One man’s…

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels.com

Perspective, or point of view, makes a big difference in how you or others view something. When it really comes down to it, no one perspective is correct because everyone sees things just a little bit differently. Two people can experience the exact same thing, yet have different views about what happened, how it happened, who it happened to, and what happened afterwards.

One man’s patriot is another man’s terrorist.

When I was teaching my history classes and specifically a class on modern terrorism I used to challenge my students’ thought by giving them the phrase above. It is based on the statement, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” I have researched who may have first uttered these words, but I can’t find anything that definitively gives attribution, so I can’t give you that info. But, that isn’t really the point.

Who defines a patriot and a terrorist really comes down to perspective or interpretation. There is no one definition that can truly encompass what the words actually mean. As such, it almost always comes down to who has the power to define the people, the actions, and the result. As Michael Bhatia of Brown University puts it, “…it’s about power, authority, and legitimacy.”

Now, he is talking specifically about international terrorism in general, but I think we can apply the situation and phrase to many different historical events because there are always two sides to take a look at.

  • The leaders in Britain saw the colonists as insurrectionists, terrorists, etc. as the colonists fought to create the United States. But the colonists saw their own people as freedom fighters, patriots, etc. because they were standing up to the tyranny of England.
  • The American military saw Iraqis in Iraq as terrorists when they blew up convoys, attacked bases and outposts, and killed Americans whether they were in the military or not. But the Iraqis saw the American military as an invading occupier and those who fought against the occupier were freedom fighters and patriots.
  • The leadership in South Africa saw the South Africans fighting for their rights and freedoms as insurrectionists and terrorists, but Nelson Mandela and his followers saw themselves as a freedom fighters and patriots.
  • Fidel Castro and his followers viewed themselves as patriots and freedom fighters who liberated their island from the right wing government and imperialist international interests while the government and international community viewed him as an insurrectionist and terrorist.

These are but a few examples. The point is, those in power have the ability to define anything and anyone as they see fit. We can’t let them define situations and people so easily without a little common sense and critical thinking.

What happened at the capitol last week can be viewed in much the same way. Are we going to let the media and those in power dictate who is a patriot and who is a terrorist? The use of either word has strong connotations behind them and if not used carefully, as in just throwing them around to fit a political agenda, it could harm people and ideas, and most importantly freedoms. It could keep people from standing up and fighting for their rights when there is legitimate cause to do so.

We must be careful when defining who is a patriot and who is a terrorist, because if we aren’t then the terms can too easily be manipulated for political purposes, which in turn allows us to be manipulated for political gain.

Streaming

Photo by Sharad kachhi on Pexels.com

So, this article was kind of interesting and made me think, “Say what? Clearly I am not in the right business.”

What do I need to do to sign up for this racket? Not that it is illegal. It is all above board, but the it is definitely a racket.

It seems that most top streamers don’t reveal exactly how much they make while doing it. This article was written based on one of them making a mistake and revealing the earnings inadvertently. As such, we get a glimpse behind the curtain and see that this top streamer is pulling down somewhere around $170k a month. That is some serious coin.

Throw in some sponsorships and other contracts and there is a serious flood of cash getting deposited into accounts across the globe.

All from creating content by streaming games and other stuff for people to watch. People watch.

Interesting.

I wonder how hard it is to get started. Obviously, the key is to getting people to follow you and watch you. Anyone know of an instruction manual to get set up?

Precedent

Photo by Felix Mittermeier on Pexels.com

The war on your rights, freedoms, and beliefs is about to get worse. Thankfully, there have been some changes in the Supreme Court that will (hopefully) change the trend of erosion that has been taking place. That, however, won’t stop those on the left from waging a war on the Bill of Rights.

A prime example of such would be the attach on student rights. The indoctrination of students has been going on for years and will continue as, unfortunately, there are not enough people in education that come from the conservative side of the aisle. Everywhere you look, from K-16, there are liberals dominating the arena of education and they are bent on destroying anything that smells of traditional, conservative values.

Last week, a 3rd grader felt the wrath of such an attack. All because a face mask had a message that the principal apparently found offensive. Double standard? Of course. There have been other messages on face masks that didn’t offend, though it may have been to some. But, this little girl gets called out for her message – one that was only directed to herself.

“Jesus love me.”

Not “Jesus loves you.”

The former is a personal message, meant for the person. The second is a message of projection, meant and directed at others.

I have a feeling the school district and the principal will be issuing apologies fairly soon. They are totally in the wrong and the Supreme Court has already addressed and established precedent with related to student speech, including symbolic speech. So, there should be a reversal fairly shortly.

Should schools protect students from some messages? Of course. The courts have established this too, when it comes to messages and images that would be inappropriate for the age group as well as something that would be deemed a disruption to the educational process. So, anything that promotes illegal drugs, illegal actions, offensive language, sex, etc. The definition of “offensive language” has changed over the years and seems to be subject to the whims of whomever is in charge. There has been an obvious double standard here when it comes to liberal and conservative values. So, that seems to waver, even though the established “offensive language” is really based on the seven words that supposedly can’t be broadcast (even this has changed).

Anyway, I am glad that someone has challenged the principal and district, though the district (as far as I can tell) hasn’t come out in support of the principal. Students, when at school, should be able to see and hear both sides of an issue and make a determination for themselves, not be indoctrinated one way or another.

Fiddling

OK, anyone else find it really annoying when people change stuff just to change stuff, or specifically, change stuff just to be politically correct and more inclusive?

It’s a small thing and of small consequence, but does Words With Friends really need to change the legend of the Headless Horseman to be the Headless Horsewoman?

There is no such story. There is no such legend. There is no such tradition.

So why do people feel the need to put this stuff out there? Sure, if a female would like to dress up as the Headless Horseman, not a big deal. There is space in the universe to do that and I don’t have a problem with that. We have freedom to do so. BUT, if you look at the theme of the game this week, “Haunting Visionaries,” there is no room for a female headless rider.

Let’s leave the old stories as they are and stop trying to cram the PC stuff down our throats.

Abyss

If you need help deciding who to vote for this year, maybe this can help. I came across this video the other day and while I don’t normally stop to watch something from the source, I was intrigued. The pillars mentioned here are powerful and can’t be ignored when it comes to making a choice for your ballot.

Are the choices we have perfect? Hell no! I would prefer that it was neither of them. But, when it comes to the things that are most important, there is a clear choice. History has proven time and again where Socialism and Communism leads, and we don’t want to head down that road.

If you have 26 minutes to listen, I think you will find this informative, powerful, and impactful.

Doom

Doom everywhere.

“Doom to you.”

“Doom to you as well, good sir.”

Doom to the President.

Doom to the other political party.

Doom to blacks.

Doom to whites.

Doom to athletes.

Doom to your neighbor.

Doom to government.

Doom to the police.

Doom to & from the media.

Doom to the climate and environment.

Doom doom doom.

Doom from Covid.

Doom for or not for wearing a mask and social distancing.

Doom during the day.

Doom during the night.

Doom to the United States.

Doom to other countries.

Doom everywhere.

Doom backwards is MOOD.

The mood around here is always doom.

Doom you!

Doom me!

Have you had your doom today?

If not, have a great doom today!

Objectify

What exactly does this mean if the power is created by showing more and more skin?
Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

Gonna wade into a social hot topic. A social double standard. Gonna stomp on some toes. Ruffle some feathers. Set the internet on fire.

Let’s be real for a moment.

Women say they don’t want to be “objectified” and yet they do it to themselves.

That’s an obviously broad statement. There are a lot of connotations in uttering it. But, I can’t help but wonder if what is said isn’t what is actually meant when it comes right down to it. Motivations play a big factor in it, I think.

Social media has caused me to wonder what’s true and what isn’t.

Based on what I see, being objectified brings attention, exposure, clicks, follows, etc. How does that happen?

Skin.

Show more skin.

If you are a female and want to be popular online, the less clothing and more skin you show translates to all kinds of the things mentioned above, plus music deals, modeling contracts, sponsorships, acting deals, etc.

Is it right? Absolutely not.

Are they perpetuating objectification? Of course.

Teenagers dancing in skimpy clothing. Women in short skirts, cleavage falling out all over the place, barely there bathing suits…it all attracts attention, which is exactly why it is being done.

Sure, the argument has been made that “they dress for themselves” and “it helps them feel confident about themselves” and “men shouldn’t see them as objects but as people.”

If that were really the case, would it be necessary to post a video of dance moves with very little clothing on? Couldn’t the same dance moves be made in a regular fitting t-shirt and jeans? Couldn’t the song be sung in a hoody and sweatpants? Couldn’t it just be done with less skin?

Quick test here: Do the exact same thing in two different videos – one fully clothed and one will very little on. Let’s just say it is a short Tik Tok video. Which one gets more views? Clicks? Shares? Likes?

Exactly. Point demonstrated. Skin and sex sells. Nevermind the fact that there are parents out there fully exploiting the fact that their daughters are all over the internet with next to nothing on (and encouraging it).

So, am I off my rocker here? I am seeing this differently than I should? Did I miss something? Maybe I’m wrong. After all, I am just a dumb man.

State of affairs

Just sitting here feeling the same as Mr. Bean. There have been a lot of these kinds of days lately.

Society.

News.

Family.

Government.

Politics.

Work.

Life.

Fly it high, Mr. Bean. Fly it high.

Communication

marketing office working business

Photo by Negative Space on Pexels.com

As a former teacher, and someone who still works in education, let me say this plainly to all the parents out there of school aged children:

IF YOUR CHILD’S (CHILDREN’S) DISTRICT, SCHOOL, OR TEACHER IS TRYING TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU, STOP TREATING IT LIKE IT IS SPAM OR A NUISANCE.

Listen, they are doing the best they can in the worst of circumstances. They don’t wanna be doing school this way. No one does. So, stop complaining and get on board!

Also, any time someone from the district or school is trying to communicate with you about your student(s), pay attention! They aren’t out there to waste your time”just because.” They are trying to make sure the most important person(s) in your life gets the best education possible.

Pay attention.

Engage.

Participate.

Take responsibility for what you can do on your end.

Hold your student accountable – for everything! That means grades, participation, attendance, homework, communication, learning, exploring, etc.

Most of all, hold yourself accountable too! When you participate in your student’s education, your students will be better off in the long run.

Want your student, your child, to have a better life than you had?

Stop making excuses for everything and make sure they get an education.

Rockstar

black and white hands mask bussinesman

Photo by Vijay Putra on Pexels.com

Why is this song so popular?

Sure it has a great beat. Sure it a some catchy phrases in it. BUT, it wasn’t until I looked up the lyrics that I really understood what the song was about. It’s really kind of disgusting and shouldn’t be popular. It should actually make people angry, and there apparently isn’t any. Where is the outrage over this stuff?

Violence? Check. N-word? Check. Gangsta persona? Check.

“Rockstar” by DaBaby and Roddy Ricch is perpetuating exactly what is wrong in rap music. That music translates to what plays out in the communities that listen to it. Glorifying exactly what went on in major cities all over the country.

Over the holiday weekend, more violence. Could this song be a contributor? Hard to say for sure, obviously, but you can bet there are people out there listening to it and romanticizing the violence and behavior it talks about.

Why do radio stations place this stuff? Why aren’t people holding them accountable for playing music that glorifies violence, murder, drugs, gangsters, etc.? Better yet, why aren’t artists holding other artists accountable for writing about and singing about this stuff?

Perhaps the artists and their music really isn’t about building up a community, or a culture, so much as it is about exploiting it. Perhaps the artists don’t really care about the message that has been played over and over in the media. Just as long as they get theirs and can take it to the bank, right?

That’s irresponsible. That’s hypocrisy. That’s exploitation.