I ran across something funny yesterday while reading an interview with the Rev. Al Sharpton in Rolling Stone magazine. He was talking about his presidential democratic campaign and the state of the United States. He mentioned how the economy is truly suffering under President Bush, and it is resulting in the �Walmartization� of America.
Walmartization?
Ahahahahahahahahaha!
What he meant was that because of the economic crisis that the United States is suffering, even those who are doing decently well [such as myself] have to settle for the cheapest they can buy and still survive.
Granted, this is reasonably true, but I�m a cheap individual as it is. However, I don�t ever find myself shopping at Walmart�ever. I don�t like the business tactics that Walmart has used to crush small businesses, and I don�t like how it [as the Rev says] aims it�s products to people who �just wanna get by�. I mean, doesn�t anyone have a sense of quality anymore? Walmart [among a few other stores] are propagating the throw away society that we have become.
Now, I may not entirely agree with the Rev�s views, but I thought that his allusion was very amusing.
Supposedly, some kind of landmark legal battle has ended in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down a gay marriage ban and is paving the way for gays and lesbians to get married in that state. Apparently, this goes against the popular opinion in Massachusetts, and many people are ticked off about how the court didn�t rule in favor of them.
Okay, let�s back the train up here.
Even putting aside the controversy of the issue, the judicial system of this country does not cow tow to what a majority of people think. The job of the court system is to define if laws are constitutional or not. The court system is not a forum for people to whine and complain until someone takes away the �bad bad law�. In fact, if laws were passed on what the majority of the population thinks, this country would completely disintegrate.
In case you have noticed, I don�t have a very high opinion of the general public. People are stupid. A person can be intelligent, but a mass of people is stupid.
Do you want an example of this?
A couple of weeks ago, on a message board that I post on, someone was getting a little out of hand. I put up a poll asking whether or not the person should be kicked out. Now that may or may not have been a little pretentious of me, and I was called on it. I defended my position by saying that if the rowdy person irritates enough people in the community, she should be made to leave. I said that putting up the poll was a �democratic� way of doing things.
The owner of the message board took down my poll, inevitably, with the comment that he �doesn�t believe in democracies� because he �is a Republican�.
What
The
Fuck?
Granted, I would shrug him off as generally just being stupid. However, I was appalled by this comment [well for the obvious reason�um�duh�.Republican = political party, democracy = the entire �voting� by a general populace system employed by the United States, does NOT equal Democratic political party] because he is an employed engineer that graduated from Michigan State.
I often find myself acting slightly arrogant because I�m an engineer. Engineers go through hell in college, blah blah blah. I assumed [incorrectly, apparently] that we all seemed to have a grasp on other subjects including Government, history, English, etc. even if we weren�t experts in the subject. I assumed that most educated people [engineers nonewithstanding] knew the basic fundamentals of how the government in this country works. I mean, after all, don�t we all have to take that ridiculous half year course on Government in the state of Michigan?
I was apparently very wrong.
All that did, though, was stir up intense feelings of fear about the future of the United States. I�ve noticed [I don�t know about anyone else] that most teenagers either can�t or won�t speak English. I was once told by one, when I corrected her written English on a message board, that the message board wasn�t �school� and that she shouldn�t therefore have to �try so hard� and write properly.
I was under the impression that we learned English in school, not as some kind of accessory to writing papers in school, but so that we could communicate properly with others no matter what the forum is. I know that I don�t write completely correctly, but I think that I �get by� pretty well.
Not only do teenagers not know how to speak English, but apparently young, successful 20-somethings don�t even understand the fundamentals [THE MOST BASIC ASPECT] of our government. Do I really think that bodes well for the upcoming election? Oh my god, no. What is going to happen when the more active generation [ie baby boomers] passes from this Earth, leaving the rest of us here with our noses buried in PDA�s, computers, and all of our materialistic glory without a damn clue on what is going on in the country?
I think I may want to move by then.
Returning to the earlier issue, many of these idiots who are part of this �popular� opinion, go on and on about how the institution of �marriage� is sacred and is a �holy union� between man and woman.
Last time I checked, all that was truly involved in getting �married� was obtaining a valid marriage license from the state in which you are going to be married. What is involved in getting this license? I don�t entirely know, really. I do know that it has nothing to do with religion, religious beliefs, etc. The state basically makes you take a blood test, pay them, and fill out a bunch of irritating paperwork.
Now, how, exactly, is that a �sacred institution�? You�d think that they�d want to give gays and lesbians the right to marry simply because they could collect more money that way.
The wedding, itself, is a personal decision left up to an individual. It may, actually, have nothing to do with being �holy� at all. It may, actually, just involve going to the justice of the peace with a couple of witnesses. So how in the hell would this be an infringement?
Okay�you don�t accept that point? Here�s another one.
It doesn�t look like heterosexuals are giving marriage a good name as it is. I don�t understand how another group of people [READ: PEOPLE] could muck it up much more than it already has been. Marriages have become like cheap TV�s. You throw it out when it gets the least bit unclear, you run to the store, and you slap down your credit card to buy a new one. How does allowing gays and lesbians the same rights as everyone else make it any worse? They are people and they aren�t being given the same rights as other people. What does this sound like? It sounds like discrimination. It sounds a lot like how in the early 20th Century, women were considered the property of their fathers or their husbands. It sounds a lot like how non-whites were also considered property. How can ANYONE justify that the ability to marry is okay for some but not for others?
Um�you can�t stupid.
As I said, people are stupid.
