As a Conservative, I see politics to be a part of life. Politics are not my life. If I had never talked politics with a close friend, I wouldn't discount them as an individual. I would simply think that they are who they are, and we disagree about this or that subject. I have noticed something about the liberals I have met. When they find out that I am a Conservative, it is important that they characterize me because of my opinions. While I refer to myself as an "Objectivist", I see that as a part of who I am. It does not define me, it represents me (to an extent.). I think Liberals see "Liberalism" as more of a major component when it comes to who they are. That is odd to me, because they constantly have to change who they are. Liberals have been referring to themselves as "progressives" for a few years now. When they are called "Liberals" they frequently bring up some side conversation about why we have to use labels. I think that this is a red herring. I won't get into it now. I just saw an interview with Jeanine Garofilo about her part on the cable TV series 24. The interviewer said to her [I know you are progressive, and I want to know if you had any conflict starring on a show that supports torture]. For a Conservative, the question wouldn't need to be asked. I think a Conservative would think, "I am an actor, this is a job. While I don't agree with his (the writer's) politics, he has a profession and I do. He has opinions, as do I. We are not the same." For a Liberal, the fact that 24 does not represent their own opinions is an obstacle. For a Liberal, different opinions are not to be evaluated. Anyone with different opinions is to be silenced, not considered. More importantly, the arguments, conclusions and evidence that they present is not to be considered. I think that Revelations (mark of the beast), Atlas Shrugged, Brave New World, and 1984 have something in common. They are the future. This concept has multiple sources. The Bible is a religious text. Ayn Rand was a devout Atheist. I think that all stories represent life under Liberalism.

Gay marriage?

My grandmother is an old black woman. She goes to a small church that brings in very little money. The other members are mostly a lot of other old black people. Many of the women are raising their granddaughters, and they rely heavily on their shared concept of God to give them strength to manage the task. I think it would be safe to say that in the course of their lives, none of them has ever gone out to bash gays. I think it would be safe to say that in the course of a year, none of them even thinks about gays. Gay marriage, as I understand it, means that the people in this small church could be taken to court for not performing gay marriage ceremonies. My concern comes primarily from the precedence set by the case with the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts is a private (not taking tax dollars) organization that was taken to court over the inclusion of Homosexuals. To me, this is not like refusing to sell someone Gasoline at a convenience store, because the organization exists to promote its values (like the NAACP, NARAL, or the KKK) and form fellowship among its members. Before you start calling me a racist homophobe, please take into account the fact that I am a Black man who has had gay and Lesbian roommates. The decisions of the court are backed by the government. The decisions of the court are backed by men with guns. Sometimes, it seems like the gays fantasize that everyone who is not gay either loves or hates them. In truth, most of us generally go through our lives trying to live comfortably, keep a little money after taxes, and make it to Wal*Mart before the sale ends. We are pretty focused on ourselves, we understand the "Virtue of Selfishness". With that in mind, I wholeheartedly resist and reject the notion that the government should send men with guns to force churches that do not believe in gay marriage to perform gay marriage ceremonies, just as I would oppose the government forcing the NAACP to allow members of the Ku Klux Klan to attend. Does that sound like hate to you?

Unit 4: Assessment, Diagnosis, and Research of Psychopathology - Discussion

Mental illness in young children (1 of 2)

This unit’s reading, Younger children diagnosed with personality disorders, discusses the concept of preschool children being diagnosed with psychological disorders previously thought to be in adolescents and adults exclusively. Using critical thinking, what is your opinion on treatment at the earliest signs of mental distress in children? Support your ideas with specific references to the article and the text book

I think that is a catch 22. What sensible parent, given the knowledge that their child could have a psychological disorder, would not act to correct matter immediately? How long does it take a “normal” child to realize that they are being treated differently from their peers? Children live for attention, and they are very aware of the kind of attention they get, always comparing it to the kind of attention given to them with the attention given to those around them. If we start early enough, I am somewhat convinced that we can establish any disorder in any child. This, of course, does not negate the possibility that disorders can arise early on in life. I am merely pointing out the fact that conditioned response can arise at any time in life. Going back to a point I made earlier in the semester, the thing that makes brain science particularly difficult to try and trust is the brain itself. Among the researchers and the children in a study of this sort, I would be just as inclined to suspect a 'conditioned response' scenario among the researchers as the researched. If discovery of personality disorders were to have a negative effect on the researchers (A loss in pay, or perhaps a mild electric shock?), would they find as many children with personality disorders?

It's odd how quick we are to tamper with the mind. I noticed a drug on TV the other day for smoking. While the commercial was upbeat and positive, they mentioned suicidal tendencies as a possible side effect. I would love to know how many people died before they made that connection. I wouldn’t be the one to say “never medicate”, but I think we in the U.S. engage in too much overmedication.

It may sound cynical, but I wonder how long these disorders would last if there were no profit to be made in selling the cure. According to the CDC, Americans are overmedicated. If advertisements are any indication, the trend is growing. The effects of this overmedication affect our health, and our finances. America’s prescription drug addiction claims about one hundred twenty five thousand lives annually. To me, it sounds like the “war on drugs” has been fighting on the wrong front. It’s one thing die purchasing and using illegal narcotics, but these are people who die from using doctor prescribed medications, which are controlled substances to begin with. I am not questioning or complaining about the fact that elderly people take drugs to prolong the lives, and the quality of the time they have here. I am questioning the fact that drugs are marketed directly to the public, making “pit stop” by the doctors’ offices, as a legal formality.

CDC Says Americans Fatally Overmedicated. Available at: http://awurl.com/NnDvUqVuX [Accessed November 14, 2008].

Personality tests (2 of 2)

Although the short personality test you participated in was not as in-depth as those that are given by psychologists, it gives you a very good idea of the types of questions that are on the formal tests, as well as the personality profiles. Many employers require that their potential employees complete a personality profile before they are hired. What are some of the benefits a company would gain by requiring a personality profile of applicants? What are some potentially negative aspects of employers requiring a personality profile of applicants?

Personality profiles allow the company to establish a “baseline” of reference for the employee attitudes. The personality test may not tell you directly that a customer service agent is going to have a habit of getting short with elderly people, but the fact that everyone starts out with the same personality test may provide some additional metrics. The baseline score can be compared with actual performance. This sort of data mining can give evaluators an idea of what type of scores they want to look for in new hires. For example, you might find that potential hires that get short with the elderly have a lower amount of time spent with grandparents living nearby than hires who deal well with them. I am not inclined to think that a personality test alone can tell us a whole lot about an individual. Using that personality test, and comparing it to the results of others and observations in real life can tell us something about how similarities express themselves. By the same token, a personality test is only a test, and is nowhere near being infallible. One could argue that additional test data tells us more about the test than it does about the individual respondents. I would not recommend using Personality tests as the only determinant of whether or not to make a hire. Most people would rather be judged on individual abilities, not personalities. That’s why people frequently respond to nosy questions by saying “that’s personal”.

This has been a great day. I went hiking when I left the office, and I made it back in time to eat and go study. At the coffee shop, I sat and studied, and as I was leaving, a guy compliments me on having the gonads to sport a McCain sticker on my auto. We started talking, and as it turns out, he's not only a conservative, he's also the husband of the owner. We sit and chat well into the night. Each of us was somehow refreshed by the fact that we were not the last of our kind. He's a history major, so his part of the conversation included a lot of stuff I didn't know. I seem to know more about history than many Liberals I know in conversation, but in my own assessment, I am far from being a scholar. In the end, I came to a conclusion that I am going to seek to have broken. My conclusion is as follows. I have never met a conservative that could not comprehend Liberalism. I have also never met a Liberal that could understand what it means to be a Conservative. That is why people always ask “when did you become a conservative?”

High end math and I have a spotty, sordid history. I had considered describing it like a torrid romance novel, but it would be more accurate to describe it like diarrhea, a menstrual cycle, or something more banal and sadistic. I'm stressed beyond all recognition right now. This would have been a good semester to have no distractions. I could take distractions with networking, database programming, or even coding GIS systems (which rely heavily upon Trigonometry), but not High end math. I don't actually believe in 'Learning Disabilities' as the term is commonly used. To suggest that one might be 'disabled' when it comes to something as basic as learning is to suggest that we all can learn everything with equal ability. Whenever I meet someone who claims to be 'intelligent' and 'well rounded', I listen closely. I know that, sooner or later, they will show that they are not one or the other, or neither, but not both. We all can be 'intelligent' in some areas, but who in our society can be intelligent in enough areas to be considered 'well rounded'. Schools don't even focus on the basics anymore. One could easily graduate knowing that it's OK for Jimmy to have two daddies, but do so without being able to read the book that tells the story. For me, a high math requirement might have prevented me from graduating high school. I barely scraped by with the mid level math, but in my spare time, I code systems that make use of high level math Even now, I could code an application to do my High end math easier than I could consistently do it. As with all code related projects, the coding and development would take more time than I have to do the work. This morning, someone I used to be close to called me and started saying a lot of stupid words about something that I got involved in when I might have been better off staying out of. Funny thing about stupid words is, once they start flowing, they rarely stop on their own. Of course, I am a comedian at heart, one who genuinely enjoys stupidity. It's a great form of entertainment. I also know that there are times when nothing you say will help a situation, but everything you say will hurt it. In these situations, it is wise fool who knows that it is best to change the situation. I also know that respect, once lost, takes a long time to regain. With that being said, I won't bother to go into the bit about all we really have in life is time. I trust that all of my readers know that by now. For those of you who don't know, all we have in life is time. The difference between the great, the small, and the weak often (usually) begin (and end) with the decisions of the individual. How we spend our time determines us more than race, sex, or origin. I used to have a bad habit (as if I had ever abandoned any of my bad habits). I would skate forties of booze down town in my book bag, and sit and drink with the bums after me and my friends had finished our all night binges and they had hopped into their cars, well sauced. In Roanoke, the bums were pretty benign, and I was always looking for trouble, so I never felt threatened. One night, one of them said something to me that I won't soon forget. I don't remember exactly how he put it, but I am sure that my interpretation is better, anyway. It goes like this:

One day, we will wake up and find that we live in a world where people are no longer judged on race, sex, or nationality. The sad fact is that we will still be judged. We will be judged on what we say, and what we do. God knows us by our hearts, but we only know each other by our words and our actions. If you were to wake up tomorrow and find that you lived in that world, the world that Martin Luther King dreamed of, would you start to think of yourself as an individual, or wish for a group identity to hide behind?

I didn't like what he was saying, at the time, but it makes more sense to me, now. I don't get wiser with age, just more observant. The basic processing doesn't change, but the ability to process new and old information does. Is it like that for everyone?