Are You Pro-War, or Anti-War? - Thinkjoust Tuesday #61

I don't really know how to precede this thinkjoust, because I'm really not trying to sway you one way or the other. As it is, I'll just offer one simple question.

What do you think?

Be sure to leave a comment below, and I'll respond with my own opinions this Saturday. See you then!

America is Tolerant? Accepting? Open-Minded? My Fanny. - Thursday Thought #12

Sometimes, I truly believe America is trying to be more accepting. I really do. I see social justice making great strides toward equality for all demographics. I see people growing more willing to discuss these issues on a large scale. I realize and accept that a lot of people oppose this sort of open love for others, but the fact that there's a discussion at all demonstrates that American has made a lot of progress.

But then junk like this happens.

Article Link

Yes, seriously, Asian kid in the advertisement on the right of the screenshot. Seriously.

Y'all should know by now I don't have much love for the Republican party (or any political parties, for that matter). I am definitely not a supporter of Donald Trump, and I'm aware of the allusions his own supporters make comparing the presidential candidate with Hitler.

At the same time, can we cut this woman some slack?

When I watch the video, I just can't help but feel like the gesture was completely innocuous. I've offered lazy waves before, merely raising my hand at a roommate as they're walking out the door. I'm sure, out of context, my lazy waving could look like a Nazi salute. At the same time, I'm not being filmed. No one has the opportunity to screenshot me and present me in the compromising situations.

So many people are so quick to jump on any opportunity to embarrass or ridicule individuals for simple mistakes, especially when they're being brave and putting themselves out there. I'm sure you've seen countless examples out there. I've seen examples from the comments section on this very blog.

A similar thing happened to Jeb Bush. If the man had ended his speech with a phrase like, "Thank you," nobody would have batted an eye. His awkward choice of words led to a wave of mockery.

And who remembers the infamous 'Dean Scream'? Taken in context, the scream fits in with the speech. It isn't at all awkward. But then people jumped at the chance to ridicule and mock him for it, taking it out of context and presenting him like he was a buffoon.

In my limited experience, I have learned that many people believe in the adage, "A good defense is a good offense." Rather than focus on their own mistakes and shortcomings, they attack others as a way to deflect attention from themselves. If everyone's laughing at the kid who got tripped and spilled milk all over himself, nobody's noticing the bully with severe daddy issues.

So my message today is simple. Let's stop immortalizing people's mistakes, especially when they're entirely innocent. If there's doubt, never ascribe malice to an action when it could easily be ascribed to stupidity.

American may have gain respect for groups, but we still have a long way to go in our respect for individuals.

Why We Need a Third Party Candidate - Thursday Thought #11

I hope my poorly-drawn political cartoon raises the point that a table cannot stand on two legs. If a two-legged table tried to lift any sort of political balance, well, it would fail.

This is why I firmly believe that America needs greater representation from a third party. Even if the major political parties can't agree on many things, they can agree that a third party threatens them both. Members of these parties often claim that if you vote for a third party, you're throwing away your vote.

Of course, that myth only serves to hold people's heads down. If voters feel like voting for a third party is useless, then they won't even try, instead casting their vote for a presidential candidate they might not even like because it's a 'safer bet.'

But that reasoning is flawed. Let me tell you about the Monty Hall problem.

You can read more about it here, but, in essence, the Monty Hall problem places you in front of three doors. A host explains that a prize lies behind each door. Two of the doors contain goats, while the last has a brand new car. The host invites you to pick a door, which you do. He then opens one of the two other doors, revealing a goat inside. You are then invited to either stick your with original pick, or open the third, unopened door. Whichever of the last two doors you open, you get to keep.

Let's get to the point. Let's say your host opens the door to reveal the first goat. Now, goats are pretty nice, and you may even prefer to take a goat home. But if you really like goats all that much, you could sell the brand new car and buy even more goats. The point is, the car is Monty Hall's best deal.

Would you really be satisfied with just taking the first goat (or even the second goat) knowing you could have won a car?

So it goes with politics. Many people genuinely believe in and admire their political parties, and I respect that. At the same time, many individuals vote for politicians just because they're there, because they're flapping their mouths on the news and have their names in headlines. And anyone can have their name in a headlines.

So what can you do?

As for me, I went onto isidewith.com and took their quiz.

I found out where I stood in politics.

I discovered which presidential candidate I most matched with.

The fact that I found a third party candidate so appealing was convenient, but unsurprising given my disdain for the top party's current nominees.

But see, it didn't really matter. When isidewith.com pointed me to Better For America, I devoured their content with eagerness.

Better For America is a movement dedicated to ensuring that a third party candidate gets coverage in this upcoming election. Better For America is trying to build a table that can stand on its own, not wobble on two legs.

I signed the heck up.

I invite you to do the same.

Why You Should Challenge Your Beliefs - Response Saturday #15

This past Tuesday, I asked the question, 'Should You Question Your Beliefs?"

There weren't as many comments to sort through this week, but the few who commented were fairly unanimous. We should challenge our beliefs. One commentator pointed out that 'challenging belief' is really just seeking truth, wherever and however you may find it.

However, when it comes down to it, the post is called Why one should challenge their beliefs. Let me explain the way I see it.

Some buildings grow old and decrepit after many years of use. However, if architects and construction crews alter the structure to modern standards, the building can be reused for a new and unique purpose, if not the original purpose.

When you exercise, you're trying to get stronger. The effort can actually tear your muscles (on a microscopic level, sure, but hey), but it is the resulting healing process that actually lends you new strength.

Funnily enough, some of my most memorable friendships came to be because I initially accounted them among my rivals and enemies.

My point is, weakness always precedes strength. If you take pains to challenge your own beliefs, you may feel uncertain for a time, but then you are able to be more confident in the truths you have discovered.

I know my beliefs were challenged several times while I served my mission in Arizona and Jamaica. I wondered many times if I was doing the right thing. But after every crisis of faith, I studied and thought about things and came away with a better understanding of not just what I believe in, but also who I am as a person.

And that is more valuable to me than anything.

So don't be afraid to question yourself. If you come away with a different understanding of the world, well, that just means you're progressing and improving.

Good luck on your journey.

This Week's Top Comments

Why You Can't Judge Groups as a Whole

I belong to a lot of different groups. I am a Mormon by religion. I belong to various groups of bloggers and writers. I am a walker, a Steventhusiast, a brony, and a Whovian based on the TV shows I like. I am both a video gamer and a tabletop gamer. All these groups barely scratch the surface of a very extensive list.

Of course, some of these groups are more prone to criticism and mockery than others. For example, I recently met an individual who discovered I was a brony. His initial response was to question my manhood. I questioned him and unearthed he'd previously roomed with a brony. His impression of this brony was less than favorable. As it was, upon learning of this vague connection between me and his former roommate, my new associate projected all his negative impressions on to me.

Therein lies the danger in assuming all members of a group act in the same manner. No one organization produces their members using a cookie cutter or an assembly line.

To illustrate this, I've decided to pick on Democrats, because I've done enough picking on Republicans in recent history.

Some people who dislike Democrats are quick to condemn the group. One might say, "Democrats are nothin' but a bunch of wing-flappin' moonbats!"

Harsh.

This disdain for Democrats might even bleed into personal social interactions. Imagine a conversation between strangers,

"Why, hello there! How are you?"

"Okay. Work's been pretty rough, but I'm getting through."

"Oh, I feel ya! The boss has been driving me crazy lately."

Both strangers feel good inside. We made common ground!

"So what's your job?"

"I was about to ask the same thing!"

Both strangers answer at the same time.

"I'm a fundraiser for the Democratic party."
"I'm a Republican political campaign manager."

Both strangers immediately engage in a team deathmatch.

The thing is, just because someone belongs to groups different than you own doesn't mean you can't or won't find common ground. Let me explain.

As the elephant represents the Republican party, so does the donkey represent the Democratic party. It's easy to malign Democrats by calling them "Bleeding heart liberal [donkeys]," but did you know that no two donkeys are exactly alike, either?

Let's simplify this and talk about breeds. Did you know the largest donkey in the world is a breed called American Mammoths? The smallest donkey breed is appropriately named Miniature. Bands of feral donkeys roam the Australian plain. Poitou donkeys have hair long enough to turn into dreadlocks. And Pega donkeys just look super cool.

You may be tempted to judge or deride someone based on a group to which they belong. But frankly, no one person is defined by any one group. No one group has the power to de-individualize a person.

The sad thing is, believing in the de-individualization of people within groups created the twin problems of sexism and racism.

So maybe you can judge groups as a whole. But I've made the decision that I won't.

Should You Challenge Your Beliefs? - Thinkjoust Tuesday #46

I'm pretty sure everyone knows I don't like Donald Trump. Here's some proof. Here, too. And here. And ... here. 

As it is, it's no surprise that I absolutely love it when Late Night talk show hosts blast the politician. One particularly infamous example happened on Stephen Colbert's show, in a particular segment that some people say 'Destroyed Donald Trump.' The clip is down below.

I thought the debate was not only hilarious, but also revealing. Come on! I thought. How does anyone like this guy?

Then, a short while later, I found this comic.

http://wondermark.com/c1209/

Thanks to David Malki ! for this comic.

Anyway, if you didn't want to read the whole thing, the point is, Stephen Colbert (or Bingus Gabberdeen, as it were) didn't actually destroy Donald Trump. Yes, he may have successfully burned Donald Trump, but Colbert lacked the ability to actually change anything. The musician-character in the comic says it best, and I quote.

"It was insightful and funny and, as it was delivered to an entirely like-minded audience, it changed the political opinion of no one."

This blew my mind because it made so much sense. DUH Colbert couldn't destroy Donald Trump. He was already preaching to the choir.

And it makes sense. If you're a right-wing, you're probably going to prefer right-wing news programming. If you're a left-wing, the same pattern naturally follows. If you like Donald Trump, odds are you're not going to like Stephen Colbert, and so you won't be a part of his audience.

So I got to thinking, and I realized I have very rarely challenged my beliefs regarding Donald Trump. I often watch videos that condemn or criticize him, but I don't actively seek out material that praises him or discusses his good merits. In that sense, I have merely validated my own opinion instead of building a larger picture and then going off of that.

The thing is, I find it scary to break down my beliefs and analyze them. My personal belief system is a large part of the foundation that makes me who I am. If I discover something that challenges my belief system, and I agree with that challenge, I feel vulnerable. I'm no longer confident in who I am.

An example of this can be found in my post following up on the In God We Trust thinkjoust. In essence, the follow-up discussed my belief that it didn't really matter if In God We Trust is carved onto our government buildings and coins. But then an anonymous user commented on the follow-up. Their tone in the comment was vaguely confrontational, but they raised some good points that changed my perspective on the In God We Trust issue.

So now I ask you, dear audience. Is it a good idea to challenge your beliefs, or should we stick with material that appeals to and/or validates us?

This next Response Saturday will present my up-to-date opinion about challenging your personal beliefs. I will consider any arguments you deliver via the comments section or social media engagements.

I look forward to hearing what you all have to say.

Thinking Differently is NOT Thinking Wrong

Our new Change and Cherish mascots make their official debut in this final scheduled Friday post! I'm calling them 'The Light-bulb People' for now. They're supposed to represent the concept of thought, inspired by the cartoons which often portray light-bulbs over the heads of characters after they have an idea.

As you can see above, today's two light-bulbs emit different-colored lights. This demonstrates that some people think differently than yourself. Yes, you, faithful reader. And, of course, I'm here to say that that doesn't make them wrong.

As I discussed in the 16 Personalities post, everyone has a different personality, and because of this, everyone has a different filter through which they view the world. For example, one person may be opposed to drinking caffeine, but another person may absolutely love to drink it. One of the most all-time popular Change and Cherish Blog posts revolves around tattoos. I mention in the post that Mormons don't generally get tattoos, but I don't think I'd get a tattoo even if I wasn't Mormon. I don't even like people writing on me, so a tattoo on my own flesh would drive me nuts. However, that doesn't mean I think every person who has tattoos are crazy or idiotic. And I shouldn't either way.

The same goes for philosophies, politics, and even religious beliefs. Too often we find people on different sides of a debate, unwilling to consider or seek compromises. I, myself, have been guilty of assuming a strong stance against something or other and refusing to see an issue from the other side. When we think about things like gun control, the best solution for all parties can rarely be found among extremist sides.

Even social interactions can be viewed through different lenses. Just because you like to go around and party and be surrounded by people, doesn't mean your introverted friends can't thrive doing something by themselves. They aren't wrong for liking their alone time.

I only bring this up because I believe many people often think to themselves, mostly unconsciously, "If you think or act differently than me, then you're wrong." Even worse, people sometimes go so far as to assume someone 'different' is automatically an antagonist to their beliefs and lifestyle. As an example, just because I'm a Mormon, doesn't mean I despise all other religions. Just because I'm a man, doesn't mean I despise feminists. Just because I'm a millennial, doesn't mean I like Bernie Sanders.

If I am careful to consider the fact that nobody has to be wrong, then I often find more peace and kindness in my daily life. 

I hope that everyone finds the same.

Why I Dislike Blunt Politicians

Certain politicians have recently been lauded for their bluntness. "We need a president who stops trying to be politically correct all the time," people say. "We need a president who says what they think and answers to no one."

In many ways, I agree with this sentiment. At the same time, I fear that America's dislike for extremely passive politicians has led us to glorify the other extreme, which is just as bad.

Figure A: Sole individual fights fire with fire.
Figure B: Sole individual gets fired.

We've all seen it before. Someone honks at someone else on the road, and they get flipped off. Someone expresses a contrary opinion, and their conversational partner condemns them for it. People respond to each other's rancor with their own brand of vile. 

I'm not saying every situation can be talked through. But if rebuffing and arguing is someone's first response to a tough situation, they're more likely to produce similar responses from their enemies and fellows.

Figure C: Sole individual attempts diplomacy.
Figure D: Peace is found.

Being direct and forthright gets things done, but if we combine these qualities with aggressiveness, we might lose ground in building international relationships.

And so we see our current presidential nominees spending time and resources taking potshots at each other. They rise to each others' baits, time and time again. One of these individuals may become President of the Union. I don't have faith that they will help our crumbling standing across the world.

However, if someone in the presidential race finally swallows their pride and seeks compromises instead of idiots among their opponents, I might have hope for this country yet.

What I Think About Torture

You don't need to look far to find my final opinion.

The answer is, torture is terrible.

Look, my original idea for the header image was to poor-man* Photoshop my face onto a picture of someone about to be tortured. You know, someone in a torture chair or something.

But everything I found appalled me. There really isn't any light torture out there, nothing casual enough to avoid offending every physical and moral sense you have. I can't believe some human beings can actually stomach putting someone through that.

I would throw up some links showing you the different types of torture I discovered exist, but I don't want to be responsible for any images that get stuck in your mind. If you want to research torture on your own time, do it at your own risk.

Of course, I'd already come to the conclusion that torture was atrocious based on just your comments alone.

You guys told me about Iraqi Republican Guards. You guys told me that torture doesn't ever yield useful information. You guys wanted the United States to be seen as the good guys.

I hope our presidential nominees listen to us.

This Week's Top Comments

*I don't actually own Photoshop, which means I have to rig a personalized system using at least three different programs.

THE DEATH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?!?

HAHA symbolism.

In my last post about Mr. Trump, I mentioned I would soon discuss the possibility of a split vote within the Republican party.

See, the ongoing caucuses are an attempt by the Republicans and Democrats to determine which prominent members of their party should represent them in the presidential election. The party leaders could just choose their candidate themselves, but they instead seek the opinions of the majority. The thing is, if no one potential candidate gains enough of a majority vote within the political party, then we have what's called a 'brokered convention.' 

In essence, a brokered convention could mean that anyone in the party may be chosen to run for president, regardless of who was running in the race previous. The leaders of the party may pick a candidate from among the currently running candidates, or they may choose someone who hasn't participated in the race at all previously.

My description dumbs down the subtleties of brokered conventions, but it serves my purposes here.

Now consider that the leaders of the Republican party don't particularly like Trump. Want proof? Check this out. Or this. Or that. Or even this. There are many people at the top of the GOP who want Trump out.

The thing is, Trump fans are numerous and rabid. They want their man to win. And Trump has the power and money to continue campaigning under the banner of a third party. The media certainly love him, and they won't forget about him even if he's no longer the Republican candidate.

The thing is, people participating in the Republican caucuses are registered as Republicans. So what happens when a large chunk of registered Republican voters switch over to Donald Trump's third party?

This Q&A from Quora sums up the issue nicely. Let's just make things simple. Let's say that, in a typical election, 40% of Democrats always vote Democrat and 40% of Republicans always vote Republican. The remaining 20% remains undecided until the election.

But let's say Trump steals 50% of Republican party voters. The Democrats would still get their 40%, but with Trump supporters, Republicans, and undecided voters getting 20% of the overall vote each ... Odds are, the Democratic party has already won the election.

What if Trump's third party ends up creaming the Republican nominee in the final election? Are we witnessing the death of the Republican party and the birth of the Trump party?

Even worse, are we looking at a country that is governed by one majority political party?

It's no secret I don't like the bipartisan system, but a uni-partisan system is even more terrifying. And quite frankly, I don't care which party gains control of the nation. I don't want any of them to have that kind of power.

If you're curious to read my other entries in my series on Donald Trump, check these links:

Stop Talking About Donald Trump

Why Donald Trump Will Not Win

Final(s) Slam (2 Videos)

That's right, folks! We had another slam! Less of my immediate associates participated this time, but I still did!

The winners of the slam!

Obligatory soloist picture!

The master list!

And here's the text of my poem!

Disclaimer, right now, this slam poem is meta

I’m really sorry, guys, I don’t have anything betta

But I’m here to slam about slamming, and what y’all like

When we slam poets step up and spit into this mic

All I really need to make you scream

For you to clap and cheer and feel like you’re on my team

Is to say something I know you all with agree with

Like man, I hate to work the graveyard shift

There ain’t nothin’ better than a third date kiss

I never want to go to class, I think I’m gone skip

I hate waiting in lines, I hate parking fines

I hate it when my crush wants me to read their mind

I hate getting stuck in traffic behind the shuttle bus

I hate it when I see guys who ain’t chivalrous

Hillary’s a stepford-smilin’ mouth-flappin buffoon,

But where Trump truly belongs is a Fox cartoon

So then I leave the stage, and you think we’re in sync

But the thing is, I never really made you think.

That’s right, audience, I am calling you out,

You only like the taste of water from familiar spouts

I don’t have to be deep, I wasn’t even that funny

All that really matters is you think you think like me

But if I say something to challenge your minds

You sit there quietly, your arms at your sides

You talk about the refugees, with arms open and welcome,

But how would you feel if you had to let them sleep in your home

Maybe your candidate is the best for you

Are they the best for America, when you know what they’ll do?

You say you’re against police brutality

But if you saw it happen, would you leap in the fray?

You say racism doesn’t exist, that it’s come to an end,

But what about those racial jokes you told to your white friends?

You say you oppose the church and its stance on gays

But would you still be kind if a gay were your roommate?

And yes, I’m going there, you say you believe in Christ

But when’s the last time you were unconditionally nice?

Today’s society is all about (hashtag) #SoRelatable

Personally, I think that’s just a bunch of bull.

We are becoming more reliant on our similarities

We ignore the hard things because we like it easy

We don’t want our beliefs challenged, and we don’t to fight

For something we know to be true, or even to make something right

Because if we stand for something, we might stand alone

And standing alone is a fear that fills everyone’s bones.

But if we all stood alone, then we’d be standing together

And our burdens shared would be as light as a feather

So get off the hashtag, forsake the cliché

And make a promise to challenge yourself every day

yes, it’s uncomfortable to question all you believe

But you’ll be surprised by all the rewards you receive

You will find more respect, you will find more clarity

You can defend yourself from scrutiny and barbarity

Best of all, you’ll no longer feel awkward in your own skin

You will become an original, a will-be, not has-been

Thank you.

Should the Military Utilize Torture in Interrogations? - Thinkjoust Tuesday #43

Torture can be a useful tool in uncovering vital information regarding enemy movements, intelligence, and positioning, among other things. Torture also tears down diplomatic opportunities and makes it difficult to convince enemy units to surrender.

Information gleaned through torture has saved countless lives. At the same time, some people feel as though torture is morally reprehensible. There are countless arguments for or against the use of torture. The question is, where should the military stand on the matter?

I plan to use Saturday's post to present my up-to-date opinion about torture. However, I want to gain a full understanding of the different viewpoints about this issue. My studies will include any arguments you deliver via the comments section below.

I look forward to hearing what you all have to say.

For those of you as uninformed as I am, here are some recent articles discussing this very subject:

Ex-Abu Ghraib Interrogator: Israelis Trained U.S. to Use "Palestinian Chair" Torture Device

CIA Director John Brennan won't bring back torture, even if GOP contenders want it

United States of Torture: When it comes to "enhanced interrogation," Americans agree with Donald Trump

Death on the border: Family suing U.S. for "torturing and killing" Latino father at California-Mexico line, botching investigation

Ted Cruz Tells Fox America Has 'Never Engaged in Torture'

Do I Support the Death Penalty?

Last Tuesday, I invited my audience to respond to me regarding the death penalty. I believe the response set a new record in regards to how many different comments I received.

So, after parsing through the comments and considering everyone's arguments, I found my mind being changed. See, before I wrote Tuesday's post, I think I was more for the Death Penalty than I was against it. Now, I'm more against the Death Penalty than for it.

I don't think anyone should face the Death Penalty for a first time offense, period. I believe our jails should be centered around the rehabilitation of inmates. If jails are struggling to properly rehabilitate prisoners, then the money currently being used to administer the death penalty to first-time offenders should be redirected to improving rehabilitation efforts.

Now, I'm hesitant to completely abolish the Death Penalty in the face of repeat offenders. Imagine a man who goes to jail for murder, leaves prison a supposedly reformed man, and then murders someone else. If he fooled his captors into thinking he was rehabilitated, then couldn't he do so again?

In such an instance, many believe keeping that man in prison for life is a cruel and unusual punishment. Perhaps killing the man humanely would be more merciful than keeping him alive?

I propose that we give the convict options. If a repeat offender faces either life in prison or the death penalty, let him choose which punishment seems more cruel and unusual. Maybe such a person wouldn't mind spending his life in jail. Maybe he would just want to end things.

But what about the methods of execution? As alluded to in the Tuesday post, the five methods of execution in the United States are hanging, electric chair, gas chamber, firing squad, and lethal injection. Some of these methods are perceived to be more inhumane than others, and therefore the more humane ones are often preferred. 

However, every single method of execution generally inflicts some sort of pain, even lethal injections, which include drugs that paralyze victims and therefore only mask the inmate's suffering. Let's be honest; if we're going to be administering the death penalty, we need to do so quickly, efficiently, and cheaply. We can't pretend like there's a 'humane' way to kill someone; killing people is killing people, no matter how little blood we see.

In summary, I believe prisoners need to be rehabilitated first. If they revert back to their old ways, then they need a punishment that will keep them from harming others. I balk at punishments that are more severe than the crime itself, and therefore only murderers (and their equivalents) should be given the option to choose between life in prison or the Death penalty. I believe that if a prisoner chooses the death penalty, they should not have to wait on a death row, but have their punishment administered quickly, as soon as possible. The prisoner should be able to change their mind on this matter at any time before the administration. The chosen method of execution should be cost-effective, regardless of how inhumane some may find it.

But what do you think? Do I have some good points, or am I off-base? Be sure to comment below!

This Week's Comments

And here's the link to Darryl Ward's article: Twelve reasons why I oppose the death penalty. I used this article as a frequent reference in the above post.

You Can't Go Through Life Without Hurting People

No, not that kind of hurting people.

In my personal experience, I've found that the modern usage of the word heartbreaker has a negative connotation. Modern heartbreakers are people who try to get with as many different partners as they can. You're are of the appropriate synonyms.

However, the original usage of heartbreaker actually had positive connotations. A heartbreaker was considered to be quite the catch. When the heartbreaker finally chose a significant other, many individuals would be 'heartbroken,' not because the heartbreaker did anything to them, but because there wasn't enough of the heartbreaker to go around.

Yes, I'm aware many girls think all guys are tools. Many guys find girls nothing but promiscuous. But I do believe modern heartbreakers exist in this world. Those people cannot go through life without hurting people, albeit unintentionally.

"Ok, fine," you say. "So heartbreakers can't go through life without hurting people, but I can guarantee I'm not a heartbreaker. Nobody likes me."

You know, random reader, sometimes I feel the same way. But take a peek at this.

I once read a sentiment written by some wise individual that was posted to Facebook following its beginnings on tumblr. I'll paraphrase as best as I can.

"You know all those times when you admire someone from afar, and they never knew? How many times have you been that person for someone else?" 

You may think you know the effect you have on people, but you really don't. Odds are, there is someone out there who finds you an attractive and interesting person, but are just too shy to do anything about it.

Congratulations, you're a heartbreaker.

Even beyond dating, sometimes you just can't help but hurt people's feelings in other ways. I have met people who own the mentality that they "just want to do the right thing." That is so admirable, let me tell you, but always doing the right thing doesn't mean people won't still be hurt.

I honestly believe every single one of our current presidential candidates believes they are doing the right thing. All of them have offended or angered scores of Americans across the nation. You, yourself, have beliefs and principles and morals that may offend the sensibilities of those around you. I am not a smoker, and I have no desire to ever smoke, but I don't judge people who do smoke. It's just a thing people do. However, when I gained the trust of my coworkers while I worked at Sonic, a few grew upset when I refused to participate in their breakly ritual. "Just a puff," they said. "If you don't do it, then you're dissing my lifestyle."

I'm sure many of you have found yourselves in similar situations.

If you have religious, personal, political, or even moral standards, then you'll likely offend someone. Some people are even looking to be offended by people with different sensibilities than them.

"Ok, cool," you say. "You've convinced me. But what's the point?"

I've met some people who hate to hurt people's feelings. I'll admit, I'm one of those people. The thing is, this type of person often hold themselves back. They are so worried that their opinion or action might hurt someone else, they never do anything for themselves. They leap through life's hoops seeking only to please or ease someone else and their own burdens. They date people they don't really want to. They hide their opinions and beliefs in the face of scrutiny. They do things because someone else told them to, not because they wanted to do those things for themselves.

I think I've made my point. So here's my challenge for you today.

If you are worried about hurting people's feelings, don't be. Obviously, this world needs more kindness and tact, but there comes a point where you need to stand for yourself. Be that person. And while some people may turn away from you, the people who will prove the most important in your life will gather around you.

I've seen it.

Why Donald Trump Will Not Win

I've made myself clear about how I feel about Trump. I actually wrote a whole rant about him way back in September of last year. You can read about that here.

Two things stand out in my mind, now that I'm remembering that original post. 

First, it's time for me to break my vow of silence and talk about Trump again. Even though my opinions about Trump astounded and spread throughout the entire blogosphere, reaching millions upon billions of readers*,  it quickly became apparent that only a few people actually listened to me. In fact, even more people talked about Trump after I was finished with my two cents. 

Of course, I'll be the first to admit it. I may have been wrong to make such an appeal. A few weeks ago, my University newspaper released an article that condemned several major news organizations for ignoring Trump in the early months, claiming that may have added to 'the problem.'

I'M SORRY OK oh wait I am the furthest thing away from a major news organization I guess you weren't talking about me whew still though

Second, I feel like that previous post stands up pretty well even after six superseding months of political maneuverings from the previous myriad of presidential candidates (what's our count now? Five?). I said Trump acts like a man-child, and he continues to do so. Maybe my examples are outdated now, but a plethora remain. Just watch this video and you'll see the mere surface of what I'm talking about.

Anyway, that's right. I'm talking about Trump again.

Let's ignore the possibility that the Republican Party might be dealing with a split vote and may choose their presidential candidate themselves. Let's ignore the possibility the same thing might happen with the Democratic party.** Let's talk about what would happen if Trump were to win the Republican nomination.

He would not become president.

Let's say Trump goes up against, oh, let's say Hillary Clinton. Most Democrats will probably vote for her.

But what about the Republican side of things?

There's a reason the Republicans are facing a split vote. There are scores of 'devout' Republicans who are utterly opposed to everything Trump stands for. Mitt Romney, former Republican candidate, is a prime example, while several lists of 'other' notable #NeverTrump advocates are all over the place. If Trump wins the nomination, many Republicans will vote Democrat or abstain altogether just to keep him from winning.***

If Trump is as divisive as everyone says he is, then why are people still supporting him? He's already facing a loss, and I'm pretty sure most people, even his own supporters, know it.

Ok, fair. Some of you intelligent sorts are questioning my logic. Don't worry, I see the flaw, too. And that's why**

*read: 104 direct views as of yesterday.

**I'm planning on writing a post discussing that possibility in the near future.

***Catch my Hamilton reference?

Is the Death Penalty a Good Thing? - Thinkjoust Tuesday #42

There are a lot of people with a myriad of opinions regarding the death penalty. To put it in the simplest and possibly most redundant way possible, some people are for it, and some people are against it.

Of course, with every opinion lies subtleties. Some think that, while the death penalty is a good thing, it is given too freely, and the crimes that earn you the death penalty should be even more severe. Others think the victim's family should decide the punishment, and another portion believe that spending life in prison is a harsher sentence.

I plan to use Saturday's post to present my up-to-date opinion about the death penalty. However, I want to gain a full understanding of the different viewpoints about this issue. My studies will include any arguments you deliver via the comments section below.

I look forward to hearing what you all have to say.

 For those of you as uninformed as I am, here are some recent articles discussing this very topics:

Death Penalty Info - Methods of Execution

Old case makes it hard to embrace new momentum against death penalty

Death-penalty opponents to present clergy letter to Ohio lawmakers

Alabama's Death Penalty Needs to Go

In grisly murder, judge agrees with jury's call for death penalty

Race and the Death Penalty in Texas

If the Main Problem in America is Neither Racism or Sexism ... What is?

While I was at the last poetry slam (which you can read about here), one of the slam poets went up made an interesting statement. Forgive my need to paraphrase, but he said something along the lines of, "The main problem in America is neither racism or sexism."

I figured Barney Stinson and Archie Bunker are possible archetypes of sexism and racism, respectively. 

My friends and I waited for this slam poet to give us an answer. He never did. He never told us what he believed to be the actual main problem with America.

So I thought about it. What could be the main problem with America?

Many people I know would argue that sexism is the greatest problem in America. Look at the wage gap between genders. Look at the objectification of women in modern media. Look at the way women are often considered second-class citizens in workplaces. Look at domestic violence.

But then again, why couldn't racism be the greatest problem? Look at police brutality. Look at the wage gap between white people and minorities. Look at the #OscarsAllWhite controversy. Look at many of our presidential candidates and their discussions on racial topics.

But, ok. I'll accept, at least for now, the slam poet's rhetoric. What other options do we have?

We have people attacking Freedom of Religion, so concerned that someone may state or have a theological belief contrary to their own that they want to tear down every chance anyone has to express that belief, including interfering with ceremonies sacred and precious to the members of specific religion. Phrases once considered innocuous are becoming taboo, including the phrase 'Bless You'  after you sneeze.

We also have poverty, where impoverished people grow ever more resentful of the government for not giving them money and the rich for also not giving them money. The rich grow resentful at the government for wanting their money and the poor for also wanting their money.

What about other problems? What about riots and abuse and fighting in the streets? How about immigration, with people wanting to close the borders more and more? What about presidential candidates resorting to childish threats and insults? What about the rancor between political parties? What about when we feel impatience and lash out at our closest friends and loved ones? What happens when everyone does that?

So, no. I agree with our slam poet. Sexism and racism are not the biggest problems in America. They are merely symptoms of a disease called BIGOTRY, which is also a symptom in and of itself, a symptom of HATRED, which fuels and feeds every major problem in America. HATRED, a seething entity seeking only to destroy the lives of everything in its wake, especially America right here, right now.

So that's my say. See you tomorrow.

Policies K.O.-ed! Morals Ultimate Victor! Will Politicians Change?

This last Tuesday, I asked my readers which was more important in their political candidates: quality morals, or quality policies?

I discovered that 3/4ths of the commentators thought morals were more important. A moralistic politician will naturally produce, if not strong, then well-thought-out policies. Morals build the foundation to good policies.

However, it's important to point out that every commentator thought a combination of both policies and morals should be considered when picking a candidate. Remember the two candidates I talked about on Tuesday? I'll summarize below.

CANDIDATE A has strong policies, but a weak moral code. 

CANDIDATE B has weak policies, but a strong moral code.

Based on mere percentages alone, it seems as though Change and Cherish Blog readers would pick Candidate B. However, those same readers would not particularly like to choose Candidate B, because a quality candidate should be a perfect combination of both strong morals and strong policies. This is best illustrated by the statement made by Mr. Harris.

Either way, one of the reasons I don't like Donald Trump is because I feel like he has absolutely no morals. His resulting worldview and policies grind against much of what I believe in.

If his morals were different, would I oppose his policies? Even better, would his policies still look the way they do now? 

This Week's Top Comments