Pirates: Old and New

     I decided to take a break from all the heavy philosophy and write about pirates. Pirates have been around for a long time, I'm not sure how long, maybe ever since there were ships. They're famous for stealing things from ships using swords, pistols, brute force, or anything else at their disposal. Legends revolve around their skill in battle and the huge amounts of treasure that they supposedly accumulated throughout their plundering years. Blackbeard was one of the fiercest and toughest pirates ever to sail the seas. One story says that he once tested his men's mettle by literally creating an artificial hell below decks, complete with burning brimstone, and holding a contest to see who could endure the intense heat and blinding smoke the longest. The story says that before long, every one of his crew members had given up and fled the torturous prison, while Blackbeard's maniacal laughter reverberated from the smoke and ebbing red glow. Those were the pirates of old.

    
     Pirates are still around today, but they've changed drastically. The most common pirates today don't sail the seven seas, but instead surf the World Wide Web. They wouldn't know what to do with a sword or a pistol, and as far as fighting ability goes, they usually rank around the "zilch" level. Instead of stealing priceless gems or gold and silver, they pillage movies, music, and video games. The closest they come to obtaining riches is to download an illegal copy of the Gold and Silver versions of Pokemon games. Compared to their predecessors, these sorry excuses for pirates are nothing more than an ill-told joke. They would probably faint at the mere mention of enduring fire and brimstone. Blackbeard would hang his head in shame.

    Needless to say, piracy has lost a lot of the appeal it used to have to adventurous souls. Perhaps this is a good thing. Maybe the way to fight piracy isn't to go after the pirates themselves, but to make internet plundering seem so uncool that people can't stand to be associated with it.
     Those are my thoughts, anyway. Next week it's back to serious stuff. I've had an entire week off of school, so my brain is kind of lazy right now. Until next time.

Where Do You Belong in the Hundred Acre Wood?

For English, we're writing a "Division/Classification" essay. That's an essay where you break people, processes, or other things into different groups and label them. For my essay, I chose to write about personalities, and for the different categories, I chose characters from the Hundred Acre Wood. I had a lot of fun writing it, and I was pleased with the way it turned out, so I decided to share it with you. Enjoy.

Personalities from the Hundred Acre Wood

            People have always had their own ways of looking at things. It’s generally referred to as personality, and it’s the sort of thing that determines whether someone would rather play a game or a read a good book. There are all sorts of people in the world, and therefore all sorts of personalities. Generally, though, personalities can be classified under four distinct categories: Pooh Bears, Rabbits, Tiggers, and Christopher Robins.

            The first of these categories consists of Pooh Bears. Everyone loves Pooh, which is mostly because he loves everyone as well. Pooh is simple in everything. He likes to eat honey, and spends much of his time either eating it or looking for some to eat. Similarly, Pooh-people like to simplify everything. Sometimes they have difficulty understanding complicated ideas and the people who think of them. Although Pooh doesn’t always understand exactly what’s going on, he doesn’t really mind and continues to do the best he can. Pooh’s greatest quality is his kindness and concern for his friends. When Pooh is not eating or looking for honey, he likes to visit his friends and say hello. He never has anything but kind intentions, and is therefore loved by everyone in the Hundred Acre Wood. Although Pooh may not understand the plans that Rabbit continually devises, he is happy to perform whatever role is assigned to him. This makes him somewhat gullible and sometimes places him in undesirable and even dangerous circumstances. Despite this, he continues to have a positive outlook on everything and never holds a grudge afterwards. Although Pooh’s simple nature can sometimes get him into trouble, his continuous kindness ensures that there is always a helping hand to get him back to stable ground.

            The second category is the Rabbit personality. In his own way, Rabbit also cares for his friends and tries to look out for them, although his well-intentioned plans sometimes go astray or end up overlooking the welfare of people he doesn’t consider to be his friends. Rabbit is known for always having a plan. Although he is skilled at thinking of solutions, he usually needs the support of others to carry them out. He is the most intellectual of the four, relying on his wits to help him solve problems. Rabbit feels lost when he can’t think of what to do. Rabbit is a hard worker and likes to be organized, and becomes easily frustrated when someone disrupts or destroys his handiwork. Rabbit’s detail-oriented mind can sometimes lead him to over-examine problems and split hairs. Although his reasoning ability is top-notch, he has a hard time understanding other people’s feelings and perspectives. Even though Rabbit can sometimes become insensitive and frustrated, he is loyal to his friends and is usually the first one to pitch in and offer a solution.

            The third personality category is Tigger. Tigger is all about having fun. He’s always full of energy and likes to be around people he can have fun with. Tigger enjoys playful pranks, and is the most mischievous personality of the four. In addition to his playful nature, Tigger is also known for his endless optimism. He loves adventure because of the potential for thrills and fun. He leads a carefree life with little thought for the next step. Tigger’s no-worry philosophy severely hampers his foresight, which often leads to him being stuck in a problem he can’t seem to get out of. Fortunately, Tigger is a magnetic personality, so his friends are always there to help him out of his latest pickle. People are attracted to Tigger because of his positive view of every situation and his fun-loving nature. Ironically, those same qualities usually put him at odds with Rabbit, whose insistence on order and realistic assessment are aggravated by Tigger’s antics. Tigger isn’t interested in improving the situation. Instead, he irritates Rabbit even more by making him the recipient of his practical jokes. Although Tigger’s lifestyle is somewhat self-centered, his boundless energy and positive outlook make him an invaluable friend during life’s tough times.

            The fourth and final category belongs to none other than the Christopher Robins. Christophers are natural leaders, because they care deeply about their friends and have enough understanding to help them with their problems. They can connect with almost anyone because they possess a more or less balanced mix of all the other personalities. Christophers, like Tiggers, love adventure, but for a different reason. Christophers like to set out on expeditions to accomplish ambitious goals, like being the first person to discover the North Pole. Their goal-oriented nature and level-headed approach also allows them to identify with Rabbits. Their most special bond, however, is with Pooh Bears. Both personalities operate on a love for people, so these two latch on to each other immediately. In addition, Christophers always take their friends’ problems upon themselves, in order to understand and help them. This makes the Pooh personality even more special to Christophers, because of their innocence and light personal load.

            We can learn a lot from these four friends from the Hundred Acre Wood.   Each of them is very different from the others, but they manage to work together while always putting their friendships first.  It is difficult to understand someone whose personality is different from our own, simply because they don’t look at the world the same way we do.  But what we have to realize is that beyond the difficulties, there is great richness to be found when we can appreciate and enjoy the perspectives and talents of our differently oriented friends.  When we learn to focus on the synergy rather than the conflict, our own horizons are broadened and we discover much joy.

Deafening Silence

The "Day of Silence" happened October 19. People walked around wearing red tape over their mouths with the word "Life" on it. That takes a lot of courage, especially considering how easy it would be to make fun of someone with tape over their mouths, regardless of what was written on it. I'm sure there are a lot of pro-life people here on campus, this being the bible belt and all. There was, however, a sort of retaliation by a few people. One student walked around with a poster-board vest that listed all of the monsters throughout history who weren't aborted. This is where I get on my soapbox. I know I said that I wouldn't talk about politics much, but to me this isn't really a political issue. It falls into the category of right and wrong, which is my area of interest. First of all, the potential of the babies being aborted doesn't really factor into whether it's right or wrong. Sure, there's potential for great good and great evil, just like with the rest of the human race. I've heard supporters of both sides make that kind of argument, but it doesn't really touch on the moral side of the issue.
If abortion were nothing more than a women's rights thing, it wouldn't be controversial. My beef is that you're affecting someone else, not just yourself, so there's more to be considered than just what's convenient or what makes the mother happy. Really, the whole issue depends on whether or not the unborn can be considered human. If they're not, then it really doesn't matter what we do to them, but if they are, then abortion is murder, and there is absolutely no way to justify it. If you were to ask a pro-choicer, they would probably say that a fetus isn't human because it's attached to the mother, therefore making it her property. That's bogus. If merely being attached brings ownership rights, then what does that mean for siamese twins (twins joined together at birth)? Does one have ownership over the other? Of course not. I think what pro-choicers really mean when they say that is that the baby is totally dependent on the mother, and therefore doesn't meet the criteria for being human. Here's somthing to ponder: What about the baby as a newborn, or an infant, or a toddler? They are totally dependent on others for their survival. Should they have rights? Another argument against the unborn's humanity is that they lack the ability to think and act like other humans do; essentially, they're not as developed and capable as the rest of us. If that's the case, what does that mean for the mentally ill and those with birth defects or disabilities? Do they qualify for the right to live?
Abortion is nothing short of murder. I think that one day, people are going to wake up and realize the truth. Just like the other injustices over the past, such as slavery. Abortion can be likened to racism. You have a group of people denying the humanity of another group, for the purpose of convenience or because they actually believe it. I think that when people come around, they'll say "abortionist" a lot like people say "racist" today.
Okay, I'm through ranting, so I'll get on to regular life. I met with my new advisor yesterday, and it turns out I have to take 12 hours of Spanish to be a journalist. Short of Mexico taking over America, I can't see how this will help me deliver the news. Oh well. College Algebra is really the only class giving me trouble. I'll be glad when it's over and I won't have to take any more math classes. I might be writing a series of dental articles for the ReView soon. Yeah. My dentist, who happens to be a family friend, is going to give me his ideas today while he works on my teeth. I guess you could say he's going to "fill me in." I'll let you know how that goes. See ya.

Hypocrisy

"We're all hypocrites to some degree." That was an offhand comment I made while talking to one of my classmates in English. I didn't really think much about it when I said it, it was sort of one of those knee-jerk Christian comments that I make from time to time. You know, things like, "God bless," or "have a blessed day." It was just based on my belief that all men sin, and when we get upset when other people do the wrong things, we're really just being hypocrites. I didn't really think about the implications until one night when I was at a football game with a friend of mine. She was making a joke about Ole Miss, because she knew that I watched their games, and in reply, I said something like, "Do you make comments like that because you're intolerant and culturally insensitive?" I was only joking, but as soon as I said it, I felt horrible. In the days prior to that, I had been thinking of derogatory comments I could make to someone who teased me about being homeschooled. Because I had been thinking about insults I could make, one of them slipped out in normal conversation. The thing that really drove it home for me, though, was that I had been learning about forgiveness, and how we basically don't have the right to be angry at anyone because of all the things we've done ourselves. Ouch.
We're all guilty of hypocrisy. We're supposed to be one of the most tolerant and forgiving societies in the world, but all you have to do is read the comments on an article about Miley Cyrus's latest album to know that's not really the case. People are always willing to forgive, unless they've been affected in some way.
In case you haven't noticed, I kind of like philosophy. Now, on to life. I just got through dealing with a huge wave of tests. I guess the teachers thought it would be fun to wait and hit everyone with all the tests at once. My history teacher thought that it would be even more fun if he did a test on the first six chapters in our history book all at once. Not to say that he's mean, he's just... free-spirited. He has trouble deciding on what to do, so he's been putting off tests until recently. I haven't been writing for the newspaper lately, and I may have to quit it all together. I know I've been saying that for awhile. As always, I'll let you know.

Events and Ideas

     After that epic essay, it's time to get back to what's happening with life. The ReView is going moderately well. By that I mean the stories are going fine (my second one is in the latest edition), and I'm still doing well in all my classes, but it's also taking up a lot of time. College is going well, especially now that I've gotten to know a few people.
     Today I got to meet Charles Pickering. I'm a member of the honor's institute bearing his name at JC. He came to speak with us about a book he wrote, called A Price Too High, which we were required to read. It was about when he was a judge and had been nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. During that time, he suffered a lot of political slander from Democrats because they knew he was personally opposed to abortion and afraid he might make a ruling against it. It's a fascinating book, if you ever decide to read it. At least I liked it. Apparently there are some students who found the book extremely boring. I suppose that's one of the reasons I'm weird. I love reading about subjects dealing with morality, controversy, or some disputed Christian doctrine. I just find the concept of right and wrong extremely interesting, especially when it comes to how we as humans are supposed to act towards each other.
     Consequently, those are the things I enjoy writing about the most. How am I going to do that as a journalist, you ask? I'll find a way. I'll write for the opinions section, or write a novel on the side. Why a novel? I have a short attention span, so trying to write an entire book about these concepts directly might bore me, or more importantly, bore my readers. I decided it would make more sense and be more interesting if the concepts could be seen in action, preferably in an exciting fiction story. Plus, I also love far-out genres like science-fiction and fantasy, so it's a win-win.
     I've got quite a few story ideas, which I may talk about one of these days. At the moment, though, I've got homework to do. Bye.

My Musings

     Sorry about the wait between this and last post, but I hope the content makes it worth it. This originally started out as an essay for my English class, but I ended up deciding it was worth a blog post. This post is dedicated to Lauren Taggart, sort of my mental sparring partner for a week at USM. We talked about the things that inspired me to write this in the first place. Now, without further ado, I present A Comparison of Idealistic and Darwinian Societies.

    

            Either idealistic or Darwinian principles can be used to govern society, and both claim to benefit the human race if applied.  However, they differ widely when it comes to human interactions, moral beliefs, and core values.

            The defining principles of both societies are stark in contrast.  Darwin’s principle of evolution, “survival of the fittest”, is the foundation for a Darwinian society.  This principle comes from Darwin’s belief that nature improved itself by allowing animal species to better themselves by competing for supremacy. This belief came from his observations of weak species being preyed upon and eliminated by stronger ones in a continual struggle for survival and dominance. An idealistic society, however, is driven by a search for truth, and the idea that truth will improve humanity more than anything else. Comparing these two societies will give further insight into understanding them.

            Idealistic society promotes the idea that all humanity deserves to live and pursue happiness. This idea is supported by the Bible, demonstrated by the instruction of Jesus to care for the poor, widows, and orphans. Idealism believes in the concept of morality. Although some cultures disagree on specific points, it is generally acknowledged that some things are right and some things are wrong. The acts of betraying your country, stealing others’ property, and killing without cause are some of the many things that are almost universally agreed to be wrong.

            One example of a Darwinian society was Hitler’s Germany.  Hitler believed that genetics determined a human being’s worth.  As a result, he doomed what he believed to be inferior humans to extermination, bringing about the worst genocide in history.  His ultimate goal was to create a genetically superior race he called the Aryans.  This illustrates the Darwinian principle well.  Hitler eliminated what he deemed were “unfit” humans for the benefit of “the fittest.”

            If this principle were to be applied to an idealistic society, many of the same sorts of changes would occur.  First, laws prohibiting immoral behavior would be thrown out the window.  A Darwinian society does not believe in right and wrong.  In fact, it believes morality is counter-productive to the successful improvement of humanity.  The Constitution of the United States would be considered especially dangerous.  It is filled with ideals like, “all men are created equal,” which Darwinists consider false.  Secondly, because “the fittest” are the ones that are valued most in such a society, those not in this category would be considered “the unfit”.  Individuals with mental or physical illnesses, those highly likely to develop disease, and people who use resources without contributing to society, would be sterilized or exterminated.  This, according to Darwinian thinking, would streamline the gene pool, free our resources, and improve humanity’s chance for continued dominance.

            After examining both societies’ beliefs and effects on human interaction, it is time to look at what really drives these two models, and what they value the most.  Idealism revolves around morality.  There is the underlying idea that truth is more important than personal happiness.  Jesus summed up morality in a single sentence when He said, “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.”  All moral behaviors follow this rule.  In essence, idealism values others’ benefit the most.

            Darwinism is much different.  No one can deny that the Darwinian principle is effective at improvement, but the reason it is so effective is because it relies on humanity’s selfish nature to operate.  Darwin’s principle can only work if everyone involved is looking out for themselves.  Even cooperation is only a means for personal gain or survival.  The individuals within a business cooperate for the purpose of making a profit.  If a worker believes they are not being sufficiently benefited, they will leave the company.  In other words, Darwinism values self the most.  

            The differences between a Darwinistic and an Idealistic society are like night and day.  Idealism promotes mutually beneficial human interactions, strong moral beliefs, and the worth of the human soul. Darwinism brings self-serving interactions, nonexistent moral beliefs, and human survival.  The comparison of these two societal models gives the needed information to identify which model a society follows, Darwinian or Idealistic.  In the end, a society must ask itself whether it wants to merely survive or truly matter.

So that's my essay. Kinda long, I suppose, but I could have gone longer. It's something I've been thinking about for a while. Hope you enjoyed it, leave feedback if you wish.

The College Experience

     I don't think I mentioned this in my last post, but I was homeschooled from kindergarten through highschool. Jones has been my first real "public school" experience. Fortunately, the transition hasn't been as bad as I thought it might be. It's mostly been just getting used to little things, like the cafeteria, class periods, and entering a row to the right of the desk you wish to occupy. When my older sister first went to college, she said it took her a while to realize that the classroom numbers that started with a one, like 117 or 123, met on the first floor, while classes that started with a two met on the second floor. One of my classmates made fun of a sign in one of the buildings that explained this concept, saying, "I feel so secure in my academic future now." Well, those signs are for people like me.
     My first test was in my psychology class, and it was done by scantron. That was different. My teacher didn't explain how we were supposed to do it, so I had to figure it out myself, but it turned out fine.
     One of the biggest surprises came when I realized that hardly any of the students cared about what they were doing. I'd heard that would be the case, but listening to all the people around me in class showed me exactly how true that was.
     Anyway, I had my interview at The ReView, and the editor told me that instead of a regular job interview, he was going to give me an assignment and see how I did. He told me to go interview two fourth grade elementary teachers who had produced the highest scoring math class in the area from an otherwise average school. I interviewed the teachers, wrote the article, and sent it in. The editor said it would be published on the front page of the September 9th edition (it's a weekly paper). I guess that means he liked it, so I was pretty excited about that. The only thing is that I already have a lot to do right now, and doing everything for that article took a good amount of time, which is something I seem to be running low on these days. I'm going to give it a little longer at least, but I may decide to quit if it gets too demanding. Of course I don't want to, I like the work, but I'm afraid it might start affecting my grades. We'll see how it goes. As always, I'll keep you posted.

Introductions

     I suppose, like most beginnings, I should start with an introduction. My name is Seth Houston, and I'm a writer.
     My decision to become so is partly documented in a previous blog, "Thoughts of an Undecided Writer," and in various class assignments relating to the subject. If you're interested in reading the blog, you can do so at http://www.usmsethhouston.blogspot.com/. However, my present purpose isn't to give you my history, although I may decide to relate that in the future. My purpose now is to tell you about my current circumstances, my direction, and myself. I was born and raised in the town of Laurel, in the state of Mississippi. Laurel is in the southern part of the state, about three hours north of the coast. I'm currently in my freshman year at Jones County Junior College in Ellisville, a small town about half an hour south of Laurel. Right now, I'm inclined towards journalism. I'm taking a Monday/Wednesday journalism class, which means that I write for The Radionian, the school newspaper. I've also applied for an internship at The ReView, a newspaper headquartered in Laurel. If I'm accepted, my two newspaper jobs and 13 other hours of classes at Jones may prevent me from writing consistently.
     Now, a little about where I'm hoping to get to. I'm not really sure. I want to follow God's direction as closely as possible, it's just that I haven't received a whole lot of instruction yet. I know that I'm supposed to write for Him. Everything else is up in the air.
     I suppose you should know a little about where I'm coming from. After all, what we believe influences the way we look at everything, which influences how we write. This is true even for journalists, although many like to deny it. Journalists say they write only the facts, which may be true, but a lot depends on which facts you choose to present. For example, I once looked at several different articles about the same event, but the perspectives were extremely varied. In late May 2010, a ship carrying aid (food and medical supplies) for Gaza sailed through Israeli controlled waters. In most of the articles I read, the big bad Israeli navy boarded this peaceful aid ship and senselessly killed eight of the crew. I then found an article containing a statement from an Israeli official about the incident. According to him, the ship was sailing through a blockade that the government had set up to stop imports to Gaza. Apparently, Israeli citizens had been attacked with weapons smuggled into Gaza from ships, presumably ships posing as "peaceful," and as a result, the government decided to set up the blockade. This is a completely different picture than the other articles painted. What I'm trying to say is that journalists are biased just like everyone else, and sometimes that shows up in our writing.
    You might have guessed from the "pro-Israel" example and my earlier reference to "following God's direction," that I tend to be politically conservative. You would be correct. I don't really plan on writing about politics much, and if I do I'll try not to rant. I just thought you should be forewarned. Like I said before, this blog is mostly about my journey as a writer, and my observations along the way. Until next time, dear readers.