Monday, October 5, 2009
"Expression" Defined
As far back as I could remember, I have always loved to write. In school, I was never an honor student in all my subjects but I always tried my best. My biggest struggle was math, which I barely passed, but I always got A’s in English. I credit my eighth grade grammar teacher, Mrs. Stoneham for first igniting my passion for English and writing. I took pride in knowing how to identify a noun, and an adjective and a prepositional phrase in a sentence—as silly as that may sound. I’ve always been a perfectionist with writing, and I read over a document several times to make sure the grammar and spelling are correct. Of course, everyone makes mistakes, but I try my hardest to not make any when I write. But to me, writing was always about expressing oneself—on your own terms—whether you are writing fiction or non-fiction, you always have the opportunity to make something unique by being creative. I always started with the essays on tests, and then went back and did all the regular questions. My essays would be at least a page long, when my teacher only asked for three paragraphs. See, when you speak, especially about passionate topics, sometimes your emotions get the best of you and it is hard to properly convey a message, but with writing, you have the time to sit there and make sure it is properly explained. Writing can be very therapeutic, it allows you to also get things off of your chest that maybe you wouldn’t necessarily be comfortable talking about. Happy or depressed, it never mattered—whatever the topic—I could sit down at the computer and just let my fingers translate whatever was in my brain. This past Labor day, I began a weekly gig for the Cliffview Pilot online newspaper. I write a “Here’s Johnny” humor column about life as a New Jersey Italian-American, and also a monthly recipe column. So far, 8 columns have appeared. I don’t know how long this venture will last, but I am enjoying every minute of it. It feels good to have your writing published and to share things with readers. I was first published in high school as a sports writer for my high school paper, “The Pilot’s Log” and also contributed articles to my local town paper, “The Observer.” Five years ago, I was the 2003 winner of Mike Morse’s “Morsels” writing contest. I wrote an article called, “Goomba-Italiano 101,” all about slang Italian words I grew up around (and still use). It appeared in Steppin’ Out Magazine—the largest free circulated entertainment magazine in the tri-state area. In 2005, I won the contest again, this time for another Italian-American food article called “Calamari Table Talk,” and then through my online blogging I was contacted by author George DeStefano. He was writing a book all about the media’s depictions of Italians as Mafiosos, called “An Offer We Can’t Refuse” and asked me to contribute. The book was published in Jan. 2006, and I wrote several pages in chapters 8 and 9 explaining the “Goomba” subculture and the differences between proud Italian-Americans as compared to the negative gangster portrayals. That same year I once again won the Morsels writing contest and had my article “French Toasted”—about the Italians beating the French in the World Cup—appear in Steppin’ Out’s April issue. I wrote my own screenplay in 2007 entitled, “Nicky Smooth & The Boys,” with the title character loosely based on myself and all of his daily journeys as a proud New Jersey Italian-American. Someday, I hope it becomes a movie or TV series. And of course, I am constantly writing blogs and stories. I recently wrote a “Gravy or Sauce” food blog for the gravywars.com website. I’ve compiled a cookbook with recipes and stories which I hope to someday get published, and I always have new ideas popping into my head on things to write, from poems to songs to stories and blogs. I don’t know if this will ultimately be how I make a full-time living, but in the meantime I will never stop expressing myself.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
"Motivation" Defined
A common question people want to know is why they lose their motivation so fast. Motivation is crucial to staying on track in any life journey. Other people, distractions, unspecific goals, reluctance to ask for help, and a lack of faith are five areas that may take us off track, but it is an absolute must that we press forward like a train. You must be able to cultivate a bit of selfishness in order to stay on track. There are thousands of attractive temptations that can take your mind off your goals. I love the "Rocky" story. Now I'm not talking about the movie itself, I'm talking about the story of how the movie came to be. When Sylvester Stallone wrote "Rocky," he had $100 in his back account. But to him, he wasn't concerned with money or fame or accolades. He was offered thousands of dollars for the script but refused it, because this was his passion, his baby—and if he didn't play the role of "Rocky," he refused to sell out. That takes guts and that takes focus. He stuck to his guns and kept his eye on the big picture, and he's still around 30 years later making $20 million a movie. See you can't just focus on the money in life—yes we all want to make a good living—but if you work hard everyday, keep that inner motivation, focus and personal passion, you will succeed and all of that other stuff will come. If you are not clear on what you want, when you want it, how you want it, and how you will get it, it's not a real goal, just a fantasy. Map out a game plan and follow it. If you want to lose 20 pounds, make a specific weekly goal and a specific daily goal. This applies to everything in life. The most successful people in every part of life are at the top because they can get other people interested in helping them. How do we get other people interested in us? To bring up Derek Jeter, the captain of the New York Yankees, or any captain for that matter, how can you get people to follow you? Well, you first have to follow and then you lead by example. You have to have a "no fear" attitude and always keep your eye on the prize and that desire to be the best. Confidence in yourself, in others, and in the situation are critical. And finally, shrink the size of problems and represent them in your mind as nothing bigger than a speck. Let things roll off of you. Don't let something small—or large dictate how you behave. Have control over your own destiny by having a level head at all times and staying positive. At the same time, follow the serenity prayer and have the strength to not stress and worry about the things in life that you cannot change. One of my favorite credos in life, and one that I always live by is: "If you don't laugh, you'll cry." When you break down any situation in your professional or personal life, it all comes down to that. Have the desire to be sure of your abilities and block out distractions. Stay motivated and you can't lose. That's the heart of a champion. When most of us think of great champions, our thoughts turn to sports figures that have excelled in their respective endeavors. These individuals typically own many trophies, awards, and rings which indicate their many accomplishments. Talent, discipline, and focus (all of which are notable virtues) to a large degree determined their success. I totally agree that the aforementioned merely produce winners but not necessarily champions. Champions are all winners but all winners are not champions. Champions are individuals who encompass many virtues beyond winning. In my day-to-day life, I often make analogies and parallels to sports, baseball in particular. You must always implement high ethics and moral character—traits that rub off onto others and turn the learners into teachers, and therefore the winners into champions. Champions are students of their beliefs and read constantly, improving their knowledge and their wisdom. They practice their craft because unlike those who stop working and therefore, stop learning—will not be able to be the best and will not be able to help make others THE BEST…the best person on the inside and the best person in every endeavor, task and challenge that you encounter in life—both personally and professionally. Winners are known by the awards they have received. Champions are known by what they have given to others and the people they have grown. Winners win and fade over time. Champions' contributions just continue and grow over a lifetime. We all know winners and we all know champions. We will remember a champion for a lifetime. Derek Jeter had all the talent in the world from the day he stepped onto a Major League Baseball diamond. He became the Rookie of the Year his first season. He had all the discipline and focus to become even better, turning into a multiple all-star, and of course, he's won 4 World Series rings. But he is much more than just a winner. He is a champion as well. He formed his "Turn 2 Foundation," which sole purpose is to motivate kids and teach them leadership development skills, and in 2003 he became the 11th team captain in Yankees history. Leading, teaching, and constantly working harder to make yourself and others around you better is what he does, and what I try to do everyday. That's a true champion. It comes back to the ego and confidence factor—those who are obsessed with making just themselves successful may indeed be successful and be winners, but those with the confidence and pride in themselves to help others also succeed define that true champion. Jeter encompasses these traits—because he knows that by doing the best he can do at all times, he transfers that mentality outwardly onto his teammates. That's why he is such a great captain. Who do you emulate? Who or what do you turn to for inspiration, motivation and guidance? How many champions have touched your life?
Saturday, October 3, 2009
"Discovery" Defined
October is a Italian-American heritage month. It is meant to be a celebration of Columbus, Italian explorers and every positive contributor to America with Italian lineage. Now what follows is somewhat of a controversial subject, and raises questions that scholars and students have talked about and still have not totally resolved within some circles. Who should be given the credit for discovering America? It was certainly a lot clearer when I was growing up, but over the past decade it has become fuzzier in our more “politically correct” society. There is perhaps no topic like Columbus’s voyage that is more controversial and told in so many different versions—depending on one’s political, religious and cultural beliefs and affiliations. The discovery of America is not a black and white subject, and it is a topic that indeed sparks many differences of opinion and often hostile discussions. Of course the great thing about the country of America is that we all are entitled to our own views and beliefs, and no matter what new propaganda circulates the internet or what other material gets published on Columbus, my beliefs will remain unhindered. In this note, I talk about Indians and Vikings and my belief that they deserve no recognition for any accomplishments in discovering or establishing the country we live in today. I am not looking to offend anyone, but merely to put into perspective why I feel this way. The bottom line is, the Italian explorers of Columbus’s era were a highly dignified, secure culture, recognized as the model of acceptance and adoption by society. Therefore, “discovering” is finding an area that exists without such cultivation or civilization and introducing that from another region (which in Columbus’s case was The New World from Europe). This essay is an updated and expanded social studies assignment about Christopher Columbus that I wrote in the early ‘90s, when I was in grammar school. It is a compilation of material written by several highly acclaimed researchers of American history, and is as precise as possible—based on the findings and opinions of those researchers. As with any historical document, certain details may be disputed. However, like most historical events, there are often several accounts, and it is usually the account that one chooses to believe as the most accurate (and the one that he or she is taught as a young child) that is considered to be the “truth.” The following account is the one that I still follow to this day, and it is the one that I hold true to my heart. I attended a conservative, Catholic, highly Italian-American school system, and Cristoforo Colombo was always proclaimed as the rightful discoverer of America. He was also hailed as the person responsible for paving the way in the actual transformations of America into the cultured country that it is today.
-Oct. 1999
There are many inaccuracies about the great Italian explorer Christopher Columbus that need to be put to rest. In recent years, liberal extremist groups have held mean-spirited, baseless protests and rallies to say that Christopher Columbus was not the true discoverer of America and that he was nothing more than a “land-pillaging slave trader,” sadly confusing school-age children and even some educators who have been accurately defining Columbus as the discover of America since the first text books were written. Any account of Columbus being a slave trader who accomplished nothing is greatly incorrect and very off-base. While owning slaves was common practice in the 15th century, it is unproven that Columbus believed in the practice, and he was not at all a violent man. To the contrary, he was called very religious by many, and a great follower of The Bible like most born in Northern Italy at the time. Two specific groups usually besmirch Columbus’s name and his rightful place in history. I will highlight that in the following two sections...
The uncultured “Natives” of Columbus’s era and their lack of connection to those of the seventeenth century “Pilgrim” era:
The first group of protesters of his discoveries and accomplishments are usually those who classify themselves as “Native Americans.” This group claims that “they were here first,” and should be given the credit for America’s discovery and civilization. Based on the various findings done on such claims, it is determined that the modern, “Native American Indians,” are wrongly equating themselves to the early tribes that roamed the land Columbus founded. The few inhabitants that Columbus encountered when he and his crew came to The New World to prove to the Queen of Spain that there was indeed more to the world than just Europe were brutal hunters, wandering across the underdeveloped land, living from hand-to-mouth and from day-to-day as modern bums. They had no written language, no agricultural skills and constantly went to war with one another. The “Native” ancestors in today’s era are actually closer related to the seventeenth century “American Indian” culture that was established over 120 years after Columbus’s voyage—when the pilgrims from England arrived and the first Thanksgiving occurred. It is far more viable to compare any “Native” group with this group (as it was an actual culture unlike the savage animalistic roamers that scattered The New World in the 1400s). They bear no connection to the earlier tribes whom had no distinction with any established nation or civilization. To say these earlier inhabitants rightfully owned the land first would be like saying cave dwellers, or baboons had a claim to it.
Understanding the extreme brutality of “Vikings,” if even such a group existed at all:
The second group of protesters who try and discredit Columbus are the modern Scandinavians who say they are ancestors of the “Vikings.” This group was nothing more than a bloodthirsty clan that is actually considered by many to be a complete myth altogether. Vikings may have at some point roamed the land years before Columbus claimed it and paved the way for the later foundation of a livable nation in the model of Europe—but the fact remains—these Vikings were violent and crazy. And just like any other medieval societies that may or may not have crossed The New World, they failed at all attempts at any significant explorations. They deserve no justifiable credit for any development of the colonies and furthermore, there is little supporting evidence of any enduring Viking settlements in North America. These completely uncivilized, sword-dwelling pirates, specialized in brutal battles and failed to create any sense of commonwealth on any land they may have sailed upon. The most well-known Viking is the wily-haired, cartoonishly depicted Leif Ericson, whose birthplace was never even fully defined in the history books—and therefore anything he did over 1,000 years ago is certainly up for debate. It’s clear that his garish portrayal was right on point, as he, just like the others known as Vikings did nothing positive like our hero Columbus did. In fact, any references to Leif ever being on The New World could be viewed as nothing more than Norse versions of old Greek fables. There is a reason these nomadic barbarians seem like fairy tale exaggerations and don’t deserve to be compared to Columbus and his men.
Habitual negative stereotypes of ethnic groups don’t help anything:
True Native American Indians of today who recognize that they are more closely identified with the much more polished and refined version of their people that were around in the seventeenth century, take offense to the groups who protest Columbus. They know that their people as a whole are not the red-faced, ax-wielding feather-headed depictions the media has shown us. That’s why they protest the usage of such images on sports teams’ logos like the Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves. And just as the modern Indians who are offended by the sports team logo caricatures, today’s northern Europeans of the Scandinavian peninsula, find the NFL’s “Minnesota Viking” portrayal offensive and do not like being identified as a whole to resemble the “Viking.” At least the Notre Dame “Fightin’ Irish” and the Boston Celtics got it right with their usage of leprechauns and shamrocks as mascots—as opposed to pictures of red-haired, freckle-faced guys holding beer cans in their hands as mascots. It would be like if there was a sports team named the New York Mafiosos with a fedora-wearing, tommy-gun toting gangster’s picture as its mascot. The small percentage of Italian-Americans who are in the mafia does not compare to the thousands and thousands of Italian-Americans who are not—so that would be very inaccurate and offensive. It’s understandable how so many Italian-Americans have become fed up with the constant immediate link between us and “The Sopranos” as opposed to the more positive likes of Ferrari or Versace or Columbus.
Defining “discovery” (Columbus’s early establishment of civilization, the first trade practices):
With regards to both sets of the aforementioned groups, the facts remain that whomever or whatever may have been on or near the land did nothing to establish any sort of way of life. Horrible tribal wars which abolished much of the surroundings, along with other unknown events—possibly natural disasters—were the only occurrences of the era. Although it was not to the level of the Triassic period, things were so primitive, that life was barely livable. When Columbus and his men got there, it all changed. We owe our current American way of life to the early journeys and accomplishments of the Italian explorers. It isn’t far-fetched to say that Columbus can be credited for paving the way for today’s successful foreign trade practices between European countries and other ports—ironically a second tier issue on his voyage of discovery in 1492, yet so relevant today. Columbus and his crew rightfully christened and claimed the land “The New World” and that cannot be argued. Columbus brought America to the attention of the civilized world and for this, he should be celebrated as a great man.
The naming of America (Columbus’s connection to Amerigo Vespucci):
Years after Columbus died—sometime in Germany in the late 1500s—a clergyman-scholar named Martin Waldseemuller began work on a contemporary world map. He located logs of another Italian-born explorer, Amerigo Vespucci, who died around the same time as Columbus. In the logs, Vespucci referenced Italians discovering The New World and for this, Waldseemuller named these New World continents the “Americas” on his map. It is unclear if Amerigo was referring to himself and his crew (as he also sailed to The New World in 1499) or if he was referring to Columbus’s crew from their initial voyage in 1492. Either way, the name “America” was chosen, and it immediately stuck throughout Europe. In 1499, another Italian explorer, Giovanni Caboto (John Cabot) also reached The New World. And prior to the world map creations, in the year 1524, Giovanni da Varrazano—yet another brave Italian explorer—first sailed the Hudson River. On October 12, 1866, out of pride for these Italian explorers, the Italian population of New York City organized the first celebration of the discovery of America. It is these explorers who should be celebrated and lauded, and not any others. Since 1971, Columbus Day has been celebrated as a federal holiday on the second Monday in October. Perhaps someday it will be a legal national holiday like Christmas. October is also officially now recognized as “Italian-American Heritage Month.” This month is highlighted with feasts, parades and celebrations for Columbus and all Italians of the world, especially the European-Italians and Italian-Americans who contributed so much to the United States since the beginning of time. Although these few ethnic and political groups may distort reality and try and change historical facts, due to the fact that the extensive travels of Columbus are the most well-documented to date—Americans overall do still indeed look to Columbus as the first official discoverer of the land. Therefore, we continue to celebrate Columbus Day in America. So in conclusion, I believe America was discovered by one Italian and named after another, and we owe so much to the contributions of all those with roots from the boot. That is why I love to take extra pride in my heritage on Columbus Day, and why I feel that all Americans with any trace of Italian lineage in them should wave the green, white and red flag proudly every October.
-Oct. 1999
There are many inaccuracies about the great Italian explorer Christopher Columbus that need to be put to rest. In recent years, liberal extremist groups have held mean-spirited, baseless protests and rallies to say that Christopher Columbus was not the true discoverer of America and that he was nothing more than a “land-pillaging slave trader,” sadly confusing school-age children and even some educators who have been accurately defining Columbus as the discover of America since the first text books were written. Any account of Columbus being a slave trader who accomplished nothing is greatly incorrect and very off-base. While owning slaves was common practice in the 15th century, it is unproven that Columbus believed in the practice, and he was not at all a violent man. To the contrary, he was called very religious by many, and a great follower of The Bible like most born in Northern Italy at the time. Two specific groups usually besmirch Columbus’s name and his rightful place in history. I will highlight that in the following two sections...
The uncultured “Natives” of Columbus’s era and their lack of connection to those of the seventeenth century “Pilgrim” era:
The first group of protesters of his discoveries and accomplishments are usually those who classify themselves as “Native Americans.” This group claims that “they were here first,” and should be given the credit for America’s discovery and civilization. Based on the various findings done on such claims, it is determined that the modern, “Native American Indians,” are wrongly equating themselves to the early tribes that roamed the land Columbus founded. The few inhabitants that Columbus encountered when he and his crew came to The New World to prove to the Queen of Spain that there was indeed more to the world than just Europe were brutal hunters, wandering across the underdeveloped land, living from hand-to-mouth and from day-to-day as modern bums. They had no written language, no agricultural skills and constantly went to war with one another. The “Native” ancestors in today’s era are actually closer related to the seventeenth century “American Indian” culture that was established over 120 years after Columbus’s voyage—when the pilgrims from England arrived and the first Thanksgiving occurred. It is far more viable to compare any “Native” group with this group (as it was an actual culture unlike the savage animalistic roamers that scattered The New World in the 1400s). They bear no connection to the earlier tribes whom had no distinction with any established nation or civilization. To say these earlier inhabitants rightfully owned the land first would be like saying cave dwellers, or baboons had a claim to it.
Understanding the extreme brutality of “Vikings,” if even such a group existed at all:
The second group of protesters who try and discredit Columbus are the modern Scandinavians who say they are ancestors of the “Vikings.” This group was nothing more than a bloodthirsty clan that is actually considered by many to be a complete myth altogether. Vikings may have at some point roamed the land years before Columbus claimed it and paved the way for the later foundation of a livable nation in the model of Europe—but the fact remains—these Vikings were violent and crazy. And just like any other medieval societies that may or may not have crossed The New World, they failed at all attempts at any significant explorations. They deserve no justifiable credit for any development of the colonies and furthermore, there is little supporting evidence of any enduring Viking settlements in North America. These completely uncivilized, sword-dwelling pirates, specialized in brutal battles and failed to create any sense of commonwealth on any land they may have sailed upon. The most well-known Viking is the wily-haired, cartoonishly depicted Leif Ericson, whose birthplace was never even fully defined in the history books—and therefore anything he did over 1,000 years ago is certainly up for debate. It’s clear that his garish portrayal was right on point, as he, just like the others known as Vikings did nothing positive like our hero Columbus did. In fact, any references to Leif ever being on The New World could be viewed as nothing more than Norse versions of old Greek fables. There is a reason these nomadic barbarians seem like fairy tale exaggerations and don’t deserve to be compared to Columbus and his men.
Habitual negative stereotypes of ethnic groups don’t help anything:
True Native American Indians of today who recognize that they are more closely identified with the much more polished and refined version of their people that were around in the seventeenth century, take offense to the groups who protest Columbus. They know that their people as a whole are not the red-faced, ax-wielding feather-headed depictions the media has shown us. That’s why they protest the usage of such images on sports teams’ logos like the Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves. And just as the modern Indians who are offended by the sports team logo caricatures, today’s northern Europeans of the Scandinavian peninsula, find the NFL’s “Minnesota Viking” portrayal offensive and do not like being identified as a whole to resemble the “Viking.” At least the Notre Dame “Fightin’ Irish” and the Boston Celtics got it right with their usage of leprechauns and shamrocks as mascots—as opposed to pictures of red-haired, freckle-faced guys holding beer cans in their hands as mascots. It would be like if there was a sports team named the New York Mafiosos with a fedora-wearing, tommy-gun toting gangster’s picture as its mascot. The small percentage of Italian-Americans who are in the mafia does not compare to the thousands and thousands of Italian-Americans who are not—so that would be very inaccurate and offensive. It’s understandable how so many Italian-Americans have become fed up with the constant immediate link between us and “The Sopranos” as opposed to the more positive likes of Ferrari or Versace or Columbus.
Defining “discovery” (Columbus’s early establishment of civilization, the first trade practices):
With regards to both sets of the aforementioned groups, the facts remain that whomever or whatever may have been on or near the land did nothing to establish any sort of way of life. Horrible tribal wars which abolished much of the surroundings, along with other unknown events—possibly natural disasters—were the only occurrences of the era. Although it was not to the level of the Triassic period, things were so primitive, that life was barely livable. When Columbus and his men got there, it all changed. We owe our current American way of life to the early journeys and accomplishments of the Italian explorers. It isn’t far-fetched to say that Columbus can be credited for paving the way for today’s successful foreign trade practices between European countries and other ports—ironically a second tier issue on his voyage of discovery in 1492, yet so relevant today. Columbus and his crew rightfully christened and claimed the land “The New World” and that cannot be argued. Columbus brought America to the attention of the civilized world and for this, he should be celebrated as a great man.
The naming of America (Columbus’s connection to Amerigo Vespucci):
Years after Columbus died—sometime in Germany in the late 1500s—a clergyman-scholar named Martin Waldseemuller began work on a contemporary world map. He located logs of another Italian-born explorer, Amerigo Vespucci, who died around the same time as Columbus. In the logs, Vespucci referenced Italians discovering The New World and for this, Waldseemuller named these New World continents the “Americas” on his map. It is unclear if Amerigo was referring to himself and his crew (as he also sailed to The New World in 1499) or if he was referring to Columbus’s crew from their initial voyage in 1492. Either way, the name “America” was chosen, and it immediately stuck throughout Europe. In 1499, another Italian explorer, Giovanni Caboto (John Cabot) also reached The New World. And prior to the world map creations, in the year 1524, Giovanni da Varrazano—yet another brave Italian explorer—first sailed the Hudson River. On October 12, 1866, out of pride for these Italian explorers, the Italian population of New York City organized the first celebration of the discovery of America. It is these explorers who should be celebrated and lauded, and not any others. Since 1971, Columbus Day has been celebrated as a federal holiday on the second Monday in October. Perhaps someday it will be a legal national holiday like Christmas. October is also officially now recognized as “Italian-American Heritage Month.” This month is highlighted with feasts, parades and celebrations for Columbus and all Italians of the world, especially the European-Italians and Italian-Americans who contributed so much to the United States since the beginning of time. Although these few ethnic and political groups may distort reality and try and change historical facts, due to the fact that the extensive travels of Columbus are the most well-documented to date—Americans overall do still indeed look to Columbus as the first official discoverer of the land. Therefore, we continue to celebrate Columbus Day in America. So in conclusion, I believe America was discovered by one Italian and named after another, and we owe so much to the contributions of all those with roots from the boot. That is why I love to take extra pride in my heritage on Columbus Day, and why I feel that all Americans with any trace of Italian lineage in them should wave the green, white and red flag proudly every October.
Friday, October 2, 2009
"Family First" Defined
They say “it takes a village to raise a child.” With me, that was very true. My “village” was my family. I was lucky enough to be born at the perfect time. I grew up with a HUGE family, and although I didn’t get a little brother until I was almost eleven, I always was surrounded with lots of cousins my age and I benefited from that immensely. It’s a shame that nowadays, there are so many broken homes or divided families or just very different, non-traditional families. I am a traditionalist and a conventionalist. By no means was my childhood perfect, but I always felt safe, I always felt secure, and I always felt loved. My parents had a lot of help from all my relatives and that added so much to my childhood. I am not writing this to talk politics (I did enough of that with my "Conservative Values" Defined blog), I just want to express how grateful I am for having that cohesive home life, filled with culture and religion and, as I said, most importantly—love. I was taught the importance of family and friends, and that’s been engrained in me, and will never diminish. Most folks who are raised Italian-American like I was can easily relate to that. It's the times you spend with your loved ones that are the most precious and treasured, because life is too short, and the time you have together doesn't last forever. This was instilled in me since I was very young. Besides having both parents at home, I was fortunate enough to know and love two sets of grandparents, as well as a wonderful great-grandmother and great-grandfather. Both my grandfathers and great-grandparents have passed on now but my two grandmothers are still with us, thank God. I grew up with ten first cousins from five sets of aunts and uncles. My Godfather always visited, along with lots of second cousins, great uncles and aunts, and distant relatives from Long Island to Canada to Italy. And of course, there were always friends who were just like family, always around. When I moved out of my parents’ house, things changed a little, for lots of reasons. While we all tried to remain close, people moved away and grew apart. The bond never died though, and it never will. I still see my cousins and extended family at all the holidays and other get-togethers that we have throughout the year, but I wish I could see them more like we used to when we were all kids. As I said, things change, everyone tends to go their own ways, and unfortunately in this crazy world we live in, nothing can be as great as it was when we were young. If you can keep that connection and always maintain that through the phone and over things like facebook, that's very important. Of course, you always have the wonderful memories. And I hope to create many more memories in the future for my kids.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
"Conservative Values" Defined
Republican or Democrat? Conservative or Liberal? Both? Undeclared? Unsure? Let me ask a few quick questions: do you put your FAMILY FIRST? Do you believe in God, and believe in the United States of America? Do you believe we are “One Nation Under God” and should always be? I do. Too many don’t. What has this country come to when being a traditionalist and having strong core values makes you “un-American,” when that was always considered to be the most American way to live? Take ten minutes and read the following. It defines the terms liberal and conservative, and it just may help show where you stand. If you believe in the aforementioned core ideals, those define an American with cultural and religious conservative values. That’s me. Now define you.
CONSERVATIVE VALUES
Talking politics is very complicated and it tends to be an endless “spinning of the wheels” discussion, which often turns into a mean-spirited debate. The thing is, we really can’t control too much as people no matter where we stand or who we support, except with issues we personally have a handle over—those being issues within our own family and community. We should not seek government regulation or dictatorship on a national scale anyway—that would make us a communist country. We should be most concerned with what pertains to us individually and direct our support towards political candidates that we find share those concerns. With my home state of New Jersey about to elect a new (or re-elect our current) state governor, I feel that it is a good time to express myself with regards to some political ethics and ideals I hold close to my heart. Allow me to preface this document by saying I am not a political expert, but I do think I have a bit more knowledge than many Americans (mostly these extreme Hollywood liberals like Michael Moore and their followers) who are simply out of touch with reality, but claim to know it all. I do consider myself a casual observer and a watcher of Fox News. (Before you Fox-haters jump down my throat with vitriol, let me just say that their reporters and commentators just happen to share a lot of my political opinions). I am not blinded by one Fox analyst’s statements or thoughts, and I do not just automatically take sides on issues without doing the proper research. Nobody is perfect—republicans and democrats alike—and sometimes we are forced to choose a lesser of two evils, or, a candidate that shares more of a voter’s ideology. It’s rare that a candidate is always going to fit into every facet of a voter’s common interests, but I like to think that someone from “the right” usually fits into my basic criteria of what’s important to me. I’ve considered declaring myself an independent or a moderate, but it seems that democratic candidates are now so anti-conservative that I have no choice but to declare myself a republican to counter so many of their platform ideas that I disagree with—even if there are a few things I agree with on their side. Maybe someday, a democrat will fall into the framework that I am about to discuss. But until politics overall vastly change, and no longer become such a bitter battle of the sides, I will remain a republican. At election time, I am a more dedicated researcher, but this past presidential election, I was swayed even more towards the republicans with Barack Obama’s campaign strategies—all of which lacked the core essentials of my value system. Now, I would like to take a few moments here to express what having a conservative value system means to me. This document was not written in an attempt to convert anyone’s beliefs or to put down others who may not agree with what I’m saying. But I feel very strongly about these views and if I offend anyone, I apologize. However, I will not make any excuses, and I first would like to give some brief background as to the way I grew up to possibly offer a bit of reasoning as to why I lean to the right with how I conduct myself in my daily matters—and how that influences my voting choices. I was raised in a small, predominantly white neighborhood in northern New Jersey, mostly consisting of Italian-Americans and other Americans of European ethnicity. As I am 28 years of age, my formative years were the ‘80s and ‘90s. I attended Catholic school and was raised Catholic. I was baptized, went through the sacraments of penance, communion, confirmation and marriage. I will admit, I am not perfect and was also divorced, but the Ten Commandments and The Bible are extremely important to me. I was raised with the influences of my religion, my culture (towards our Italian nationality as well as with extreme patriotism for being American) and with the clear message of always having—and showing—respect. That was by no means a long time ago, but life seems so different in 2009 with such a more complicated array of “options.” Kids are exposed to so much more now, at a much younger age, and it’s critical how we raise them and teach them about things to make sure they make the right choices. It’s crucial we always attempt to steer them in the right direction (as I feel I was in the best way that my family could). That doesn’t mean shielding our youth or pretending times are as innocent as they once were. But it does mean leading them down the right path and keeping them safe. To me, that’s the basics of having a conservative upbringing, and unfortunately in modern politics there seems to be some sort of battle between conservative thinkers and everyone else.
People (especially young people) get blasted these days for being a right-leaning thinker when it comes to matters of modern day society. It seems it was more acceptable in the Reagan years with the “Alex P. Keaton” young Republican movement. Now, if you aren’t a young liberal-minded American (especially with Obama in the White House), you are considered un-American and even prejudiced. Huh? To me, there is nothing more un-American than being berated for having a certain viewpoint that may not be the “trendy” choice. God forbid you say anything good about our former President Bush and you are considered a “war monger” or a “religious fanatic.” But this rant is not about President Obama or President Bush (although I can sit here and point out all the positive things Bush did for us—as well as Bush Sr. and President Reagan before, while also showing how many negatives Clinton brought to this country and how this current administration has already done so much damage to our youth). However, as I said, this is not about me comparing republican vs. democrat policies and accomplishments, this is about comparing liberal and conservative ideals. I identify myself as a “conservative republican,” but that in no way means I am a “rifle-toting pro-capitalist racist” or whatever dirty connotations Michael Moore wants to throw around. While I firmly believe in the “American Dream” and striving to become a successful, wealthy individual, that does not mean I do not support hard-work and doing it the right way. I just don’t believe in hand-outs or enabling the weak. That’s what many of these left-leaning liberal extremists believe. Too many working class Americans support the democratic party because they think that all the democrats are there to “help them” or that they are on their side. That is so false, and it frustrates me to no end. It’s a blatant fact that politicians (whatever party affiliation) all have an income that is about fifty times what you and I have. By the liberal media spinning the minds of hard-working Americans into thinking that they are entitled to assistance from the government, or that “welfare is good,” they are falsely enabling these folks. Government involvement is never good, and that’s what the basis of republicanism is all about—whether that is with money or what type of healthcare you choose, or just general issues in raising your family. I do not believe in empathizing with the weak, I believe in striving to become strong. Because ultimately, that is how you become strong and attain what you want, and reach your goals. To use a sports analogy, I am a New York Yankees fan because they have been—and always will strive to be—the best. Their tradition, class and winning mentality is what makes me such a die-hard fan. I look at the elephants as the Yankees and the donkeys as all the rest. And in baseball, these weaker teams look for “profit sharing” which is basically the same as poor Americans looking for hand-outs. Everyone has the same opportunities and everyone has the same set of rules to play by in the game of baseball, as well as in the game of life. And most importantly, we must always respect the game—in particular the latter which is our lives—and especially our lives in the United States of America. Everyone should be held to a standard of excellence and the only way to achieve that is with determination and strong core values. Within your own family, these values must be engrained into children from day one. Because if they are not, when a crime is committed by the child when he/she gets older—what should be done about it according to the liberals? They say the criminal should be “counseled” for his wrongdoings, not prosecuted. Had the mindset of “here are the ramifications of committing a crime” been properly instilled in the child at a young age, chances are they would not have committed it in the first place. Kids need to understand that such actions result in punishment, not “understanding.” It’s the same with a drug user who becomes enabled with “needle exchange programs” because he or she was never raised properly on the dangers of getting involved in drugs (again, this comes back to the home). When I refer to myself as conservative republican, I say that because I identify with “cultural conservatism” and “religious conservatism.” If you are unfamiliar with these terms, please Google them. But I will give a brief synopsis of what they mean to me and what I feel it means to be a TRUE American…I am extremely patriotic and consider all those in our armed forces nothing short of HEROES. Period. I support them, but that does not make me a “war monger.” Protestors of war think that they are expressing their rights to speak about politics—however the issue of agreeing or disagreeing with a war is the political standpoint, whereas the act of protesting a war is disrespectful to soldiers and directly hurts their morale. When external forces or change occurs, I defer to the way things have always been done. I always adhere to the preservation of what this country was built upon long before I was born. Sometimes to defend that, wars must occur. No one in their right mind wants war, but wars were always around and always will be. Fighting them on a united front must always take place. My main ideal is that I believe in taking preventative measures at all times with respect to general issues in today’s modern society. What I mean by that is, I feel one should do all they can to—IN THE HOME—create a structured living environment that encourages children to adhere themselves to these certain standards and display all possible negative repercussions for acts which may defy those beliefs. To further demonstrate that: For example, by taking a firm definitive stance that, “marriage is between a man and a woman,” there becomes no further possibility of a broader explanation. Does an approval of gay marriage lead to beastiality and marrying animals, or will it someday turn into an acceptance of polygamy or intrafamilial marriages (incest)? Of course, those are extreme thoughts, but up until recent times, the idea of marriage between members of the same sex was an equally unbelievable thought. It’s just like the mentality of legalizing marijuana. When does that turn into the legalization of cocaine? Heroin? Why should we ever “play with fire,” especially now that these times are not as innocent as they were as little as twenty years ago? So what do we do? We must again, adhere to our standards and not cross these lines.
We need to stop empathizing with people who make mistake after mistake, and start properly TEACHING our youth to hopefully not have them make such mistakes as they grow up. It’s just like the question of whether encouraging abstinence or handing out condoms in school is the better approach to teenage sex. Look at it this way: if we teach (not preach) our kids the virtues of abstinence, of course not all will heed the advice, but it is ultimately the most beneficial strategy. Now let’s say you take five kids, four get the message and one simply ignores it and tries unsafe sex. You really have accomplished your goal—even if that one case does result in an unplanned pregnancy. But if you just hand all five kids condoms, the statistics show that at the minimum four will go out and use them (and eventually the odds are two out of those four will eventually then explore the idea of having sex without any protection). So out of the second group, the risks are so much more in favor of more promiscuity, and therefore more unplanned pregnancies, not to mention much more chances of STDs. The idea is not to “expect” that all our children are going to go out and experiment with risky behavior. By using the twisted rationale that you are actually “helping” them cut down their risks while still acknowledging they are trying such risky behaviors—you are essentially giving in to the child as being the one who sets the rules and the standards and not the adults. We as adults should be reinforcing the idea of NOT having sex and by the grace of God, they will grasp that message if it is delivered effectively and the messenger is respected. I respect my elders. I believe in the principles of those elders. I believe in well-established traditions based on my culture and religion. Therefore my views on marriage, abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia and other such issues defer to those traditions (completely the opposite with the liberal standpoint). Who are we to change the rules or to play God? It comes back to crossing the line and then evolving into chaos. If euthanasia is ok now in cases of terminally ill patients, soon enough it will be ok in patients who are not terminally ill but who are just in pain and no longer want to live. From there one would claim they have the “right to die” if they have any slight discomfort or if they have depression. Is that not suicide? Do we want to rename it something one day and eventually transform it into a socially acceptable thing? Are those that assist in the process going to be called “health advocates” and “pioneers” and not what they truly are—murderers? I just don’t get it. That is so not the principles of what the United States is all about. Neither is an “open border.” I believe in the American Dream and that all races should have the opportunity to succeed in this country. However, I support it being done legally as my family did, and do not believe illegal immigrants automatically should have the same rights and benefits as everyone else. I am not anti-Mexican or anti-immigration. How can I be? My mother was born in Canada and my grandmother was born in Italy. But unlike the illegal immigrants that sneak into this country and contribute nothing to American society, they did things the right way. I am not trying to make 2009 into 1955 or make believe that we live in some perfect, innocent, “Ozzie & Harriet” all-American world. I also am not saying we should all be “Archie Bunker.” But the ironic thing about him as a fictional character is that he was considered to be ignorant by many viewers. However, he was not created to be an ignorant character—he was actually created as a character that shared many ideas of many Americans during the period of when that show aired. The way Archie conveyed those messages was certainly considered to be poorly worded by any political guru’s point of view (but always flawlessly hilarious). Granted that was the purpose, as it was indeed a sitcom, but that character was one of the most influential characters of all time because at the root of many of those messages, there was a lot of truth. With refinement, Archie Bunker could actually be a modern day Bill O’Reilly. Look, to put it simply, I genuinely feel that we all must be held accountable for our actions and we must not be afraid to take a set stance as opposed to always “talking things out.” It is good to be strong-minded. It is good to have beliefs. When you are wishy-washy you are weak. That’s the liberal way. Right, wrong or indifferent, you must take a stance on things. That shows strength and decisiveness. That shows character. That is as American as you can get.
Allow me to expand on a few key points: First off, I want to make it clear that I voted for John McCain in the presidential election. I did not choose to vote for John McCain only because his opponent was a black candidate. Obama happened to be a black candidate whose overall belief system did not agree with mine. And at the end of the campaign, his platform turned all about race when he was proudly declared as “the first black president.” I will admit him being so “pro-black” was one (of many factors) for him not getting my vote—not because I am prejudiced but because that became such a central theme. We have always lived in a society where the overall majority is seen as normal and “the standard” (whether that is correct or not is irrelevant). It is a simple fact that African-Americans are still the minority. But at the end of his campaign, President Obama had more supporters behind him—white and black—based solely on him being black than for any other reason. But I can bet you at the end of his term, more will be done for his people than will be done for mine. Again let me reiterate, I am in no way a racist. General Colin Powell was an African-American that I highly respected and I would have voted for him as a presidential nominee until ultimately he threw his support towards Obama. Why did he? Because even though his political affiliation and overall viewpoints were not shared by Obama, he still chose to back a member of his race. I am not anti-gay, but there is a reason we have never had a gay president because that too, is the minority in this country. Just like we are made up of a mostly Christian country and have never had a Jewish leader, and just as we have never had a female president because we have always been a male-dominated society. But if a qualified candidate emerged who happened to be in those minority groups but shared conservative beliefs (like Sarah Palin for example), and were not running on the basis of being there to only support their own groups—they would get my vote. I’m a humor columnist by nature so forgive me for the pop culture and sports references but these things are relatable to most folks and help to expound upon what many find to be somewhat boring topics. As comedian Chris Rock said in one of his acts: “I’m conservative on some things and I’m liberal on other things. It’s stupid to just say you are one way or the other without hearing the issue.” That is quite an interesting statement, but it does make some sense overall. But when it comes to going to the polls, you do have to make a choice. And whatever side you affiliate yourself with when you head out to those polls should be decided upon by having full knowledge of all of the issues. You should always vote with confidence. I will say though, a lot of politics is pretty humorous. Guys like Rock and Dennis Miller for example, have the whole thing figured out if you ask me, much more than Michael Moore does. They state their opinions but they also see that you can’t take all of it too seriously. As I’m sure you’ve surmised by now, I do indeed take a lot of these issues seriously. It’s sad that young minds are influenced by those with ulterior agendas like Moore and these Hollywood liberals who go around hugging trees, high as kites, spreading ozone propaganda and other nonsense—instead of being home raising their kids properly. They aren’t looking out for the working middle-class American. They aren’t looking out for mothers and fathers and grandparents. They aren’t looking out for you. That’s a vicious cycle that all starts back in the home—where a child’s parents and family members should be emulated. As Glenn Beck recently stated, he didn’t sing songs about the president in kindergarten. Teachers were there to teach young people how to be morally responsible and mold them into strong human beings who contribute to society. He sang “Silent Night, Holy Night.” Yet schools these days want to outlaw that. Why? Let me get this straight: we should not try and shape our youth into positive individuals with lyrics of joy, yet we should attempt to brainwash them into socialists or communists? Bottom line is, we have to display a value system within our family dynamic to help this country remain the best country in the world for generations to come. Be proud to salute the flag. Give thanks to God for putting us here. Keep it “all in the family.” And keep your cultural identity.
Now take some time to digest everything I’ve said here. To repeat, this was not written to convert anyone, but maybe you may now find yourself agreeing with a lot of my ideals. In life, not just in matters of politics, I learned from a young age to create a pro and con list. This is a very effective tool in decision making, because too often we find ourselves in a state of confusion. By creating such a list, we can more efficiently see what to do. In political and social matters, it can help to more clearly define where to stand on a topic. Because as I said, it’s rare that you will find yourself in 100% agreement with every aspect of a political candidate—especially when so many things are factored into who you choose to vote for besides just their political platform—ranging from religion, ethnicity, personality, and yes, even things like age and appearance. And the worst thing you can do is vote based on a popularity contest, or pick a candidate that you are not at least somewhat informed about. So do the pro and con list. That is one piece of advice I would urge one to do with regards to voting. Things may still not be perfectly clear cut—again there’s a lot of aspects to a person—we aren’t voting for robots and the issues are not always black and white. But what’s black and white is that you must choose someone. Take an hour and do just a bit of research. You may actually surprise yourself and find yourself re-declaring your political affiliation.
CONSERVATIVE VALUES
Talking politics is very complicated and it tends to be an endless “spinning of the wheels” discussion, which often turns into a mean-spirited debate. The thing is, we really can’t control too much as people no matter where we stand or who we support, except with issues we personally have a handle over—those being issues within our own family and community. We should not seek government regulation or dictatorship on a national scale anyway—that would make us a communist country. We should be most concerned with what pertains to us individually and direct our support towards political candidates that we find share those concerns. With my home state of New Jersey about to elect a new (or re-elect our current) state governor, I feel that it is a good time to express myself with regards to some political ethics and ideals I hold close to my heart. Allow me to preface this document by saying I am not a political expert, but I do think I have a bit more knowledge than many Americans (mostly these extreme Hollywood liberals like Michael Moore and their followers) who are simply out of touch with reality, but claim to know it all. I do consider myself a casual observer and a watcher of Fox News. (Before you Fox-haters jump down my throat with vitriol, let me just say that their reporters and commentators just happen to share a lot of my political opinions). I am not blinded by one Fox analyst’s statements or thoughts, and I do not just automatically take sides on issues without doing the proper research. Nobody is perfect—republicans and democrats alike—and sometimes we are forced to choose a lesser of two evils, or, a candidate that shares more of a voter’s ideology. It’s rare that a candidate is always going to fit into every facet of a voter’s common interests, but I like to think that someone from “the right” usually fits into my basic criteria of what’s important to me. I’ve considered declaring myself an independent or a moderate, but it seems that democratic candidates are now so anti-conservative that I have no choice but to declare myself a republican to counter so many of their platform ideas that I disagree with—even if there are a few things I agree with on their side. Maybe someday, a democrat will fall into the framework that I am about to discuss. But until politics overall vastly change, and no longer become such a bitter battle of the sides, I will remain a republican. At election time, I am a more dedicated researcher, but this past presidential election, I was swayed even more towards the republicans with Barack Obama’s campaign strategies—all of which lacked the core essentials of my value system. Now, I would like to take a few moments here to express what having a conservative value system means to me. This document was not written in an attempt to convert anyone’s beliefs or to put down others who may not agree with what I’m saying. But I feel very strongly about these views and if I offend anyone, I apologize. However, I will not make any excuses, and I first would like to give some brief background as to the way I grew up to possibly offer a bit of reasoning as to why I lean to the right with how I conduct myself in my daily matters—and how that influences my voting choices. I was raised in a small, predominantly white neighborhood in northern New Jersey, mostly consisting of Italian-Americans and other Americans of European ethnicity. As I am 28 years of age, my formative years were the ‘80s and ‘90s. I attended Catholic school and was raised Catholic. I was baptized, went through the sacraments of penance, communion, confirmation and marriage. I will admit, I am not perfect and was also divorced, but the Ten Commandments and The Bible are extremely important to me. I was raised with the influences of my religion, my culture (towards our Italian nationality as well as with extreme patriotism for being American) and with the clear message of always having—and showing—respect. That was by no means a long time ago, but life seems so different in 2009 with such a more complicated array of “options.” Kids are exposed to so much more now, at a much younger age, and it’s critical how we raise them and teach them about things to make sure they make the right choices. It’s crucial we always attempt to steer them in the right direction (as I feel I was in the best way that my family could). That doesn’t mean shielding our youth or pretending times are as innocent as they once were. But it does mean leading them down the right path and keeping them safe. To me, that’s the basics of having a conservative upbringing, and unfortunately in modern politics there seems to be some sort of battle between conservative thinkers and everyone else.
People (especially young people) get blasted these days for being a right-leaning thinker when it comes to matters of modern day society. It seems it was more acceptable in the Reagan years with the “Alex P. Keaton” young Republican movement. Now, if you aren’t a young liberal-minded American (especially with Obama in the White House), you are considered un-American and even prejudiced. Huh? To me, there is nothing more un-American than being berated for having a certain viewpoint that may not be the “trendy” choice. God forbid you say anything good about our former President Bush and you are considered a “war monger” or a “religious fanatic.” But this rant is not about President Obama or President Bush (although I can sit here and point out all the positive things Bush did for us—as well as Bush Sr. and President Reagan before, while also showing how many negatives Clinton brought to this country and how this current administration has already done so much damage to our youth). However, as I said, this is not about me comparing republican vs. democrat policies and accomplishments, this is about comparing liberal and conservative ideals. I identify myself as a “conservative republican,” but that in no way means I am a “rifle-toting pro-capitalist racist” or whatever dirty connotations Michael Moore wants to throw around. While I firmly believe in the “American Dream” and striving to become a successful, wealthy individual, that does not mean I do not support hard-work and doing it the right way. I just don’t believe in hand-outs or enabling the weak. That’s what many of these left-leaning liberal extremists believe. Too many working class Americans support the democratic party because they think that all the democrats are there to “help them” or that they are on their side. That is so false, and it frustrates me to no end. It’s a blatant fact that politicians (whatever party affiliation) all have an income that is about fifty times what you and I have. By the liberal media spinning the minds of hard-working Americans into thinking that they are entitled to assistance from the government, or that “welfare is good,” they are falsely enabling these folks. Government involvement is never good, and that’s what the basis of republicanism is all about—whether that is with money or what type of healthcare you choose, or just general issues in raising your family. I do not believe in empathizing with the weak, I believe in striving to become strong. Because ultimately, that is how you become strong and attain what you want, and reach your goals. To use a sports analogy, I am a New York Yankees fan because they have been—and always will strive to be—the best. Their tradition, class and winning mentality is what makes me such a die-hard fan. I look at the elephants as the Yankees and the donkeys as all the rest. And in baseball, these weaker teams look for “profit sharing” which is basically the same as poor Americans looking for hand-outs. Everyone has the same opportunities and everyone has the same set of rules to play by in the game of baseball, as well as in the game of life. And most importantly, we must always respect the game—in particular the latter which is our lives—and especially our lives in the United States of America. Everyone should be held to a standard of excellence and the only way to achieve that is with determination and strong core values. Within your own family, these values must be engrained into children from day one. Because if they are not, when a crime is committed by the child when he/she gets older—what should be done about it according to the liberals? They say the criminal should be “counseled” for his wrongdoings, not prosecuted. Had the mindset of “here are the ramifications of committing a crime” been properly instilled in the child at a young age, chances are they would not have committed it in the first place. Kids need to understand that such actions result in punishment, not “understanding.” It’s the same with a drug user who becomes enabled with “needle exchange programs” because he or she was never raised properly on the dangers of getting involved in drugs (again, this comes back to the home). When I refer to myself as conservative republican, I say that because I identify with “cultural conservatism” and “religious conservatism.” If you are unfamiliar with these terms, please Google them. But I will give a brief synopsis of what they mean to me and what I feel it means to be a TRUE American…I am extremely patriotic and consider all those in our armed forces nothing short of HEROES. Period. I support them, but that does not make me a “war monger.” Protestors of war think that they are expressing their rights to speak about politics—however the issue of agreeing or disagreeing with a war is the political standpoint, whereas the act of protesting a war is disrespectful to soldiers and directly hurts their morale. When external forces or change occurs, I defer to the way things have always been done. I always adhere to the preservation of what this country was built upon long before I was born. Sometimes to defend that, wars must occur. No one in their right mind wants war, but wars were always around and always will be. Fighting them on a united front must always take place. My main ideal is that I believe in taking preventative measures at all times with respect to general issues in today’s modern society. What I mean by that is, I feel one should do all they can to—IN THE HOME—create a structured living environment that encourages children to adhere themselves to these certain standards and display all possible negative repercussions for acts which may defy those beliefs. To further demonstrate that: For example, by taking a firm definitive stance that, “marriage is between a man and a woman,” there becomes no further possibility of a broader explanation. Does an approval of gay marriage lead to beastiality and marrying animals, or will it someday turn into an acceptance of polygamy or intrafamilial marriages (incest)? Of course, those are extreme thoughts, but up until recent times, the idea of marriage between members of the same sex was an equally unbelievable thought. It’s just like the mentality of legalizing marijuana. When does that turn into the legalization of cocaine? Heroin? Why should we ever “play with fire,” especially now that these times are not as innocent as they were as little as twenty years ago? So what do we do? We must again, adhere to our standards and not cross these lines.
We need to stop empathizing with people who make mistake after mistake, and start properly TEACHING our youth to hopefully not have them make such mistakes as they grow up. It’s just like the question of whether encouraging abstinence or handing out condoms in school is the better approach to teenage sex. Look at it this way: if we teach (not preach) our kids the virtues of abstinence, of course not all will heed the advice, but it is ultimately the most beneficial strategy. Now let’s say you take five kids, four get the message and one simply ignores it and tries unsafe sex. You really have accomplished your goal—even if that one case does result in an unplanned pregnancy. But if you just hand all five kids condoms, the statistics show that at the minimum four will go out and use them (and eventually the odds are two out of those four will eventually then explore the idea of having sex without any protection). So out of the second group, the risks are so much more in favor of more promiscuity, and therefore more unplanned pregnancies, not to mention much more chances of STDs. The idea is not to “expect” that all our children are going to go out and experiment with risky behavior. By using the twisted rationale that you are actually “helping” them cut down their risks while still acknowledging they are trying such risky behaviors—you are essentially giving in to the child as being the one who sets the rules and the standards and not the adults. We as adults should be reinforcing the idea of NOT having sex and by the grace of God, they will grasp that message if it is delivered effectively and the messenger is respected. I respect my elders. I believe in the principles of those elders. I believe in well-established traditions based on my culture and religion. Therefore my views on marriage, abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia and other such issues defer to those traditions (completely the opposite with the liberal standpoint). Who are we to change the rules or to play God? It comes back to crossing the line and then evolving into chaos. If euthanasia is ok now in cases of terminally ill patients, soon enough it will be ok in patients who are not terminally ill but who are just in pain and no longer want to live. From there one would claim they have the “right to die” if they have any slight discomfort or if they have depression. Is that not suicide? Do we want to rename it something one day and eventually transform it into a socially acceptable thing? Are those that assist in the process going to be called “health advocates” and “pioneers” and not what they truly are—murderers? I just don’t get it. That is so not the principles of what the United States is all about. Neither is an “open border.” I believe in the American Dream and that all races should have the opportunity to succeed in this country. However, I support it being done legally as my family did, and do not believe illegal immigrants automatically should have the same rights and benefits as everyone else. I am not anti-Mexican or anti-immigration. How can I be? My mother was born in Canada and my grandmother was born in Italy. But unlike the illegal immigrants that sneak into this country and contribute nothing to American society, they did things the right way. I am not trying to make 2009 into 1955 or make believe that we live in some perfect, innocent, “Ozzie & Harriet” all-American world. I also am not saying we should all be “Archie Bunker.” But the ironic thing about him as a fictional character is that he was considered to be ignorant by many viewers. However, he was not created to be an ignorant character—he was actually created as a character that shared many ideas of many Americans during the period of when that show aired. The way Archie conveyed those messages was certainly considered to be poorly worded by any political guru’s point of view (but always flawlessly hilarious). Granted that was the purpose, as it was indeed a sitcom, but that character was one of the most influential characters of all time because at the root of many of those messages, there was a lot of truth. With refinement, Archie Bunker could actually be a modern day Bill O’Reilly. Look, to put it simply, I genuinely feel that we all must be held accountable for our actions and we must not be afraid to take a set stance as opposed to always “talking things out.” It is good to be strong-minded. It is good to have beliefs. When you are wishy-washy you are weak. That’s the liberal way. Right, wrong or indifferent, you must take a stance on things. That shows strength and decisiveness. That shows character. That is as American as you can get.
Allow me to expand on a few key points: First off, I want to make it clear that I voted for John McCain in the presidential election. I did not choose to vote for John McCain only because his opponent was a black candidate. Obama happened to be a black candidate whose overall belief system did not agree with mine. And at the end of the campaign, his platform turned all about race when he was proudly declared as “the first black president.” I will admit him being so “pro-black” was one (of many factors) for him not getting my vote—not because I am prejudiced but because that became such a central theme. We have always lived in a society where the overall majority is seen as normal and “the standard” (whether that is correct or not is irrelevant). It is a simple fact that African-Americans are still the minority. But at the end of his campaign, President Obama had more supporters behind him—white and black—based solely on him being black than for any other reason. But I can bet you at the end of his term, more will be done for his people than will be done for mine. Again let me reiterate, I am in no way a racist. General Colin Powell was an African-American that I highly respected and I would have voted for him as a presidential nominee until ultimately he threw his support towards Obama. Why did he? Because even though his political affiliation and overall viewpoints were not shared by Obama, he still chose to back a member of his race. I am not anti-gay, but there is a reason we have never had a gay president because that too, is the minority in this country. Just like we are made up of a mostly Christian country and have never had a Jewish leader, and just as we have never had a female president because we have always been a male-dominated society. But if a qualified candidate emerged who happened to be in those minority groups but shared conservative beliefs (like Sarah Palin for example), and were not running on the basis of being there to only support their own groups—they would get my vote. I’m a humor columnist by nature so forgive me for the pop culture and sports references but these things are relatable to most folks and help to expound upon what many find to be somewhat boring topics. As comedian Chris Rock said in one of his acts: “I’m conservative on some things and I’m liberal on other things. It’s stupid to just say you are one way or the other without hearing the issue.” That is quite an interesting statement, but it does make some sense overall. But when it comes to going to the polls, you do have to make a choice. And whatever side you affiliate yourself with when you head out to those polls should be decided upon by having full knowledge of all of the issues. You should always vote with confidence. I will say though, a lot of politics is pretty humorous. Guys like Rock and Dennis Miller for example, have the whole thing figured out if you ask me, much more than Michael Moore does. They state their opinions but they also see that you can’t take all of it too seriously. As I’m sure you’ve surmised by now, I do indeed take a lot of these issues seriously. It’s sad that young minds are influenced by those with ulterior agendas like Moore and these Hollywood liberals who go around hugging trees, high as kites, spreading ozone propaganda and other nonsense—instead of being home raising their kids properly. They aren’t looking out for the working middle-class American. They aren’t looking out for mothers and fathers and grandparents. They aren’t looking out for you. That’s a vicious cycle that all starts back in the home—where a child’s parents and family members should be emulated. As Glenn Beck recently stated, he didn’t sing songs about the president in kindergarten. Teachers were there to teach young people how to be morally responsible and mold them into strong human beings who contribute to society. He sang “Silent Night, Holy Night.” Yet schools these days want to outlaw that. Why? Let me get this straight: we should not try and shape our youth into positive individuals with lyrics of joy, yet we should attempt to brainwash them into socialists or communists? Bottom line is, we have to display a value system within our family dynamic to help this country remain the best country in the world for generations to come. Be proud to salute the flag. Give thanks to God for putting us here. Keep it “all in the family.” And keep your cultural identity.
Now take some time to digest everything I’ve said here. To repeat, this was not written to convert anyone, but maybe you may now find yourself agreeing with a lot of my ideals. In life, not just in matters of politics, I learned from a young age to create a pro and con list. This is a very effective tool in decision making, because too often we find ourselves in a state of confusion. By creating such a list, we can more efficiently see what to do. In political and social matters, it can help to more clearly define where to stand on a topic. Because as I said, it’s rare that you will find yourself in 100% agreement with every aspect of a political candidate—especially when so many things are factored into who you choose to vote for besides just their political platform—ranging from religion, ethnicity, personality, and yes, even things like age and appearance. And the worst thing you can do is vote based on a popularity contest, or pick a candidate that you are not at least somewhat informed about. So do the pro and con list. That is one piece of advice I would urge one to do with regards to voting. Things may still not be perfectly clear cut—again there’s a lot of aspects to a person—we aren’t voting for robots and the issues are not always black and white. But what’s black and white is that you must choose someone. Take an hour and do just a bit of research. You may actually surprise yourself and find yourself re-declaring your political affiliation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
