Ministry of Truth

Democracy in the United States is in need of an update. The electoral college is a roadblock preventing the creation of a system that will be able to reflect the Americna voice. Hopefully, American minds are not yet so simplified that a two-party system will suffice to represent all of the people. The electoral college prevents smaller parties from gaining the popular support that one would expect them to have. Of course, there are several small third parties such as the Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionals, and the American Independent Party, but these play no significant role in elections. In fact, third parties are treated as second or third class citizens by mainstreaqm voters and by the two major parties. Ralph Nader, who ran in 2004 as an independent candidate with Winona LaDuke was accused of handing the election to George Bush, because his voters may have voted for John Kerry, the democrat. This sent a clear message to every third party in the US: “How dare you give our voters choice!” Ralph Nader responded to critiscism himself: “You would never see this kind of thing in western democracies in Europe…The issues of the Green Party and the issues of the Libertarian Party are majoritarian issues.” And yet they are not brought to the table. The United States is split almost 50/50 by two parties whos minor differences are made superfluous by their towering similarities. Change is needed, and if the Electoral College is abolished, then the true and undistorted sound of American voices can be heard.

http://www.lp.org/

http://www.nader.org/ 

The best solution to racism, discrimination, and deficiencies in our economic system is reasonable and intelligent behavior. Time will destroy the last remnants of this old and tiresome problem, but only if society can stop taking an extreme (and hypocritical) position to counter racism.

“Racism will become an ugly memory only when universities teach a valid concept of human nature: one based on the tenets that the individual’s mind is competent, that the human intellect is efficacious, that we possess free will, that individuals are to be judged as individuals—and that deriving one’s identity from one’s race is a corruption.” -Gary Hull, Ph.D.

As Dr. Hull points out so eloquently, celebrating racial differences and valuing individuals based on their race is not the answer to traditional racism and discrimination. On the contrary, such multicultural are racist in and of themselves. If you cannot learn to be colorblind, society will continue to be involved in this infantile catch-22.  

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_diversity

I’ve given this issue more thought ever since I finished my last post on the subject. My opinion regarding multiculturalism and political correctness hasn’t changed and I feel the need to explain why multiculturalism is keeping the problem afloat. Racism is any view that sees skin color. Whether men choose to glorify or frown upon differences in skin color is irrelevent. The problem is simply that most men pay more attention to skin color than to other factors such as hair color. Men do not judge one another based on hair or eye color, so why is skin any different? In fact, it isn’t. Unfortunately, many institutions are too underdeveloped to make such a logical realization. Colleges brag about diversity, and there is many an instance where a minority student has been accepted, and a white student of equal achievement has been deferred. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I for one think that “racism” would be a proper and fitting term to describe such an event. People advocating diversity in this manner are, in essence, racists.

“Advocates of “diversity” claim that because the real world is diverse, the campus should reflect that fact. But why should a campus population “reflect” the general population (particularly the ethnic population)? No answer. In fact, the purpose of a university is to impart knowledge and develop reasoning, not to be a demographic mirror of society.” -Michael S. Berliner

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_diversity

The world is a grand meritocracy (fair to say?). People are respected or disregarded based on their achievement and power (fair to say!). The wealth gap that Mr. Conley describes in his works is an example of this. Unfortunately, many if not all minorities are discriminated against in some way. As you may have guessed that is not a direct meritocracy. Instead, it is only the contemporary remains of the old and one-sided contest that was western expansion. The question deserves to be asked, “Why are minorities discriminated against? Why do they have a command of less recources than whites?” A possibility is this: Europe has arguably been the world’s most infuencial region, and all corners of the earth have seen some degree of westernization. Europe spread to the whole world, and it started centuries ago. With the spreading of one culture comes the enslavement of another. History teaches us so. That’s the first part of a simple equation, and I’m sure you can figure out the rest. Enslavement was typically based on race, and its scars remain today. Hence the wealth gap. History is responsible in this sense. However, the contemporary enemies are these: political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity, and schools. Michael S. Berliner says it better than I, as he usually does:

“Advocates of “diversity” are true racists in the basic meaning of that term: they see the world through colored lenses, colored by race and gender. To the multiculturalist, race is what counts—for values, for thinking, for human identity in general. No wonder racism is increasing: colorblindness is now considered evil, if not impossible. No wonder people don’t treat each other as individuals: to the multiculturalist, they aren’t.” -Michael S. Berliner

Learn more here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_diversity

The US Armed Forces represent a terrific option for those who are unsure about their future. The Army can pay for college and offer substantial financial support, making it an attractive possibility. The Army has a lot to offer: 

The strength, training and salary you earn as a Soldier in the Army are only a fraction of the overall benefits. The Army also offers money for education, comprehensive health care, generous vacation time, family services and support groups, special pay for special duties and cash allowances to cover the cost of living. -www.goarmy.com

Is that fair? Let the army offer any deal they wish. Deals and offers made by the armed forces for the benefit of the enlisted man/woman are not the draft. Nobody is being impressed into service; men and women enlist because they want to, not because they have to. I fail to see any that anything unjust is involved here. Of course it is likely that the lower-middle class will be the one to find it’s way to the recruitment office, but that’s because they find the Army’s offers beneficial and attractive. The Army simply cannot afford to offer benefits that will motivate the rich to fight. The upper classes can afford college already. If you, my dear reader, are disturbed by poor men in the Government’s Army, then it’s because you respond to war in a visceral manner, not in a rational one (not that I blame you in the least).

The question: is “least objectionable programming” preferable to more risque programming of today? My question: are we really going to waste time debating this!? Let programming respond to consumer demand! People want to be entertained, and thus, the best television is what’s popular. If people want to see shows like “Ozzie and Harriet” then that’s what wil be seen on television. If, on the other hand, they want to see car chases, explosions, rough sex, and the use of dangerous drugs, then the industry will respond with all speed to popular demand. The effect that this has on our civilization is unclear, but also largely irrelevent.

Although you might not be able to tell it from watching TV news or crime dramas (which tend to emphasize violence), overall, the percentage of most types of violent crime in the United States has actually been decreasing. -Cybercollege Internet Campus

People want to be shocked, amused, and sent on emotional rollercoasters when they watch television. That’s the main idea here. As usual, the equation can be reduced to simple supply and demand. Moral boundaries and limits notwithstanding, programming will always reflect whatever the viewer demands, and that’s just the way it should be. (ps-any feedback on why that blockquote didn’t appear in proper format would be appreciated)

http://www.cybercollege.com/frtv/frtv031.htm