the technical definition of a deity to me.

     Which raises the question: why do people seem to enjoy thinking this way? Because it takes the burden of responsibility off their shoulders? Because people are naturally pessimistic and mopey? Something else completely unexpected? Comment please! I want to know what you think.

Yeah Right

     It's my right. Three of the most-repeated words in this country, it seems to me. And yet these rightful people can be seriously wrong at times. In class, we discussed the sacred First Amendment - protector of free speech since 1776, right? Well, as noted on Thursday, it wasn't the all-powerful shield it's treated as today until a few decades ago. And there are still things you cannot say or believe. Think we'd be better off without government? That's anarchism - illegal in the US since the early 1900s.
     In all honesty, there are rights people think they have that not only they don't, but they shouldn't. An often-heard cry is I have the right to my opinion. Consider this: your friend steps off a curb as a car is coming. Since he or she is sound of mind, they are obviously of the opinion that no cars are nearby. Do they have the right to keep that opinion? Or, since all rights imply that others have duties, is it your duty to let them keep that opinion? Heck no. In fact, I would call it your duty to take that opinion away from them ASAP. The counterexample most offer in this context is that they have a right to believe in things like God. Very well. You have the right to opinion - provided it can't be disproved. Qualifiers are important.
     How about the right to health? Well, as mentioned above, all rights imply duties on the behalf of others. So if you have the right to health, but old age takes away your healthiness, whose duty is it to cure senescence? That's an impossible task. Clearly one of our suppositions must be false. You may have the right for your health to not be interfered with by other people (or yourself - see my comment on the AS main page), but just saying you have a right to health leaves out, again, qualifiers.

     For more on rights, real, qualified, or imaginary, see Jamie White's Crimes Against Logic.

     Thoughts? or if you think I'm just a ranting lunatic, comment.