Michael Jackson and the Collapse of America

For those of you who haven't heard: Michael Jackson, King of Pop, has died.

Also, for those of you who haven't heard: I envy you.

You know, before he died, I really had no real beef with Jacko. Despite the scandals, he made some good tunes, and this is coming from me, someone who hates many forms of pop culture. Strangely enough, though, the King of Pop could always get my head bobbing to the beat. The guy could dance, too, for sure. No one denies that.

Michael Jackson also donated a lot of money to humanitarian causes. No one will deny that such generosity is a good thing.

So far, we can establish that MJ is 1) a hugely successful entertainer, and 2) generously donates money to humanitarian causes, which many successful celebrities do. Okay.

Now we come to the whole child-molestation-thing. The allegations that weren't settled out-of-court for millions of dollars were not proven to be true. Fervent MJ fans (especially the ones who like to put his image as their Facebook profile now that he's dead) emphasize and harp on this.

However, even if we assume that Michael Jackson in no way, shape, or form molested or harassed any boys, his behavior certainly requires some explanation and raises some doubt.

Jacko spent a huge portion of his fortune on Neverland Ranch, which was part home, part amusement park, and part petting zoo, apparently. He considered himself (or at least likened himself to) Peter Pan, and, to top it off, invited loads of kids and allowed them to sleep over at his "Ranch", even sharing his bed and room with them. Even the most ardent MJ apologizer has a hard time defending that kind of ludicrous behavior. The guy liked little boys and liked to be around little boys, seemingly more than he liked being around women and friends his age. That's an uncomfortable fact no matter what the verdict of the trials was.

Some people might claim that these behaviors merely describe how much Michael Jackson loves children in general, and how he's a "kid at heart". If that were true, then that love and that heart condition clearly don't translate too well into the parenting factor. Ranging from keeping his kids' faces covered in veils when they were out in public all the way to dangling his infant child from a balcony window for all to see, Jackson's parenting tendencies weren't quite up to par with his "love for children".

And finally we come to the ever-changing appearance of Michael Jackson. For the sake of avoiding all the "YOU HAVE NO PROOF" screechers out there, I'll assume that Michael Jackson legitimately did have universal vitiligo and lupus. Fine; even if there’s no proof of those illnesses, either. Let's say that he bleached his skin in order to get an even pigment all around so the vitiligo didn't look quite so unsightly. Fine; I'd say that plan backfired pretty hard, but fine. The guy still molded and sculpted his face until it was nearly beyond recognition. If he had gotten all that plastic surgery at once, even his biggest fans wouldn't have recognized him. Only the fact that the surgeries were spread out and that the change was gradual allowed MJ's transformation to be monitored so that he was still marginally recognizable. Jacko clearly molded his features to match his newly-whitened skin, and did so to the point of absurdity and even grotesque self-parody. If his sister Janet had bleached her skin too, the two would look like clones (except for the boobs, of course, but who knows? Jacko could have been planning on adding those, too). Thus was MJ’s transformation from a young black man to an androgynous white man.

Apparently he transformed his genetic makeup, too, because his black genes and a white woman’s genes mixed to create some very white children. Three times. Genetic anomalies? I think not, ladies and gentleman. Michael didn’t have enough European blood in him (or enough bleach and vitiligo) to make three very European-looking children. I won’t speculate as to how exactly this happened, but clearly something’s wrong with the recipe here, if you know what I mean.

And so, on June 25^th, 2009, Michael Jackson died in circumstances that are now being investigated by our tax-funded Drug Enforcement Administration. I’m so glad that a portion of my work effort is going to find out how Jacko died. Oh wait.

Jacko’s death has induced a sort of worldwide media solar eclipse at a time of very important and significant events both around the world and in the United States. I wish I was exaggerating when I say that the world is treating MJ’s death as the second death of Jesus Christ himself. Every major news outlet is on full Michael-Jackson-mode; it’s Defcon One for the media; it’s all Michael, all the time. Celebrities, news anchors, journalists, politicians, and world leaders are sparing no expense to shower the late entertainer with unending praise and laudation. It is now July 7^th (12 days later), and the media frenzy has culminated in a public memorial service, complete with the whole gamut of public figures mentioned above. An article published on the news site of Yahoo said today that “the world paused to remember Jackson”. I want to take this opportunity to demonstrate why this seemingly-harmless six-word statement sums up how truly ridiculous our society is becoming.

Ask anyone in China, Honduras, Afghanistan, or Iraq if their world paused to remember Michael Jackson. Ask someone in either of the Koreas or in Pakistan if their worlds stopped to remember MJ. Ask the recent multiple victims of the serial murderers in South Carolina and Pennsylvania and their loved ones if their worlds stopped to remember Jacko. I think the answers you will get will be a resounding “NO”.

If you’re asking yourself right now what happened in any of the aforementioned areas or what is happening there now, then you are part of the regressed society of which I speak.

I think the world (and by “world” I mean the world which did NOT “stop to remember Michael Jackson”) proved very effectively the absurd, hyperbolic nature of the recent Michael Jackson phenomenon. There are literally millions of people who will claim that Jacko “changed their lives”. I hate to ask what these people’s lives were like before they discovered the entertainer’s music; they must have been pretty empty and superficial. Music can be a very powerful medium of expression, but can any of us honestly say that one artist’s music changed our lives? Or did the condition of our lives previously lead us to explore and discover music that we enjoy? Some people actually broke down in a blubbering mess on camera, gnashing their teeth and tearing their clothes because the King of Pop died. Really? Did your life really revolve around Michael Jackson so much that it now has THAT much less meaning than before?

Before anyone throws a fit: I’m obviously not talking about Michael Jackson’s loved ones; they obviously have good cause to mourn the loss of their friend and family member.

The most vocal Michael Jackson supporters will go to great lengths to emphasize his innocence in the molestation trials and to excuse his strange, inexplicable, and at times inexcusable behaviors. From what I can tell, these seem to be the same exact people that were so quick to condemn and damn the priests who molested children (or who were accused of molesting without conviction). Many of these people were clearly ones who most likely called for the imprisonment and castigation of these priests, no matter if they were convicted or acquitted in the same manner as MJ. Some of these people probably even used these sad examples of priesthood to condemn Christianity and religion as a whole.

For the record, I too condemned the priests convicted of molestation. I support very harsh punishments for child molesters, no matter what their profession. The difference is that I apply my scruples and morals to everyone, and you zealous apologizers of Michael Jackson are damnable hypocrites. If a priest had a home with carnival rides, petting zoos, and other attractions clearly intended to entertain children, would you let your child serve as an altar boy for that priest? No, you say? Why not? For that matter, would you let your kid or grandchild go to Neverland Ranch to sleep over, even if you excuse Jacko’s behavior? Would you vote for a politician with all those playthings and toys at his house, a politician who also let kids sleep over his house, even in his bed? I’d bet dollars to donuts to diamond-encrusted white gloves that you sure as hell would not.

At MJ’s memorial service, Reverend Al Sharpton told Jackson’s kids that “there was nothing strange about [their] daddy”. I want to know exactly which distant planet this man lives on. Michael Jackson embodied the term “strange”, no matter what “strange” things he went through. I can name a lot of people who went through worse things than Jacko did, and yet exhibited none of the questionable behaviors as MJ did.

Michael Jackson lived both an exciting and a sad life that seemed to come to a short end. His musical accomplishments should be remembered; his humanitarian efforts should be commended. But the man was not a deity, nor a hero, no matter what his fans say. He was the King of Pop, and that is all. But the ridiculous reaction of so many people and the major media shows how threadbare and superficial our society is becoming. Robert McNamara passed away the other day, too; he was the Secretary of Defense during much of the Vietnam War, and affected many people’s lives much more than Jackson ever did, but how much did you hear about that in the news? Agree with McNamara’s actions or not, he was much more significant in American and world history than an entertainer, and yet his passing was completely overshadowed by the ongoing Michael-Jackson-fest. How did this happen?

It happened because people in the media decide what’s important for Americans to know and what is not; it happened because many Americans couldn’t tell you who Robert McNamara was, or what he did, but ALL of those people could tell you who Michael Jackson was, name their five favorite MJ songs, sing them word-for-word, and could even dance a passable moonwalk.

And people wonder why the United States has been on the decline in the past half century; people wonder why that decline has accelerated to a full-speed collapse under George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama. Maybe we need to start teaching our most honest politicians to breakdance and write hit songs to institute real, positive change in our country.

The Case for the Legalization of Marijuana

My support for the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana perplexes a lot of people. Those who know that I'm conservative see this position as a glaring spot of Liberalism among my usually-spotless collection of conservative political positions. I counter such claims with the argument that the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana is no longer a conservative or Liberal issue, but rather an issue of common sense.

Many conservatives resist any attempt at decriminalizing marijuana because they automatically associate it with delinquency, crime, laziness, and moral corruption. They aren't too far off-base in those associations. I have several colleagues and acquaintances which match this description and who smoke marijuana. However, to claim a causal relationship between such lifestyles and the consumption of marijuana is fallacious. Why, you may ask? Because for every person I could name who smokes marijuana and matches the aforementioned descriptions, I could also name a person I know who smokes marijuana and is intelligent, morally sound, and hard-working. And, as with most groups of people, there is a middle ground into which many people I know fall.

First, the basics. The designation of marijuana as a Schedule One drug (high possibility of abuse with no known acceptable medical use) while alcohol remains 100% legal is confounding, to say the least. For one thing, it is nearly impossible to overdose on marijuana; a person will simply fall asleep before even approaching a lethal intake of marijuana. Deaths from alcohol poisoning, however, are much more common.

Furthermore, all the theories which claim that marijuana use leads to harder drugs, complete lack of motivation, total apathy, social delinquency, etcetera, are fallacious. Marijuana affects every single person in a different way, just as any drug does. A person who consumes marijuana and who then becomes a jobless bum hooked on all sorts of other drugs leads us to believe that marijuana was the cause of his downfall. If marijuana was the cause of his downfall, though, the millions upon millions of other marijuana users in the developed world would also be in his position. Reality clearly demonstrates otherwise. The useless, jobless, pot-smoking bum can blame marijuana all he wants, but it's certain that it was his personality and mental outlook that doomed him, and not a plant.

Marijuana needs to be treated just like any other mind-altering substance, including tobacco and alcohol. Such things must be consumed with personal and social responsibility. The legalization or decriminalization of marijuana does not automatically imply the right to endanger others or one's self while under the influence, just as the legal drinking status of a 21-year-old does not allow him to endanger himself or others while drunk. As with the other mind-altering drugs, there will be those who would abuse the right to consume marijuana. Those people are the outliers, though; it is highly probable that legalization or decriminalization would reduce risky behaviors while consuming marijuana. As gun control measures and the alcohol Prohibition of the 1930's show, prohibition measures, especially on a plant that grows naturally as a weed, are doomed to fail, and foster even more irresponsible behavior than the law was intended to prevent.

The so-called War on Drugs is costing taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars to arrest pot smokers, and yet the availability of the drug (especially here in a school/college setting) is incredible. It is also estimated that the legalization of marijuana would pump an additional $6.7 billion into the United States economy, in addition to freeing up several billion dollars more that would no longer have to be used by law enforcement agencies to track, arrest, and prosecute marijuana users (stats from Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Mirons report, funded by the pro-repeal Criminal Justice Policy Foundation). For those conservatives still looking for a reason to legalize the plant, remember that marijuana trafficking from Mexico into the United States is an incredibly lucrative illicit trade, and that the legalization of marijuana in the United States would effectively kill any demand for Mexican pot. The Mexican drug dealers would lose a huge source of their revenue from such legalization in the US.

In short, the associations of marijuana with social delinquency and the breakdown of moral fiber, as well as other assumed dangers of the consumption of the plant, are largely unfounded. The breakdown of moral fiber comes from a person's lack of moral backbone, not from a plant. Social delinquency comes from the same thing in addition to lack of maturity and/or a poor upbringing. Therefore, conservatives should find no objective fault in the consumption of marijuana.

If anyone has any other questions about marijuana or its use, feel free to get in touch with me.

The Dangers of Social Relativism

Sorry for the delay in posts! College is keeping me mighty busy these days.

I've noticed quite a disturbing trend among some of my fellow college students. While waiting outside one day for my 3:35 class to begin, I overheard a conversation between some students in a different class who were also outside. One of the students, a girl probably a year or two older than I (and possibly a teacher's assistant), was engaging the others in a frank discussion about sexuality and gender. Eavesdropping on others' conversations is not a hobby of mine, but considering this conversation was happening near my usual Monday/Wednesday-between-classes-cigarette-break-spot, I perked up an ear and listened.

The girl began to explain to her small audience about how gender and sexuality are socially constructed, and have very little meaning beyond what "society" gives them. The essence of her claims was that gender roles are something created by the society we live in, and in the same hand, sexuality (be it hetero, bi, or homo) is also socially constructed. According to her argument, the act of coitus has little to nothing to do with procreation, and the commonly-held belief that sex is for procreation is (surprise!) created by society.

I listened with growing alarm at her claims and arguments. Her audience of three attempted to offer timid challenges to her claims, for even their college-level Liberalism was mildly disturbed by such radical claims. Gender, sex, and sexuality aren't real? They're constructed by the society we live in, which we, as Liberals, hate? Oh my!

The conversation ended within ten minutes, and I was left dumbfounded. It was the first time I had heard the social constructivist position given in full on a position. It wasn't my first encounter with social constructivism and social relativism; such viewpoints are rampant on college campuses, where nihilism is an actual sustainable lifestyle. But this was the first time I had listened to a social relativist explain in person their position on an issue, and it sounded like nothing short of insanity.

Had I more time, I would have turned around and immediately engaged in the conversation, even though I knew none of the people in the small group and was not in the class. Alas, I had to go to my next political science class, and duty to studies overrode my desire to destroy terrible claims.

Why is this girl's position so dangerous, you ask? Don't her claims have an instance of truth?

The short answer is that, yes, they do have an instance of truth. We as a society do, both subconsciously and consciously, define what it is to be a man or woman, and what it is to be heterosexual and homosexual.

The longer answer is more complex. The truths of this girl's position are completely overwhelmed and overshadowed by the enormous falsehoods therein and by the borderline-sociopathic attempts at morally justifying such a position.

Firstly, it is clear that biology (specifically genetics) affects human physical and mental characteristics such as race, appearance, gender, and, to a certain degree, sexuality. Social relativists such as the girl I overheard claim that these things are constructed by society, which deems certain variations of these human characteristics to be desirable. Western society, for example, assigns gender roles, defines race and sexuality, and assigns the variations in each category different value judgments. Until recent history, Western society defined heterosexuality as preferable to homosexuality for reasons varying from religious conviction to the assurance of a healthy family unit complete with children, which is necessary if a society is to survive. Men were expected to act a certain way, which included working (supporting the family financially) and being the head of the household. Women were also expected to act a certain way, which included raising the children and maintaining the health of the family.

In the last century, these things began to change. Women began to seek a change to their roles in society, specifically regarding their civil rights and their equality in the occupational world. Western society has shown that no ill effects come from women having equal rights as men; no family (or society) has disintegrated because the woman in the household also has a job, so long as the woman still fulfills her duties as a mother and wife. Men also began to broaden their horizons, albeit not to the extent of the women. Men started choosing to be the one who stays home while the mother works. This also is completely fine, so long as the man in the house fulfills his duties as a father and husband.

People like the girl I overheard, however, seek to change even that. To those people, the very concepts of motherhood and being a wife are socially constructed in order to prop up the paternalistic, chauvinist Western society, just as race is socially constructed to prop up the racist, discriminatory Western society. Such views are common among modern-day Liberals; any success demonstrated by Western society was made at the expense of minorities, and therefore cannot be considered true progress or success. In order to make up for such "oppression" and "discrimination", the social relativist seeks to dismantle and destroy every aspect of Western society that categorizes people, regardless of how tightly they are sewn into everything we as Westerners know and love.

Men should not have to act like men because such assumptions lead to the oppression and ostracism of feminine and/or gay men; the same (but reverse) goes for women. Men and women should be allowed and encouraged to not only adopt the other gender's mannerisms, but also to adopt the other gender's genitalia and other physical characteristics, if they have such desires. Race is based on hardly any physical scientific basis, but is rather constructed by society, and therefore should be ignored from all discussion in order to avoid the oppression or ostracism of the minority races.

Arguments such as these are the basis for the complete destruction of everything upon which our society still precariously stands. The basic, banal truths remain that society IN PART defines these things, but they are defined as such because of the natural manifestation of such things! History has clearly shown that the gender roles, preferred sexualities, and self-identification with regards to race are beneficial to society as a whole. Did Western society become the most successful society on earth by treating these basic traits of humanity as relative and unimportant? Of course not.

This is not to say that discrimination based on these categories is acceptable. No one should be denied opportunities simply on the basis of such categories, although this has happened in the past in Western society. The social relativist, however, seeks to completely destroy these natural foundations of our society in order to make up for such past discrimination and in order to prevent future discrimination. The social relativist is basically a hardcore Liberal whose main goal is to make every single person in the world equal to everyone else, regardless of what they destroy in the process. In order to do this, they must deconstruct everything upon which our society is based in order to make way for the new Utopian society in which race, gender, sexuality, and life choices are all equal, accepted, and successful.

Any sane, rational person must see the folly in such thinking. If the past several millenia have shown anything, it is that humans are inherently not equal, and that any attempt to make them such will only result in the complete self-destruction of a culture and nation (worse-case scenario) or a great averaging of everyone, leading to a bland, cultureless nation of average, adequate people (best-case scenario). In the Liberals' great quest for the Sacred Cows of Diversity and Equality, they will actively destroy one (Diversity) to attempt in vain to gain the other (Equality).

The social relativist opinion held by most Liberals can result in nothing less than failure, and is therefore completely indefensible. I wish I took that girl's class so I could tear her arguments apart limb from rotten limb.