Musings of the Day

There are so many things I would like to write about. I've been hard-pressed by my classes, primarily because I have finals this week. Insane! I can't express how much I have been stressing the paper, too. As I read (in the leisure time that I have—close to none) Anne's diary, there is something that overwhelms me of this young girl who loved to write. She wrote just about anything she could think of. She wrote of her maturity, weaknesses, sexuality, anger, family, etc. She found any time to write as a personal responsibility to herself. I find that extremely attractive. A woman who truly writes from the heart, and who find herself bound to her very nature to write, is one for the eyes and the mind. Men nowadays seek woman with other "attributes." I personally find them unjustifiable. Do I seem ephemeral and bleak writing about these frivolous things? I personally do believe that. I find that a man knows who he is when he knows what he wants. What does it mean to be a man qua man, howbeit? Alas, that is the question!

Random Thoughts

So I'm a little irritated right now. My laptop will not update from Microsoft for some weird reason. Personally, it's getting on my last nerve. I've done a lot to try and figure it out, and nothing. I submitted my research paper this morning. The prof. was not too happy with me missing three day—consecutive days. That is really bad, even for me. Let's see…what else has been a major pitfall for me lately…Oh yes, I'm lonely (as if it changed). There are some good things, at least. So my life isn't all nostalgic—which is really good news. I don't like some of the unoriginal scenes that the emos and the punks elicit. It seems to me that there is a moral epidemic happening even with these social outcasts. I find it disturbing that they're even around. (How do we get rid of them?) I found another hobby other than writing: thinking, which is basically the same, except there's no using of the hand and paper and a writing utensil.

I have to read this book on the California Constitution. It sounds extremely boring. I read about the formation of the state of California. It sounds like America isn't as patriotic and romantic as the media would hope for. There were many wars that took place in order for us to have this wonder state we call California. So many people died in the name of imperialism, on both sides. The Spanish people were so deprived of their rights that we had to coerce them into selling us the land. We would have bought all of Mexico, but President Polk believed it would cost a lot of money to further the warfare. Personally, I find it equally wrong altogether even to have begun the war. There are so many ethical problems with the American-Mexican wars to even begin to think. On a similar note, we hear constantly—from the media—that Bush is a criminal, and I would even rant that there isn't a single crime that he has committed; and I would ask what law he broke, too. The accusers can't name one law he has violated. But then I finally saw what was going on. It was a spiritual law he was violating: genocide. Some would argue, from a teleological point of view, that it isn't a spiritual matter (see Aristotle). He has done so much to secure the profit of American economic growth instead of truly helping the Iraqi people. There is a reason why he hasn't been indicted, however, other than the fact that he is the president: There is no law that would indict him. And now that the Democrats are in office, there is plenary evidence there isn't, or else they would have by now. The fact is, we live in a plutocracy, and that's not going to change soon. The rich will continue to suppress the poor, and the rich will continue to get richer.

The Political Philosophy of Homosexual-lesbian Marriage

Last night, Jared and I saw the new movie "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry." In the movie, common banters of homosexual consensus—primarily in American society—is proclaimed socially incorrigible and accepted. But what do these terms mean? How do we come to a broad consensus of these terms? I would argue that as long as we hold to a traditional view of marriage, between that of a woman and a man, this will never be realized and solidified. Now, I'm not saying that we should marry them, either; on the contrary, I am traditional in my way of thinking in regards to religious value and experience. The very social milieu of American culture is based on the Christian view of social change and progress; and since homosexual agenda and trajectory is solely aiming at change, then we must concentrate on that basis. Here is where we are at an impasse. Furthermore, there is the political agenda of the homosexuals' plight: to receive federal aid. I believe this is the argument's vitality concerning marriage provided by the homosexual (and lesbian) community. Why else would a homosexual want to marry? If the argument becomes religious by definition, then they need to solidify the argument religiously—and that is a problem all on its own. So should a homosexual have rights to federal aid? I believe they should; after all, they are people too. The problem is where, in political definition, they should be recognized as a person. Should they be recognized as beneficiaries to marriage? No! Should they receive the coverage of the married? Politically, yes. Think of it like this: if the terms are being defined with religious overtones (better yet, traditionally), then exemption from benefits must ensue. But do federal benefits fit traditional criterion? No, though some disagree. Soon enough, the government will have to concede to the public's opinion for federal aid to these subcultures. Are they to redefine the traditional consensus? Hell no! My personal belief is that it is better to sacrifice benefits than traditional marriage, because marriage is defined by God as a male-female union. Here are the stipulations for homosexual-lesbian partnership:

1. They can't marry in a church
   
2. They cannot be admitted by a clergyman
   
3. And the union cannot be defined as marriage

Homosexuals and Liberals Make Me Laugh

Today I have to write a whole paper on the method of proving God's existence. Kind of hard. So I have to show whether or not the proofs that are out there prove his existence (Ontological, Teleological, and Cosmological). I personally find them all incompatible with the whole of Christian dogma. I think that limiting the debate preempts the debate to begin with. I also heard about someone who I knew in faith is given over to liberal (ultra liberal) tendencies. Personally, I find liberal thought to be undermining of human reason and experience. It is too romantic--philosophically speaking. There is too much of an emphasis on "the natural man" being supreme. You have the homosexuals and the feminist campaigning for this enterprise of pseudo-intellectual vigor. I don't find it tenable to begin with.

Materialism and Everyday Life

Materialism has reared its ugly head once again. Why is it so dominant that material gain is always the judgment the opposite sex makes in the possible prospects of relationships? Personally, I find it disturbing philosophically. I think of ideas, such as happiness, and how they effect our thinking. Or how about our actions? It is a far cry to say to someone that you love them and continually be pregnant with the ideology of materialism. I believe this has been another instance where I find pessimism once again in the world. There isn't a beautiful rose at the end of a road to smell. There are cars, houses, a waiter and platter of a "screw you, creepo" at the end of the line. If we begin to define the idea that we are all naturally selected in our beginnings, then we are going to end at that conclusion of everything, including marriage. This is what makes me all the more drawn to a Christian view of everything, marriage included. There are certain truths that go along with the view, being that we are chosen by Him. Before we can go on thinking about ourselves, we must first go on thinking about who we are, namely image bearers. If we bear the image of God, we should, therefore, exude all its characteristics. This, I believe, will give rise to objections but will nonetheless answer the most obvious contentions (mine). Calvin, in beginning his institutes, began with the idea of God: who he is, what he is, etc. In doing so he answered, inadvertently, the common objections to the notions of who man is.

My First Day of Class

So today was fairly easy. I learned about the Ontological argument in my first day of class. My instructor knows of the common trends within Christian philosophy. He is a process theology buff, which is another word for open theism. He says he's Lutheran, which makes to sense since Luther was not process theology. But in the hopes of having a fruitful conversation with him I found that it is better to establish a gregarious environment between us. I can't wait to see what he has to offer us tomorrow. We are going to discuss the Cosmological argument, the now revised "Kolam" by W.L. Craig. Anselm did prove to me to be a smart intellectual, but I find many problems with his logical construction of the Ontological argument. It seems as if he is playing a game of wits and language. On another note, I was able to talk--although not for a lengthy amount of time--with the cutest girl that I am currently hanging out with. It was a relief to talk to her since I'm stressed from all the garbage and the heat of the day. It didn't seem mutual though, seeing that her day seemed prolonged and monotonous. All is good, even still. I learned about God in the class, I finished (somewhat) my homework, and now I'm off to bed.

Immigration Peeks Its Little Head Again

There it was again--the bill was another upset for the Republicans whose polemics derailed any chance for it. What I am referring to? Yes my Mexican friend, it is the new "amnesty" bill. Under its current criticism it plummeted into a deprecation of disappointment. What went wrong? Well if we were to look at the bill a most honest conservative would not take long to see its internal problems. As a Latino I oppose it (WHAT!). Why would I say something like that? Well, I am a conservative, too. Most of the flaws that I saw within the bill only exacerbated the antipathy I already had towards illegal immigration. More to come.