Blog - Debate About the Taliban

So, we all participated in the Taliban debate a few days ago on Wednesday and my position has changed slightly for the first time this semester. I initially chose to join the side espousing a military presence in Afghanistan for two primary reasons. One, the Taliban believe that the U.S. (and her allies in Europe) are direct products of Satan due to our support for Israel, our Christian values, and our belief in capitalism. Their primary objective involves destroying the West and completely eliminating all of its citizens in order to establish a worldwide caliphate for Allah. Two, the Taliban have no tolerance for individuals who happen to disagree with their radical beliefs. They torture and even murder innocent men, women, and children solely due to the fact that they do not concur with their extremist actions. In my eyes, a group that intends to subjugate our culture and that regularly bestows harm to innocent members of the Afghan populace is unacceptable. So, the question arises: how do we cease the Taliban from accomplishing their goal of global Islamic domination and precluding them from the continuation of their harsh civilian abuse? I still believe that a military presence can be employed to stop the Taliban forces if absolutely necessary, but I now feel that diplomacy could work based on the argument that one of the other sides expounded during our debate. The one assertion that compelled me to rethink my position involved the notion that an ideology, such as the one held by the Taliban, cannot be demolished (I’m fairly certain that Jono introduced this argument so all credit goes to him on this one). It’s impossible to eliminate every individual who embraces such radical beliefs because the ideology lives on and pervades other individuals who are observing it favorably from other countries. Adam Gadahn, an American-born citizen, joined Al-Qaeda in Pakistan during the late-nineties because he read, studied, and learned about jihad and Islamic terrorism while residing in California. If, by some miracle, all Al-Qaeda members in Pakistan were killed in the mid-nineties (before Gadahn officially joined them), Gadahn would still be alive in California and hence the ideology would remain extant despite the complete destruction of Al-Qaeda in Pakistan. I believe this logic can be applied to our Taliban debate. Even if our military destroyed all the Taliban forces in Afghanistan, there would still be individuals abroad who support and sympathize with their causes just like Gadahn did with Al-Qaeda. In the end, I support diplomacy because it is better equipped and has a better chance at decreasing the extremism of an ideology than our military currently possesses. 

Authoritarian Leadership

Authoritarian leadership functions just as efficiently and effectively as any other type of leadership in existence. For example, authoritarian leaders can accomplish a plethora of objectives within a rather short amount of time. Politicians and other governmental officials absolutely want to avoid lengthy debate and trivial quarrels in order to fulfill ambitious goals that will benefit their current societies and future generations. It is important to note that authoritarian rulers governed the Roman Empire throughout its entire history and their innovations pertaining to art, architecture, literature, infrastructure, politics, and entertainment continue to influence and impact our contemporary society. In addition, authoritarian leaders command military forces exceptionally well in times of intense war. Soldiers and other military personnel surely want to be told exactly which actions to perform by their commanding officers during urgent moments on the battlefield in order to gain the most certain chance of success over their enemies. It is definitely widely known that the authoritarian civilization in Sparta was far more superior militarily to all neighboring societies during the Peloponnesian War with the Spartans conquering, subduing, and completely dominating their democratic rivals in Athens. Furthermore, authoritarian leaders possess all power and authority within their respective societies. The majority of citizens around the globe absolutely desire a sole leader to guide them on the path towards greatness. It is fair to say that Napoleon Bonaparte sought to achieve this formidable task by inspiring the French populace, enacting the Napoleonic Code, setting up an efficient method of taxation, establishing government-run public schools, creating a much stronger centralized government to better serve constituents, and precluding utter chaos from befalling the country. All in all, authoritarian leadership functions extremely well in several circumstances as demonstrated by the realms of history. 

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32^nd President of the United States, exemplifies numerous qualities and characteristics pertinent to the representation of the quintessential leader. First of all, FDR aided in the dissolution of the Great Depression that befell the world during the twenties, thirties, and early forties. He convinced the U.S. Congress with his powerful persuasion to pass the New Deal which provided jobs to millions of unemployed Americans and supplied relief programs to millions more needy citizens around the country. This legislation proposed by Roosevelt made the government more responsible and much more friendly to the struggling populace of the time. Two, FDR guided the U.S. to victory and success during the Second World War. He was a tremendous voice of confidence during the entire global conflict by declaring courageously that the U.S. would continue to wage incessant battle until her enemies in both Europe and Asia collapsed completely. Not only did Roosevelt help defeat one of the most abhorrent alliances in history, he also established a U.S. war machine on the home front where every citizen collaborated together and contributed to the cause in some manner whether it was building aircrafts in factories or sewing uniforms for soldiers. Third, FDR was a polio patient since the year 1921. Having a disability, such as polio, was considered by many individuals of the time to be an inferiority and inadequacy. The fact that Roosevelt accomplished so much in the face of his subordinate medical condition demonstrates the extreme fortitude that he possessed and thus instilled in his fellow Americans. Four, FDR united both Republicans and Democrats on many concerns and doubts confronting the nation. He also appealed to adverse groups of individuals, such as union workers and businessmen, who held different beliefs concerning relevant topics to their prosperity. Five, FDR was a wonderful decision-maker throughout his presidency. He refused to make a final decision on any political, social, or economical issue until he had received all the necessary advice from the experts and the specialists surrounding him. Six, FDR truly cared about the well-being of the U.S. populace. He employed fireside chats to not only attain the trust and dependence of the citizenry, but also to enter the homes of a multitude of ordinary Americans as a friend who genuinely cared and supported them. His election to more than two presidential terms and the despondency felt amongst the masses upon his death attest to the certitude and the adoration that the American public held for him during his life. FDR is consistently regarded as one of most admired individuals of the 20^th century due to the optimism that he implanted, the honesty that he propagated, the charisma that he possessed, and the arduous conflicts that he conquered. All in all, Franklin D. Roosevelt saved our country and revived its national spirit during one of the bleakest and most dismal moments that history has ever experienced.

“He lifted himself from a wheelchair to lift the nation from its knees.” – Jean Edward Smith

Blog - Rogerian Activity

So, on Monday our professor had the entire class partake in an activity in order to introduce us to a new style of debate: Rogerian argumentation. The activity entailed the girls leaving the classroom and the guys remaining inside. After a few minutes or so, the girls were to return and each one was to sit down and speak individually with one of the guys. I can’t speak for the girls but the guys were instructed to ignore the girls completely the first time they spoke and then listen to them sincerely the second time they spoke. Honestly, the first time was difficult for me because my family raised me to always listen to those who speak to you. But, as instructed, I did everything possible to ignore Dominique (checked my cell phone, stared at the walls, played with my friend’s stapler, etc). I couldn’t help but shoot a few glances at Dominique and her eyes said it all: “I’m extremely angry and you’re being an asshole”. Eventually, she ceased speaking to me altogether. I felt terrible so I tried to persuade her to continue speaking but she refused adamantly. We both just sat there awkwardly until it was time to commence the second round where I could actually listen to Dominique and contribute to the conversation. It was so much more fun and easy than the first time around and, more importantly, her eyes weren’t full of anger directed towards me. So, what are my thoughts about Rogerian argumentation thus far? All in all, I think it can be an effective way to win an argument. My experience with Dominique, for instance, was the opposite of Rogerian argumentation and it resulted in anger, disappointment, and awkward silence. I feel that other methods of argumentation are much more likely to reproduce such negative sentiments as opposed to Rogerian since two of its main objectives are to avoid aggressive debating and to listen completely to the other side. Other Rogerian features I admire include gaining comprehension of the other side’s perspective, attempting to find common ground, and achieving a win-win situation. However, I’m not convinced just yet that Rogerian argumentation is the best way to win a debate. My main concern pertains to finding common ground and achieving win-win situations when debating extremely contentious issues such as abortion. I just feel that the passions and past experiences on both sides of that issue would preclude everyone from finding common ground and attaining a win-win situation. Anyways, I like Rogerian argumentation but I need to learn more about its features and its implementation before I espouse my complete support for it.

Blog - Debate About the Bible

So, I chose to dedicate this blog to the mini-debate in which I participated yesterday. I don’t know if the rest of you share the same sentiment but each debate went by, in my opinion, extremely quickly. I said one statement, listened to the rebuttals of my opponents, posed a few questions, and then it was already time to conclude the debate. I did not receive the opportunity to express all the information that I had researched so I thought I’d assert everything that I had missed here in this blog entry. To remind those who forgot or who were absent, I was a discussant on the side espousing the fiction of the Bible and, in case you were wondering, I’m not an atheist or irreligious or anything like that. I have my own beliefs, connections, and relationship with God. I just believe, as of now, that the Bible possesses much more fiction to it than actual fact. First, the story of Christ in the Bible relates substantially to several mythological characters that were generated years before the time of the Bible. Hercules, for instance, was born of a divine father and could also walk on water. Asclepius healed the sick and was also known as a savior. Dionysus was born of a virgin mother and also became immortal through resurrection. I am forced to conclude that the authors of the Bible were undoubtedly influenced by and admired these fictional characters impelling them to incorporate their characteristics to create Christ. Second, there are hundreds of contradictions within the Bible. I’ll write down some of my favorites along with the Book and specific chapter so you can check them out if you so desire: 1. God is warlike (Exodus 15:3) AND God is peaceful (Romans 15:33); 2. Killing is forbidden (Exodus 20:13) AND killing is commanded (Exodus 32:27); 3. God dwells in darkness (1 Kings 8:12) AND God dwells in light (1 Timothy 6:16); 4. Lying is forbidden (Exodus 20:16) AND lying is allowed (Joshua 2:4); 5. Divorce is permitted (Deuteronomy 24:1) AND divorce is restricted (Matthew 5:32). The fact that the Bible contains so many contradictions, inaccuracies, and inconsistencies compels me to believe that the Bible has more fiction to it than actual truth (a non-fiction piece of work, in my opinion, would flow more easily with very little speed bumps if it were, in fact, true). Third, several oddities can be found in the Bible. There is, for instance, a talking donkey and a talking serpent (donkeys and serpents cannot speak as far as I know). True, the serpent can symbolize a deceiving individual but I could use that same logic and say that both the Grinch and Santa Claus exist because they symbolize a bitter individual and a generous individual respectively. Also, walking on water is scientifically impossible and there is no solid proof of Noah’s ark ever existing despite all the rumors and sightings from religious groups and organizations. All in all, these are the primary reasons as to why I believe that the Bible is fiction. But, like I stated previously, I have my own relationship with God emphasizing love rather than condemnation.

Blog - Slam Poem

So, the following words are my slam poem. I read my slam poem aloud as if I were performing it in class and it recorded a few seconds over 3 minutes so I assume my slam poem is admissible. I hope all of you have fun reading it. Enjoy!

GOD, WHERE ARE YOU?

By: Kevin Rickman

God, where are you?

If you can hear my words,

please respond.

You know what I am.

You know what I’ve been through.

You know what my dreams, goals, and passions consist of.

Answer me

because I happen to be

only one of the five billion believers

that you have amassed over the centuries.

My belief in you has been genuine.

It has been real and sincere and true

since the first moment I was introduced to you.

But, God, I must confess that

my acceptance of your actions is decreasing,

my trust in your ideas is dwindling,

and my belief in you as a supreme being is diminishing.

God, why do you not answer my prayers?

If you can hear me,

just answer one plea.

I only desire love,

seek support,

and require guidance.

I ask you kindly,

I ask you politely,

and I ask you wisely.

I live up to my potential in life

and make certain that

I am the best person that I can be

to my friends and family

and to all the strangers who surround me.

And yet in return, you bestow me with emptiness.

God, why do you permit such calamities

to impact your people and societies?

If you can hear me,

extirpate all hatred, famines, and poverty.

Rid your world of all diseases, death, and destruction.

Terminate all the wars, violence, crime, torture and corruption

that have been thrashing your people

since the commencement

of your existence.

God, why do you deprive certain communities

of their innate rights as citizens of humanity?

If you can hear me,

please agree with me

when I asseverate that

women merit all the opportunities

to choose their actions pertaining to their bodies.

And that it’s contemptible to say

that being gay

is immoral and a threat.

My gay friends only want to marry,

start a family,

and share the same, exact feeling of love and affection

that my straight friends undoubtedly share together.

Cease ignoring me

and begin answering me

because, God, I cannot wait much longer.

I’m disheartened when I go to church searching for you,

dejected when I read the Bible expecting to find you,

and dispirited when I pray to you

helplessly and hopelessly

to ameliorate the issues confronting me.

But believe me, God, I do not want to corroborate

all the atheists and all the agnostics and all the scientists

attempting to disprove of your existence.

Please, demonstrate to these individuals that

they are the ones who are wrong and that

you are the one who is right.

And, God, heed my words with caution

whether you’re sitting in that corner

or sitting over there in that corner

or standing right in front of me

or standing right behind me

or looking down upon me

as these words flow out of my mouth

because, God, I can guarantee that

you will have one less believer if

my prayers continue to be disregarded,

all global dilemmas continue to unravel,

and the rights of innocent individuals continue to be withdrawn

right before my eyes.

God, you have failed me.

But no, I refuse to cease believing just yet in you.

Please, please, please

I beg of you

to answer my query:

God, where are you?

Blog - Becoming Banksy

So, we all participated in the “Becoming Banksy” project on Monday. I’ll be honest and admit that the project didn’t capture my interest when our professor first explained it to us in class. The thought of surreptitiously going around campus leaving a message pertaining to education for other individuals to admire and interpret did not exactly fit into my definition of excitement (probably due to the fact that I had never been introduced to such an assignment in my entire life) but, in the end, it was actually the most fun I encountered this semester out of all my classes. Not only was designing my project enjoyable and observing the other projects situated around the campus an interesting experience, it was also relieving to emit one of my viewpoints about education to the college. I felt that this assignment permitted us, as students, to better transmit our educational messages to a plethora of individuals, including both students and faculty members, within a relatively short amount of time. In fact, I arrived at school on Monday around 8:00 in the morning and I noticed a group of individuals composed of five students and two of the college librarians just staring at one of the exterior walls of the library. As I got closer I noticed that they were actually staring at one of the Banksy projects (it was the UCLA one resembling the painting done by Banksy on the Gaza Strip with the two kids) that was taped to the wall. Some of the students took pictures of it with their phones and the librarians just stood there with two of the most amazing “WTF” faces I have ever seen. It wasn’t even time for most classes to commence, and yet, individuals around campus were already analyzing the educational messages we were attempting to impart. Thinking about it now, education turned out to be the ideal topic for two reasons. One, education has a multitude of imperfections associated with it (tenure, counselors, NCLB, tuition, etc), which made it simple for each of us to choose a particular imperfection to depict on the campus. Two, education still remains a contemporary issue that possesses a negative impact on all students, which made it that much more compelling for us to get our voices heard and understood within the college community. All in all, “Becoming Banksy” was a great success. I wouldn’t mind doing it again.