ejronin's blog: "Banter"

# When TAG TEAM was back again. # When Mr. T pitied the fool. # When all 5 lions made Voltron. # When Optimus Prime died. # Not to feed Gizmo after midnight. # How to "put your hand up on my hip, when you dip, I dip, we dip.". # What "Nanoo Nanoo" means. # Who to ask to know how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop. # When Lucky Charms didn't have Purple Horse Shoes. # M-M-Max Headroom. # What color Mr. Yuk was. # By what power Prince Adam became He-Man. # How the Turtles became Ninjas. (FUN FACT: "Uncle Phil" from Fresh Prince of Bel Air was the voice of "Shredder") # When Sting was in the POLICE. # David Bowie for more than Labyrinth # When cartoons killed one another. # When Joe Theisman got his leg snapped on Television. # When McDonald's Happy Meals came in a Styrofoam container. # When plastic Coke bottles were "NEW" and called "shatterproof". # Who "Super Buggy" was. # What a "SNORK" is. # Inspector Gadget # Mr. Wizard # Speedy Deliveries from Mr. McPhelie # Captain Caveman # Captain Kangaroo # Groovy Ghoulies # When 3,2,1 Contact really WAS the answer and the Bloodhound Gang always figured stuff out. # The rivalry between Hulk Hogan and Rowdy Roddy Piper. # When leg warmers weren't just for keeping warm. # "Hammer" Pants. # LOBO I - IV RC cars. # When Rock ' em Sock 'em robots weren't a joke. # When Metalllica was popular for "Master of Puppets", "Orion", and "One", not "Enter Sandman" # Girly men on stage meant POISON, CINDERELLA, SKID ROW, and BON JOVI .... not "Queer Eye for Straight Guy", "My Chemical Romance", and "Good Charlotte". # When Chia Pets were cool # Shrinky Dinks # Every other commercial wasn't for tampons or hair growth # Robotech # Topps and Upper Deck # WANG # SOLARIS # EasyData # DOS 3 # When CPU battles were over SX vs. MX # ISA # VLB # SB16 # When 32MB of RAM put you at the top and a 20MB HDD was godly. # SVGA vs. VGA vs. XGA # Wing Commander I # Final Fantasy I # Dragon Warrior # Donkey Kong..... (COIN OP) # Daughter Boards # 14.4 baud # NES # B/W Gameboy # When AOL and Prodigy was the ALL there was # When cigarettes were 1.75 a pack # Bubble Mowers that didn't make noise or have a face on them. # Cowboy and Indian plastic men that didn't look friendly. # Playmobil. # David the Gnome # Pinwheel (show) # Pinwheel (toy) # Tonka. # Who could ask for anything more? Toyota.(their 70's and 80's slogan) # Airwolf # Fox Fire # Hackers # Garbage Pail Kids (my fav. was Hot Head Harvey) # M.A.S.K # Speed Racer and Racer X (FUN FACT: In high school I made a 1/100 replica of the Mach 5 out of paper mache`) # "Frankie says..." # Simon Says # SIMON # When the "A-Ha" video was the coolest thing you'd ever seen. # Piano ties...and it was cool # leather ties.... and they were MORE cool. # "Ca-vey Wa-vey!" means something # The Truffle Shuffle # BETAMAX VS VHS # LP VS EP VS SLP # Laser Disc # Laser Tag # Those meddling kids ..oh yeah.. and their dog too. # The Lost Boys (and they didn't rap) # The Pool scene # Come on down! # I never questioned why the A-Team was always imprisoned in places that someone could build an armored tank. # What K.I.T. stands for.. .Michael # ALF # Flight of the Navigator # Small Wonder # Punky Brewster # What Willis was talkin' 'bout # Muppet Babies # 99 Luft Balloons # Karma Chamelion # Reading Rainbow (Yeah... it WAS Jordi Laforge) # Defenders of the Earth (proof that standing around talking solves everything) # Dr. Who (LSD does crazy shit) # The Tomorrow People (who are now the Yesterday People) # Teddy Ruxpin # "Would. You. Like. To. Play. A. Game." # When "Thriller" was scary as hell. (It still is, but only because of who the main character is) # Lite-Brite

Censorship; a topic of many heated debates and sometimes deemed unconstitutional. IS it really unconstitutional though? Does it do more harm than good? I believe in moderate censorship, and here is why. Though before I get started I'd like to define (according to dictionary.com) the terms CENSOR and RESTRICT, and ABRIDGE and INFRINGE. These words are very close to meaning the same thing (paired). CENSOR: To examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable RESTRICT: To confine within bounds. See... not too far off. Now for the next two. ABRIDGE: To diminish or reduce in scope. INFRINGE: To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate Also, not too far apart from one another... close cousins if you will. Now, lets look at the First Amendment.(although it is important, the amendment actually wasn't the first one. It was the third. The other two were voted down during ratification - just a fun fact). Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Let’s look at the notion of freedom of speech and in no manner can this protection be considered absolute.The television is a medium for mass communication and should be considered under this rubric. If you look at the forms of mass communication, they fall into three basic categories: the printed media, which include books, newspapers and magazines; the electronic media, which include sound recordings, movies, radio and television; and the persuasive media, which include advertising and public relations and recently the Internet. Some would place journalism is this category, too. The printed media face the fewest restrictions on freedom of speech, which is generally synonymous with freedom of the press. The printed media can face restrictions through laws governing libel, defamation, invasion of privacy, and placing individuals in false light. Sound recording faces limitation on free speech through federally mandated labeling. The movie industry has adopted a series of voluntary guidelines to prevent particular groups, mainly those under the age of 18, from exercising a right to view objectionable material. Radio outlets face actual government regulation through licensing and protection against the use of indecent materials, usually prescribed as the seven dirty words. Over-the-airwaves broadcast outlets also face government regulation through licensing, including the restriction against the portrayal of pornographic materials during specific hours when children might be present. Advertisers face even more restrictions, including governance by the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration. I recall one ad, for example, for a dietary drug in which the following side effects might occur: * Drowsiness * Headaches * High blood pressure * And even possible birth defects for children if a pregnant woman even touched the drug The company was forced to make these pronouncements—a clear abridgement of its right to freely speak or freely ignore the possible side effects. Irrespective of the medium, the law prohibits obscene material, which means individuals are engaged in a sexual act, bestiality, or other acts that do not simply cause titillation; the material has no artistic or scientific value; and offends local community standards. Also, the law prohibits any production, purchase, and sale of child pornography. The leaders of our society with the support of a majority of the public have restricted freedom of speech in many ways. Then again, we live in a majority rule society. So how should society deal with this medium [Network TV / Public Radio]? Some would argue that the television has existed as a free-wheeling libertarian society and should remain that way without any significant restrictions on speech. Others want to impose federal legislation to restrict pornography and other forms of expression on television. I however just feel that Network television should be free of profane words and gratuitous nudity. Censoring the Censor? The African Proverb "It takes a village to raise a child" comes to mind. Censorship picks up the slack for parents who do not do their job. However, with the the need for a household to have dual-income it becomes increasingly hard for parents to constantly monitor what their child is watching, or listening to. Devices such as "V-Chip" are required by law in all televisions manufactured after 1999. It simply decodes the line 21 data, compares it with the parent's allowed rating and then either blocks the signal or lets it through. However, what one parent may find appropriate to one child may not be the same level of appropriateness that another parent feels. Regardless, the "V-Chip" acts as a censor, the only difference is that the parents must enact the role of censor, not the government. It also requires that the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board makes sure that the rating guidelines are applied accurately and consistently to television programming. The Monitoring Board has a Chairman and six members each from the broadcast television industry, the cable industry, and the program production community. The Chairman also selects five non-industry members from the advocacy community, for a total of 24 members. However, the PTC says that the system fails due to inaccurate ratings. Raising a child in today's world is hard enough and will become increasingly hard as this world "evolves". Imagine if you will a scenario where your child watches a TV show, that explicitly uses one of the big seven. He or she hears "Whats up bitch?" and decides that it is cute (since the audience on TV laughed). The child goes to school and says "Whats up bitch?" to a female student thinking it to be cute or that a few of their peers will get a chuckle. Hearing this, a teacher intervenes and explains that it was an impolite action. Why is it impolite? Because it can be taken in several different ways: Ad-Hominous, jokingly, or ignorant to name a few. Still, the word used was inappropriate and there is never a way to be 100% sure how the comment will be taken, even by someone you didn't direct it to. How do you explain to a child that it is okay to hear the words but not say them? Eventually the words won't be spoken if we teach them to hear but not say. Children emulate actions and behaviors they see on TV. They are very smart but also very naive, think back to when we were children- How many things do we think back on and say "I was wrong", or "Wow... was I stupid or what?" How often do you see a group of kids in a mall acting up? Of those times, how often do we stop and think "What's wrong with kids these day?" Can wee honestly say that the act of censorship prohibiting them from seeing, and hearing certain things does harm to a group that doesn't need MORE bad influence? We have a responsibility to not only ourselves but to each other... Anti-Censorship advocates drive home points about how it is okay to show nudity on TV, and pollute the airwaves with words like "FUCK". Sure, among adults on TV channels like HBO and Cinemax, this is fine. There is the option to NOT order those channels from your cable provider. However, on network television where censorship NEEDS to be, I'm sure these same people would take arms if their kids sat down and heard "NIGGER". Both words are offensive, but what makes one more offensive than the other? Nothing. People are offended by different things, and as such it is our responsibility to do our best to keep everyone happy out in public. This topic mainly boils down to an impedance on Freedom of Speech, and clearly freedom of speech will be restricted. But freedom of speech is not and should not be absolute, irrespective of the medium, including the television.

We all remember the phrase "Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", right? Well, the modern social response to this is "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind". We see the prior phrase appear in the Bible (a quotation from Exodus 21:23-27), and expresses a principle of retributive justice also known as lex talionis (Latin for "law of retaliation"). The basis of this form of law is the principle of proportionate punishment, often expressed under the motto "Let the punishment fit the crime", which particularly applies to mirror punishments (which may or may not be proportional). At the root of the non-biblical form of this principle is the belief that one of the purposes of the law is to provide retaliation for an offended party. This early belief is reflected in the code of Hammurabi and later brought up in the Bible, Torah and Quran (though only implicitly). Now Hammurabi had some pretty good laws. He said: * If one accuses another, but cannot prove it, the accuser will be killed. * If one accuses another, and can prove it, he shall be rewarded with money. Now, that is an extreme burden of proof, but it would cut back on the crap we see flying around the media if these laws were in place today. This is also pretty fair when you think about it. It implies that if you can't back up what you've said, you probably would do best not saying it unless you've got proof in hand. Hammurabi probably hated drama and I can't say I blame him. Let take a moment and look a little further in the kind of laws these were, shall we. Lex Talionis As I said before, 'lex talinosis' is a kind of set of laws express retribution. It appears in religious texts in some form or another, both explicitly and implicitly, and remains important in figuring out some of today’s current events; specifically Israel and Hezbollah In Judaism The Torah's first mentions the phrase "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, and a foot for a foot " in Exodus (stated above). The Talmud explains that this biblical concept entails monetary compensation in tort cases. The same interpretation applies to this phrase as it appears in Leviticus. Personal retribution is explicitly forbidden by the Torah and such reciprocal justice is strictly reserved for the social magistrate. The Oral Law explains, based upon the biblical verses, that the Bible mandates a sophisticated five-part monetary form of compensation, consisting of payment for "Damages, Pain, Medical Expenses, Incapacitation, and Mental Anguish" - which underlie many modern legal codes. Some rabbinic literature explains, moreover, that the expression, "An eye for an eye, etc." suggests that the perpetrator deserves to lose his own eye, but that biblical law treats him leniently. - (Paraphrased from Union of Orthodox Congregations website) However, the Torah also discusses a form of direct reciprocal justice, where the phrase "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" makes another appearance in Deuteronomy. Here, the Torah discusses false witnesses who conspire to testify against another person. The Torah requires the court to "do to him as he had conspired to do to his brother" (the Bible would vaguely correlate with this by stating "Do unto others as you have do unto you" / "Judge not, lest ye first be judged"). Assuming the fulfillment of certain technical criteria (such the sentencing of the accused whose punishment was not yet executed), wherever it is possible to punish the conspirators with the exact same punishment through which they had planned to harm their fellow, the court carries out this direct reciprocal justice (including when the punishment constitutes the death penalty). Otherwise, the offenders received lashes (which I'm sure will cause someone to rethink their position during that process). In Christianity Christian interpretation of the biblical passage has been heavily influenced by the quotation from Leviticus: "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD" In Jesus' 'Sermon on the Mount', he urges his followers to turn the other cheek when confronted by violence: This was the Expounding of the Law. 'You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.. - (Matthew 5:38-39) The passage continues with the importance of showing forgiveness to enemies and those who harm you. This saying of Jesus is frequently interpreted as criticism of the Old Testament teaching, and often taken as implying that "an eye for an eye" encourages excessive vengeance rather than an attempting to limit it. Most Christian scholars and commentators have agreed that such an interpretation is a misunderstanding of this section of Matthew. The "Expounding of the Law" includes a series of six sayings in similar format, known as the "antitheses". In each of them Jesus quotes the provisions of the Jewish Law without criticism - indeed, the passage is prefaced by a ringing endorsement of the Law as whole. However he then calls on his followers to go further than the Law demands, in order to "Be perfect". It seems clear Jesus was not criticizing the law, but calling on his followers not only to refrain from the abuses the Law condemns, but to go to the opposite extreme by exercising forgiveness and love — even when one has a just claim to vengeance. Now, I can't write a fair piece without discussing the other side of this; Hezbollah. See, the Code of Hammurabi is a Cuneiform Law, which branched out to Babylonian Law. Babylonian Law has direct ties to Syro-Roman and Islamic laws in Mesopotamia, and so enters Hezbollah. In Islam A form of lex talionis in Islam is called "Sharia". Sharia refers to a body of Islamic law. In the Islamic state Sharia governs both public and private lives of those living within the state. Sharia governs many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, and social issues. Some accept Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory before the 19th century, while other scholars view Sharia as a changing body, and include reform Islamic legal theory from the contemporary period. Now, don't get me wrong... Sharia is pretty fair as far as practical common law is concerned, but when it comes to religion, it is extremely strict. I'd go so far as to say that it parallels the ideals held by the Spanish Inquisition. So, let’s look at two Sharia laws: In regards to theft - In accordance with the Qur'an and several hadith, theft is punished by imprisonment or amputation of hands or feet, depending on the number of times it was committed. I think we can agree that this is pretty fair. If you steal from someone, the body as a whole is not punished, but the offending part is. Steal, and the hand that steals is removed. It is the responsiblity of the body to keep the other hand in check. In regards to apostasy (rejection of ones religion) - In most interpretations of Shariah, conversion by Muslims to other religions is forbidden and is termed apostasy. Muslim theology equates apostasy to treason, and in most interpretations of shariah, the penalty for apostasy is death. . Wow, that's pretty harsh. Infidels must die, but not only infidels; anyone who turns from the faith is to be punished by death. These are strong punishments for non-conformity. Since man y of the Islamic nations have little to no separation of church and state, it makes perfect sense that it is considered treason as well. Where am I going with this? I'm going to Israel VS Hezbollah. Israel a Jewish nation doesn't recognize the New Testament so the teachings of Christ are not something they'd be prone to adhere to very closely. This leaves open the Old Testament views of "an eye for an eye". With this is becomes clear as to the philosophy behind the continued retaliation that Zionists are putting forth. Is it racist? Not really. For their concern, they're doing nothing more than practicing the word of God. As far as Hezbollah is concerned they are doing the same. If you take their advanced laws back to their basics within Hammurabi, they're just following orders of their respective Gods. The Point Without getting deep into political agenda, humanitarian issues, and propaganda shamelessly fed to everyone from both sides of any proverbial fence, I want to look at the basic drive behind this. What causes two religions who profess to be "peaceful" into such a tragic and drawn out 'temper tantrum?. By expressing my thoughts and ideas on this, I hope to better understand the more important question of WHY this is being done. HOW and WHAT make themselves known through actions, yet everyone wants to ask "HOW?" and "WHAT?" questions anyway. Agenda aside, both Israel and Hezbollah do have a right to defend themselves; that’s a moot point. Anyone under attack has that human right and instinct. Debating that is pointless, however, a point overlooked frequently is do they have reason? If we strip away all the layers of "he said, she said", "they started it", "I'm taking my ball and going home", and "he's bigger than I am"... we can see that both, as far as their rooted beliefs go, have good reason to carry on the way they are. Nothing else really matters here. Lives are lost in ways just as tragic in our own backyards. Racism is around America and Europe (and we're only trying to work on it from the outside to tell the truth), so bringing it up in Israel and trying to rally everyone on that point is making hypocrites out of us all. Religion around the world is under fire (Catholics and the molestations, Baptists and the money laundering, Muslims and terrorist connections, Jews and exclusion), so it's not overly shocking when it also happens in the Middle East In terms of religion, nobody here is right. A sin is a sin, and as far as I can tell, God doesn’t base sins on degrees of wrong. Rape and Murder are of equal value to Him in terms of disobedience and will both be punished accordingly. God even explains that the thought of a sin is just as bad as the sin itself ( NOTE - these are links to the verse in the Bible. If you do not believe the Bible, that is fine, but they are added to shed light on the subject, not to force a belief system on the reader - Matthew 12:31, Romans 6:23, Matthew 6:23, Deuteronomy 15:9). The variance in degree comes from man, and if both sides are fighting under religious pretexts, then why would they bind themselves to secular laws to wage a Holy War? It's time to either tell the truth and have each side own up to their true agenda, or let them wage that war with zero support from anyone. Syria and Iran back away and stop funding Hezbollah while the US and Europe stop sending help and materials to Israel. Either believe God is on their side, and if this is true, then they’ll both co-exist just fine or one will wipe the other out. Either way, they fall under their own guise of “God's will". If this war is waged on the false pretexts of a Holy War, then well... the verses listed pretty much indicate - you die. It's pretty clear. If you want to take a totally Atheist approach, then I'd refer to Darwinism in relation to Herbert Spencer - Survival of the fittest, while keeping the idea that no support be given to either side. Good idea or bad idea; it's still an idea, which many politicians have yet to even attempt.

Life is often found in a shade of indescribable grey left only to be deciphered by the one living it. This causes a lot of debate and argument over something that neither party really has control over. I can't tell you why it is this way, but I can relate it to truth and life in general. We'll pretend I'm a color blind person for a second here and ponder this: I hold a lighter to a man on my right and ask "What color is my lighter?" The man on the right says "Red, your lighter is definitely red" "Ok" I reply and turn to my left and ask the man on the left "What color is my lighter?" The man on the left says "Blue, your lighter is not red, it is blue!". Confused, I then ask a man standing directly in front of me, "What color is my lighter?" "Yellow, it is neither blue, nor red, but bright yellow!", exclaims the man to my front. Some people would think that two of these three men is lying. In fact, it could be neither man is lying. Being hypothetically color blind, this lighter is neither red, blue or yellow, but grey. Perhaps the man on the right honestly saw red, and the man on the left saw blue and the man in front saw yellow. It doesn't matter because no matter how many people tell me that the lighter is one color or another, it doesn't alter my vantage point. I see grey. I see only grey. I see always grey. Why then would I ask something like "what color is my lighter if my only color seen is grey and various shades therein?" Simply to gain the perspective of others. Just because I only see grey doesn't mean that grey is the only color to be seen. Life has this funny way of coating itself in this hard candy shell of "greyness". It has this chaotic 'battleship grey', a cold 'statue grey', a warm 'midsummer thunderstorm grey', and this faint 'nocturne grey' that subjects all it touches to the perspective of the viewer. Sometimes it has this false sense of color, but that's just personal bias in disguise.

Special Education is the most often over looked division of the Educational System. We concern ourselves with special interest programs aimed at gifted and talented students, extra curricular activities and a hand full of students that make extra effort to reach out to less fortunate community citizens. But what about those students who are faced with the challenge of succeeding period? Special Education often handles mentally handicapped, but the handicap deemed is not always visible. When I graduated High School I was a member of my High School band, JROTC, Model Rocketry and the school newspaper. I was also, in Special Education /.EA (Early Adolescence). Form my 6th grade year of Middle School to m y High School graduation day I was a "SpEd". "SpEd" was generally used a derogatory term implicating ones lack of intellectual ability. In shirt is was just another way to call someone a "retard". It was true, that some of the student in the Special Education program were mentally and physically challenged, not all of us suffered from these conditions. We did, however all share some form of learning disability. For some it was ADD / ADHD, others it was mental underdevelopment, and other still just behavioral problems. I was the former with ADD. Diagnosed with this 'problem' at the age of 10, I had already supposedly established a majority of my work habits and work ethic. I had already begun to form a social appearance and build relationships with groups of kids outside of my neighborhood and I had already begun.... to fail at them all. So, my parents, fearing I was a 'troubled' child, took me to doctors and therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists - looking to do what every parents wants but all parents fear: To fix a problem beyond their control. After a brief stay in a psychiatric institution over a summer, I went to Middle School, but rode the "short bus". The students were just as rowdy and loud, smaller vehicle with a bigger stigma. Thus, the system I had grown to hate and the building I learned to despise became the home of a system that was my salvation. I'm going to skip over my Middle School years, as they were uneventful (unless you'd really like to learn about Inuit tribes, John Steinbeck novels, a Diamondback Terrapin Farm, adopting a Humpback Whale, and a bone pencil). High School... some of us loved it, other (like me) spent years trying to forget the social aspects of it. This, however is where the Special Education system worked for me. I attended Lackey High School in Indian Head, Maryland (Class of '95).. The Special Education section was outside, in small trailers that we kept to ourselves in. Most of us had behavior problems and were considered too disruptive to allow other students to properly learn. We had very small student body presence, normally about 5-15 students per class. This allowed us to concentrate with out ambient distraction, and allowed th teacher to focus more on each individual student. We learned the exact same things as the rest of the "normal" students and were administered the same tests usually. The difference was in the method of teaching that was administered to us. We had a level system. Levels 1 -4; Level one you had no privileges, and level 4 you were fully integrated within the regular populous, taking 'mainstream' classes only showing up to the trailers for homeroom. We earned our freedom so to speak. If we proved we could achieve what was given to us, we were rewarded with more of a challenge and encouraged to participate in every school event we wanted to. I was a Junior before I was "level 4" (then again there was no level 4 before I came along, so...). It was at that point I noticed the differences between the 'mainstream students" and the Special Education system of learning. Regular 'mainstream students' had everything most of you who attended public school will remember. Bulky books, lots of homework, summarized chapters and long essays about "Why James Joyce used the color blue and skulls in both 'A Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man' and 'Dubliners'.... all the stuff that is seldom important later in life (I mean seriously, I still don't think Mr. Joyce intentionally used skulls and blue in both books to illustrate anything other than personal affinity. I got an 'F' on that essay for saying that too.). In the Special Education arena we had smaller books that were given out more frequently, they appeared to have a tighter focus on the material at hand they they often required some sort of project to illustrate what you learned. The difference between memorizing, names, dates and places and understanding them became clear. This was the line between Special Education and Mainstream Education. The teacher didn't necessarily care more or less, but the material and the way I was taught made the difference. I look back on my years in school and see all the people from both sides and have noticed that more people from Special Education who were not mentally disabled succeed than those who were not in Special Education and had no mental disability. Now, it would seem to me that the educational system in whole would look to the Special Education departments to see what is being done in the way of right so they the mainstream system can follow suit. Also, note that my observation only reflects a very small demographic. I can not speak for the majority of the country. The educational system (as I understand it) has its lesson plans dictated nationally, whereas the Special Education system has their plans dictated by the state and school district. I just hope that people can see and understand that Special Education isn't for the 'dumb' and we don't graduate with less of an education that anyone else. There is no "easy button in that program.

Reading the reports from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, it seems that there is a bit of confusion as to what "RIGHT" and "FAIR" are in relation to one another and how they affect the world. I hope to share insight as to what I think about this. Fair: Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial Right: That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting. Both terms are rather easy to understand and easier still to recognize, no? Discerning the difference: Many people still seem to get confused that 'right' and 'fair' are not one and the same. Things that are fair are also usually right, but things that are right are not usually fair. As an example well use the constant streams of reports about mistreatment and abuse with detainees from both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. In a snippet from a CBS report: Last month, the U.S. Army announced 17 soldiers in Iraq, including a brigadier general, had been removed from duty after charges of mistreating Iraqi prisoners. But the details of what happened have been kept secret, until now. It turns out photographs surfaced showing American soldiers abusing and humiliating Iraqis being held at a prison near Baghdad. The Army investigated, and issued a scathing report. It’s shocking that our own countrymen would do such an inhumane thing to another person. We're there to protect and serve. We're there to maintain peace and spread Democracy. What we've done is not right. At least, some would say that anyway. Others might say that the 'enemy' has long mistreated US POWs and what we've done back is no different; what has happened is fair if you will. So where does the line get drawn on 'fair' and 'right'? As a country we're supposed to uphold the standards we claim to be spreading. These actions do nothing but hurt our reputation and make us no less evil than our 'enemy'. At the same time the phrase "eye for an eye" comes to mind. We really didn't do anything that wasn't done to us. It’s a form of "fighting fire with fire". Long have we seen footage of Americans being dragged down the street, beaten to death, beheaded, shot, and held hostage for the world to see. A public display of humiliation. Answering the violence with our own brand of violence is simply the nature of the beast. It is "war" and there are rules that don't apply; tactics used that otherwise would be unthought-of. We have to let them know that we will employ the same methods of information gathering as they do. We need to make sure that the "war" is fought on the same terms within both sides. This is hard to do when one side recognizes the Geneva Convention and the other side does not. The US isn't the only country that stands accused of humanitarian infractions, the UK and Australia are also under a bit of heat about this. Inaction of the difference: All the while, I sit and think "Well... it is fair. They do something to us and we have an unwritten right to do it back". Even as children we are taught to play a game by the rules, but the rules are written to be fair. If we have 4 pieces of candy and three other friends, then we're taught to give each friend one piece of candy so that we might all have a piece. We're taught to be fair. This is no different, we're being fair. We may be acting "fair", but we sure aren't doing the right thing. Americans pride themselves (almost too much) as being inherently right regardless of the situation. As children we are also taught to believe that "honesty is the best policy", why? It is because telling the truth is the "right" thing to do. This leaves us to figure out how we go about acting both fair and right while maintaining a set and civil standard for behavior. I'd love to be able to say it’s an easy task, but I feel that we must first recognize the infractions within ourselves and realize that a majority of the time we only do right if we're watched and are only fair if it benefits us. Coming to grips with the problem: To acknowledge that you are wrong when you actually are is hard enough, but to throw into that the idea you are also unfair can be more damaging. We all clamor for ground when we're accused of being unfair by justifying the smallest of points and stating only one side; our own perspectives without realizing the views of another. What we need to start doing is tolerate and understand the differences we all have. The catch to this is that while some will tolerate, others have the right to not tolerate. This would be fair. It is fair to allow some to tolerate a situation and let others not tolerate it; it is right to allow this to happen because it is fair. It is not right to go allow the unfair advantage of only being "black and white" about anything. Unfortunately the problem arises with time consumption. Weighing out the pros and cons of every detail of every problem or disagreement consumes an enormous amount of time. Unfortunately winning a debate, argument or even war is the result of being unfair. How then, is it the winner can also be right? New paths: If we look at "good" and "evil" we'll notice that the title is nothing more than a perspective. Those who fight for good are good because it is the side for which they fight. The opposition is almost always evil by default. This means both sides are good and both sides are evil depending on the side on which you stand, no? It is then safe to assume that fair and right also follow suit. There is a saying "The only fair fight is the fight you win". This means that the victory is fair because you won the fight, the defeatist will claim unfair and wrongdoing on the basis of defeat. There really is no way to combat that outlook other than to simply acknowledge that in the end it is an opinion based on perception By understanding "that things that are fair are also usually right, and things that are right are not usually fair" we'll have a better idea of on how to combat the urge to lower ourselves into becoming the same level of people who mistreat us. Closing the deal: How does all of this relate? Well... I feel that if we as a nation realize that people in another country do not act and feel the same way on certain issues as we do, that it’s okay. I feel that if they have a different practice and methodology than we do, that it too is okay. To tolerate and not tolerate each other is absolutely fine and fair, but to stoop to a level of the same actions with justifications of being fair is wrong. The right thing to have done is uphold the standards we hold ourselves to and practice good moral ethics. It may not be fair, but it is the right thing to do. Since we want to harp up the ideas of being in the right, we should clean up our act and practice it. Maybe then the world will stop badgering us and labeling us as hypocrites. Simply because other nations has mistreated our troops and ideals gives no justification to reciprocate the action upon their people. Our image as a country is horrible in the eyes of most of the world. I'm not going to point fingers at individuals or groups, but it is something we've done to ourselves. We've let pride step in and take over in place or morals and ethics. I feel that allowing the other countries like Iraq to beat and publicly display our troops bloodied, bound and dead is very wrong and it infuriates me, however there is a better way to resolve this. Our troops join the military knowing they could be called to war and possibly die. It is part of the job. I was a soldier once and have been faced with the same possibilities so I'm aware of the risks involved. I don't think it is right to turn around and defile our own name for the sake of pride. I think maybe if we show the nations with power, that we are civil in the face of adversity, that we can withstand a little bit of foul play, then we can regain trust and honor amongst this good country. After all, its boiled down to "Do we play fair and give up our honor, or do we stand tall and do right giving up a bit of pride?" It has been my experience that too much pride will only give you enough rope to hang yourself. As a thought, a couple of things my Akijujitsu sensei said to me many years ago: "Power is not the ability to crush an opponent; it’s the ability to crush them and choose to let them go". On the dojo wall hung an engraved plate: Be careful my thoughts, lest they become my words. Be careful my words, lest they become my actions. Be careful my actions, lest they become my lifestyle. Be careful my lifestyle, lest it become my heirloom. If we were to relate any of this to the current US immigration fiasco we'd have to look at it objectively. Conservatives claim the legality of the issue making it hypocritically "black and white". While I tend to agree with that, the liberals play up and beat to death the fact that everyone breaks a law so why not let the immigrants continue to break a law until they get caught. Neither side makes a bit of damn sense. I believe we should take a hrd line, and say "Play by the rules or go home". Illegal immigration is not only unfair to natural citizens, but also to legal immigrants who waited in lines, filled out their papers, and got their approval to become an American. Looking at "FAIR VS RIGHT" we'd understand that not only does two wrongs not make a right, but equating one crime to all others is not fair either. It negates the situation by playing on pure semantics of the issue without addressing the issue directly. Thus, an example of the problem in understanding "FAIR VS RIGHT" and how this lack of understanding continues to perpetuate a problem that exists.

You know, I think I'm going to redefine the line between friends and coworkers. I was at work and during lunch my coworkers and I played a game of tackle football (I work outside all day in jeans and a t-shirt). To play I took my hat off so as not to lose it. Upon taking my hat off one of my coworkers said "Wow, I always wondered what you looked like without your hat on" (why anyone wonders what I look like hatless is beyond me, but...). When I got home I changed clothes (after a shower), and headed out to meet some friends for a night of pool and poker. This particular night I chose to wear a hat (rather rare). One of my friends said "It's weird seeing you with a hat on". So, either I just plain look weird (it could happen), or it is time to redefine what the difference between friends and coworkers really are. I'll opt for the latter: Friends are people who think you look funny with a hat on, whereas coworkers think you look funny without a hat on. Also, I've noticed something rather odd about fiction and non-fiction. Playing Tiger Woods 07 the other day with some friends (same friends as above), I noticed a sound in the background. It was a bird (what species I am not aware, I just know it was a bird). Anyway, I thought to myself "Hey, that sounds like a real bird". The next day at work, I once again heard a bird and thought "Wow, that sounds just like a video game"... wtf? Marketing and advertising finally got me. I saw an ad for Tide on television, and in this ad my whites were promised to become whiter. Later, while shopping for groceries, I picked up a bottle of Tide. Now, this wasn't a new brand, I've used Tide for damn near the entire 15 years I've done my own laundry, but I bought it to see if my white would actually be whiter. Now, common sense dictates that "white" is pretty much the plateu here. Still, that wasn't my discovery... I realized that in the span of time that I've been independently doing my laundry, the only things I have that are predominantly white are my socks.