for the project i presented the liberal side of capital punishment. they are against it because they see it as a cruel act of vengence where innocent people are often victims. death penalty is more pricy due to court expenses and homocide rates are higher in states that enforce the death penalty. "if you are not prepared to support a system that is going to execute an innocent person some day, you better not vote to support htat system." i think that quote says it all. it has killed innocent victims in the past and will inevitably kill innocent victims in the future. people can be set up to look like theyre the murderer when they were really part of a large scheme against them. they can also simply be in the wrong place at the wrong time. if youre willing to support something that kills innocent people, go for it. you may think that the pros of killing the many guilty outweighs the cons of killing the few innocents, but liberals think one innocent life outweighs 1000 guilty lives.
im pretty liberal on this issue as well. i think the death penalty is kinda outdated and flawed but not cruel. personally if i murdered someone, i'd rather face the death penalty than the "life penalty." living behund bars with brutal inmates for the rest of my life does not sound appealing. the problem is that not all people feel that way. the guilty murderer may actually prefer to live a long life in jail. maybe they want to write down their thoughts and observations in hope of leaving a mark on society. maybe they have loved ones that they still want to communicate with during visiting hours. i feel that the family of the murdered victim would be satisfied knowing that the murderer is dead, but maybe even more satisfied knowing theyre alive and living a dreadful and tedious life. so i kind of fall in the middle on this issue. maybe the choice should not be up to the jury, but rather up to the family of the murdered victim, or maybe even the prisoner?

i took the liberal side for the class discussion on gun control. liberals dont think that guns should necessarily be banned from homes, but htere should be limitations on who can own a gun. its more dangerous to have guns in the hands of the wrong people than it is to live unprotected. the only reason youd need a gun in your home would be to kill someone who is breaking and entering and we have 911 to handle that. what about children who know their parents have a gun? will they think its ok to carry a weapon? what if they steal it and play with it? its not ok for EVERYONE to own one, there should be limitations, laws, lisences, tests etc before letting someone buy a weapon.
personally im kinda torn on this issue. i agree that it is people that kill people not guns that kill people, but why would you give guns to people who kill people? you could argue that if a person has the intent to kill, they will find the means no matter what the weapon, so it doesnt even matter if they have a gun or not. i still htink the gun makes a significant difference. when a person has a gun in their hand and they have the intent to kill, half a second later the other person is dead. with lets say a baseball bat or a sword, theres more of a personal feel to it, and it is mentally harder to kill someone. the gun can be more easily regretted because of how easily it can kill. so what im saying is that the gun gives the killer unwanted power sometimes. maybe it isnt always the person killing the person, its often just the accidental or impulsive slip of the finger. guns shouldnt be given to people who have no control of their hands in a tense situation. so i guess in the end i am liberal on this issue. i think that before someone is issued a gun lisence there should be psychological tests on them to see how they respond to certain stimulations, written tests to see if they know the laws behind owning a gun, and criminal history reviews. if they seem worthy of controlling such a powerful weapon, they should have the right to protect themselves

same sex marriage

it was hard to take the conservative view in class today but i had to do it. gay marriage goes against human nature because it violates the sex and reproduction drive. it also violates and offends many popular religions in america. psychologically a child needs both a mother and father in order to grow up with a balanced and normal psyche. same sex marriage would increase the rate of "disfunctional" families in America.

i strongly disagree with all of the above points. first off human nature is far more than just a sex drive. we are given the gift/burden (however you wanna look at it) of emotions and intellect. if a person feels like they fit with another person perfectly and have strong feelings of love towards them, they should have the right to get married. its as simple as that. the conservative point that actually infuriates me is the religious denial. first off the church shouldnt mix with the state, so the government shouldnt have anything to do with marital union. unfortunately it does have a say and it denies same sex marriage because supposedly god told us we cant do it. i find it funny that christianity also states that god put us on this planet to love unconditionally... hmm. didnt realize there was fine print (the one condition is that a man cannot intimately love a man and a woman cannot intimately love a woman). what a conflicting and repressive religion. even psychologically, same sex marriage can work. plenty of people have made it fine in life being raised by only a mother figure or only a father figure. also notice the word FIGURE. the mother figure doesnt actually have to be a woman. a gay man can be feminine enough and possess mother qualities to raise a baby. a child growing up in a world where they have to accept that their parents are gay and married is actually a benefit to society. if they can accept homosexuality, they can also accept racial differences, social differences, class differences etc etc. they WILL be taught to love under ANY condition, on the contrary to religions which teach you that certain types of love arent ok. since same sex marriage is illegal in most states, the only advice i can give to couples who want to get married is that they should ignore the ignorance of the government and find other ways to unionize themselves with eachother. im sure there are ways to give vows without getting the law involved. marriage afterall is just a label, theyre still free to always be with eachother and live with eachother and adopt etc... why would they need to get the stubborn law involved with their love life?

pro choice pro battle

i took the conservative side of the abortion debate in class but i struggled because i dont necessarily beleive in it. they make valid points but they only do so to gain sympathy. yes it is a living cell, yes the child could end up being something great, and yes the woman could be scarred with the decision for the rest of her life. it is murder.
i personally take the liberal side however. all of the above are true, but when it comes down to the decision, IT MUST BE UP TO THE PERSON CARRYING THE BABY. it really is as simple as that. im all for people fighting abortion and spreading the word of how cruel it can be, but it should stay as opinions and arguments and not as laws. the woman should be the one who takes in all considerations and ultimately decides if she wants to let the baby live whether it was a rape or a misuse of contraception. the battle should still be fought by all means but the government should withdraw its power over the issue. they physically cant control the woman because she could easily get an illegal abortion if she strongly felt she and the child would be better off unborn.

cycle of cool

"It's a shame that the people who are listening to you the most are only interested in you because they want you and your peers to buy their product."
this is true, genius, and evil. The companies make you feel cool, take you in for a few questions, then turn everybody else into you so you lose what made you cool in the first place. In the process they make lots of money. I think its interesting how it actually works like that. I dont think its unfair though its kinda like its part of a natural cycle of "cool." The trend has to die eventually so new trends can sprout. The one who can somehow beat these marketers at their game is the true Cool Kid.

Lets pretend we dont exist...

Its hard to point out just one Of Montreal song but one of my favorites is Wraith Pinned to the Mist. its simple poetic and chill:



Let’s have bizarre celebrations
Let’s forget who forget what forget where
We’ll have bizarre celebrations
I’ll play the Satyr in Cypris you the bride being stripped bare

Let’s pretend we don’t exist
Let’s pretend we’re in Antartica

Let’s have bizarre celebrations
Lets forget when forget what forget how
We’ll have bizarre celebrations
We’ll play Tristan and Izolde but make sure I see white sails

Maybe I’ll never die
I’ll just keep growing younger with you
And you’ll grow younger too
now it seems too lovely to be true
but I know the best things always do

let’s pretend we don’t exist
let’s pretend we’re in Antartica



this song is kind of about a getaway or escape from every days problems. lets just sit back and relax and pretend we dont exist. if we dont exist, we can have celebrations about the world around us rather than complain about whatever tough situation we're in. antarctica has two connoations as it is a cold place. it means lets pretend we're cool if were feeling kinda lame and unwanted. and lets cool down if we're pissed off at something.

this song definately has to do with my personality and way with dealing with things. i do celebrate bizzare things that others dont really take note of. whenever im really mad or sad im usually able get away for a while and think about a solution and come back cool refreshed. i guess i never really considered this song having much to do with me or way of life besides the shirt i wear that says "i dont exist." i got the shirt before i heard this song.

Not Of America

Values of our generation:
-money
-excess
-status
-beauty/appearance
-sex
-pop/low culture
-bulk
-technological advances

Topics that Of Montreal covers:
-love
-depression
-Self realization
-nonconformity
-drugs
-death
-beauty


Although the band Of Montreal is classified as Pop, it doesnt seem to fit in with actual Pop culture. I feel like were still in a generation where everyone just wants to get rich and live in a mansion. in fact like 2 seconds a go i overheard the disney channel in the other room and a girl was complaining dramatically and said "im so tired that no amount of money could get me off this couch." ...as if money is the greatest thing in the world. so with wanting to become rich people want to buy things they really dont need like heated bathroom floors or a 5 headed shower. in the song Lysergic Bliss the singer Kevin Barnes sings "Wonder how I'm managing to smile oh when I can't even pay my rent." yes it is possible to be happy without money.

the values of American people are very much based the media's messages that are forced into peoples unconscious minds. People in this country stongly value tv shows, film, music, internet, etc that are the sources of these values and thus become conformists without even meaning to. in The Past Is a Grotesque Animal he sings about how he feels like he has trouble fitting in to society "but it's like we weren't made for this world, though i wouldn't really wanna meet someone who was." he doenst conform to society or fit in but he doesnt care because he'd rather have his individuality than his social comfort.

his view of beauty his also much differnt than this generation's take on beauty. We look to magaizines like cosmopolitan, tv shows like America's next top model and various other sources and connect all the dots to try and idealize a perfect beauty. most of what america finds beautiful these days is artificial and, in a sense, logical. kevin barnes is more interested in aesthetic beauty as we can see when he sings "Come disconnect the dots with me poppet come disconnect the dots, Come disconnect the dots with me poppet, come disconnect the dots. It's so beautiful, Our lunacy, It's so beautiful." what it means is that in order to appreciate beauty we must look past rules and logical "connections" and standards and see everything for what it actually is. what this means that that EVERYTHING is beautiful if you look at it for long enough. i think thats much different than how america classifies with beauty. for example i cant imagine a tv show trying to portray an abandoned shoe factory as beautiful when kevin barnes would argue its a work of art.