“Why Modern American Schools Don’t Teach Subjects Such as Grammar Directly Anymore”

by an anonymous English teacher

Capitalization, punctuation, grammar, and spelling (CPGS) should often be taught directly so that students will speak and write logically and according to standard rules. Not teaching CPGS directly results in poor capitalization, punctuation, grammar, and spelling, and illogical and undeveloped thinking. One cannot consistently think logically or deeply if one does not know a language well, and (at least in most cases) one will not know a language well if one is not directly taught its rules frequently. One might end up fluent in the language without being directly taught its rules frequently, but one will not master it. Mastering a language means being able to speak, read, and write it in a very sophisticated way without making many mistakes.

What is the difference between directly teaching CPGS, which is what almost all English Language Arts teachers used to do frequently, and indirectly teaching CPGS, which is what many modern English Language Arts teachers are strongly encouraged to do now exclusively? (For the record, English Language Arts teachers used to be called just English teachers. I suppose that the name change has to do with some goofy political correctness.) Directly teaching CPGS is telling students in a systematic way how to properly do capitalization, punctuation, grammar, and spelling. For example, for capitalization, an ELA teacher might teach the students many capitalization rules and then have them do a capitalization worksheet; for punctuation, an ELA teacher might teach a particular punctuation rule and then have the students write a sentence or two that follows that punctuation rule; for grammar, an ELA teacher might make the students memorize the definitions of a noun, pronoun, verb, conjunction, preposition, prepositional phrase, adjective, adverb, interjection, subject, and predicate, and then teach students how to identify those things in sentences; for spelling an ELA teacher might regularly give students spelling words to memorize for upcoming regular spelling tests. It makes sense, doesn’t it? That is why it was done for decades, if not for centuries.

Indirectly teaching CPGS is usually something like this: Have students read, write, and speak and, while doing those things, figure out capitalization, punctuation, grammar, and spelling by themselves. I kid you not. Indirect teaching can be a useful supplement to direct teaching, but it should not be the only method. One should be told how to read, write, and speak well as one attempts to read, write, and speak well. One should not just be told, “Go ahead. Try to read, write, and speak well. You’ll figure it out.” No, you probably won’t, at least not to any great extent.

I used to be a wrestler, and my wrestling coaches didn’t just tell me, “Go ahead. Go out there on the mat and try to wrestle. You’ll figure it out and become a great wrestler,” which is what learning CPGS only through indirect teaching is like. Instead, my coaches taught me wrestling moves and parts of moves, and they had me practice them over and over again. Then they had me go out on the mat and wrestle. That is the type of ELA teaching that I recommend. Teach directly and indirectly mixed together, with the part of the direct instruction often coming before the indirect instruction. In other words, tell students a little about how to read, write, and speak well, and then have the students try to read, write, and speak well. I’ll tell you what, in a match between a wrestler who has had both good direct instruction and good indirect instruction versus a wrestler who has had just good indirect instruction, 99 times out of 100, the former will easily defeat the latter. Likewise, comparing readers, writers, and speakers who have had both good direct instruction and good indirect instruction with readers, writers, and speakers who have only had good indirect instruction, the former will almost always read, write, and speak better than the latter.

CPGS were directly taught to the vast majority of American students for at least a century, and since about 1968 with the rise of much hippie-ish thinking in American academia, they have been directly taught less and less. This is bad for individuals and society as whole, so why doesn’t the modern American public school system frequently teach them directly? Why is it that, in many American public schools, English Language Arts teachers are greatly pressured to NEVER teach CPGS directly? I am currently a public school English Language Arts teacher in the United States, and here is my honest answer. Get ready to be sad and/or angry.

1) Many people, even many ELA teachers and facilitators, are bored by CPGS, In other words. CPGS are supposedly too boring.

I did some research, and the following is the structure of a typical school hierarchy in Texas, which is where I teach. Principals and assistant principals have been omitted from this hierarchy because the focus of this hierarchy is on who decides what will be taught and how. The first mentioned is the most powerful group or person, and the last mentioned is the least powerful group or person: the voters, state legislature and federal government, Texas Education Agency and state board of education, district board of education, superintendent, executive director and/or assistant superintendent, director, facilitators, teachers, teacher aides, students. My understanding is that the national standards (a.k.a. the Common Core) and the Texas standards (a.k.a. the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) are good enough. The problems come when people such as the superintendent, executive director and/or assistant superintendent, director, and facilitators insist that they be implemented in a foolish way. For the sake of convenience, I lump all these these people under the title of facilitators. I define a facilitator as someone with authority over a teacher whose job is to tell teachers how they (the teachers) should teach.

To be fair, the facilitators are also told by their superiors to do stupid things such as lump fast learners and slow learners in the same classroom, and they might not be given adequate funds to educate students properly. Ultimately, I blame the voters for our less than stellar public schools. If they demanded and were willing to pay for excellent public schools, that is what they would get. Instead, too many cooks spoil the broth. In other words, the public school system is trying to satisfy too many people (such as people who do not want to reward and challenge the most advanced students for fear of upsetting the least advanced students, or people who do not want to separate poorly-behaved students from well-behaved students, even though the poorly-behaved students are greatly detracting from the education of the well-behaved students), and in the process the broth of public education satisfies very few people. It certainly does not satisfy the most intelligent, virtuous, and compassionate people–whether students, parents, or teachers.

2) Many people, even some ELA teachers and facilitators, lack the intellectual ability to learn some aspects of CPGS easily. In other words, CPGS are supposedly too difficult.

3) Some misleading studies insist that CPGS should not be taught directly.

4) Maybe the powers that be, such as certain sections of the government and certain influential plutocrats, want to keep the vast majority of Americans stupid so that they can be easily managed and manipulated.

5) Maybe facilitators want to undermine teaching CPGS directly so that they make teaching students how to read, write, and speak English more difficult. That way, they force teachers to rely on them for guidance and, thus, the facilitators get to keep their cushy jobs. For example, it would be easy to use a well-written grammar book to teach English grammar. Take that book away, and teachers have to find another way to teach. Then tell teachers that they can’t even teach grammar directly in any way but must rely on the “expert” guidance of the facilitators, and the facilitators have unwarranted job security.

6) English teachers and facilitators have been hearing, reading, and speaking against directly teaching CPGS for so long that they have been indoctrinated to believe that it is bad.

7) People seem to look cool and smart if they seem to know a better way of teaching than the well-established way, especially when the well-established way is very disliked by many people; and, as was mentioned in Reasons 1 and 2, many people are bored by CPGS and/or find learning CPGS very challenging. These anti-CPGS teachers and facilitators are like dentists who say, “Go ahead, eat all the candy you want, and don’t brush or floss either. The good news is that you can always have a great smile without doing anything unpleasant.” Translation: “Go ahead, forget about capitalization, punctuation, grammar, and spelling. The good news is that you will be smart, articulate, and well-respected without learning those things very well.”

8) Computers will fix our spelling and grammar problems for us. Don’t misunderstand me. Spell Check is great, and Grammar Check is OK. The English language has much illogical and confusing spelling, and Spell Check points out many possible mistakes. I love it! However, Spell Check does not catch homophone mistakes. (A homophone is a word that is pronounced the same as another word but differs in meaning, and may differ in spelling.) For instance, Spell Check will not point out that your is the wrong word in the sentence, “Your coming home tonight.” Your without an apostrophe is pronounced the same as you’re with an apostrophe, but has a different meaning. The latter, not the former, is the correct word for that sentence.

Grammar Check is sometimes helpful, but often its suggestions are unnecessary if not plain wrong. As far as I know, no computer program yet made is close to being better at grammar, capitalization, and punctuation than an intelligent, educated human.

Now, let’s talk about Autocorrect. At least in many cases, it is crap. It often makes mistakes that cause the user to seem very stupid or perverted. For example, you might text a friend, writing, “I’m so hungy I could eat a dog,” and Autocorrect might write, “I’m so horny I could eat a dong.” Unlike Spell Check and Grammar Check, Autocorrect does not even give the user a chance to approve or disapprove of the computer program’s suggestions, and it can be very difficult to turn off. I absolutely hate it, and, almost needless to say, an educated human’s language skills are generally far superior to Autocorrect.

Furthermore, even if a computer program exists that always capitalizes, punctuates, does grammar, and spells correctly, one should still know how to do CPGS correctly, because it makes one smart and it helps one master the language thoroughly. A person who has a computer program with perfect Grammar Check but who does not know grammar well is like a person who owns a vast library but has barely read a book: ignorant. It is generally better to have knowledge in one’s brain rather than in one’s computer or books. Moreover, most people still write with pen and paper, at least occasionally, and no Grammar Check that I know of will perfectly highlight handwritten mistakes.

OK, what can I do about this problem of CPGS and American public education? Not much. I have little power to improve the American public school system, and I need to keep my teaching job. I guess that I can tell the world the truth about this problem, at least through this article, and I can directly teach CPGS to an extent behind the facilitators’ backs. In other words, I can sneak in as much direct CPGS instruction as I dare. Not all change is progress, and most of the changes regarding the instruction of CPGS in modern American public schools are regress. I believe that our society is regressing to a noticeably less enlightened level when it comes to reading, writing, and speaking English.

“Don’t Elect Fundamentalist Christians”

August 14, 2015

John David Smith was raised to believe

that the Bible is inerrant.

Either literally or figuratively,

everything it says is true.

Of course, it takes a good preacher

to help people understand those truths,

and John David Smith listened attentively

to every good preacher that he could.

From them he learned that Jesus

will remove all true Christians from Earth

in an event known as the Rapture.

These lucky people will be rewarded in Heaven,

while missing the Tribulation.

Back on Earth,

the Antichrist will come to power

and will make a covenant with Israel for seven years.

This seven-year period will be the Tribulation,

during which there will be

terrible wars, famines, plagues, and natural disasters,

because God

(Who is love)

will be pouring out His wrath against human sin.

About halfway through the Tribulation,

the Antichrist will break the covenant with Israel

and make war against it.

He will even set up an image of himself

to be worshiped in the rebuilt Jerusalem temple.

The Tribulation will end with the Antichrist

launching a final attack on Jerusalem,

which will culminate in the Battle of Armageddon.

Then Jesus will return,

after being absent for thousands of years,

destroy the Antichrist and his armies,

cast them into the Lake of Fire,

and bind Satan for 1,000 years in some abyss.

During that 1,000 years,

Jesus will directly rule Earth,

and life will be very good there.

After that reign of peace,

Satan will be released, defeated again,

and cast permanently into the Lake of Fire.

Then Jesus will resurrect all dead people,

judge everyone,

eternally damn all evil humans and angels,

perfect the universe,

and establish the New Jerusalem as the eternal dwelling place

of all true Christians.

There will be no more sin, sorrow, or death on Earth.

John David Smith was not bothered

when there was trouble in the Middle East;

he was excited

because the Middle East would have to be in great turmoil

before Jesus would came back.

John David Smith was also excited

that Israel was founded again in 1948

because Israel had to exist before Jesus would come back.

And he rejoiced that Israel developed a nuclear bomb in 1966

because nuclear bombs would help make terrible wars.

The constant fighting between the Israelis and the Arabs

was a source of joy too,

because the Tribulation wouldn’t happen

if the Middle East remained peaceful.

Another reason that it was good

that Israel kept stealing land from its Arab neighbors

is that, according to the Bible,

God gave Israel the land

from the Nile River,

which is in modern Egypt,

to the Euphrates River,

which is in modern Iraq.

Thus, for the Bible to be true,

Israel would have to keep growing

until it reached those proportions.

Birth-control was evil because it showed a lack of trust in God,

who provided for all babies

(except for when He didn’t).

Banning birth-control was also good

because it caused overpopulation,

and overpopulation was good

because it caused wars and famines.

Stopping Global Warming—

more accurately called Climate Change—

was not a concern,

because Climate Change would cause drought

and drought would cause wars and famines.

It even seemed like a natural disaster!

Who knows?

Climate Change might cause plagues too.

Thus, Climate Change was like

one-stop End-Times shopping—

a single source for wars, famines, plagues, and natural disasters.

There was no need to worry about such problems.

Once humanity destroyed the Earth,

God would fix it

and make it even better.

John David Smith was elected president of the United States.

Besides hindering birth-control and the fight against Climate Change,

he encouraged Israel to replace

the Dome of the Rock with a new Jewish temple.

President Smith secretly rejoiced that

a billion Muslims angrily wanted revenge

for the destruction of their revered mosque,

because that would probably bring the Tribulation.

Besides, the temple had to exist

to fulfill End-Times prophecy.

To make a long story short,

a terrible war did happen.

Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Jews

fought against Fundamentalist Muslims

over a tiny desert land.

All cities in Israel were nuked,

along with many other cities around Earth.

A nuclear winter,

followed by a nuclear summer,

killed countless people, animals, and plants.

From a secure underground location,

President Smith surveyed the damage.

He was one of only a few thousand humans to survive.

There, he waited and waited and waited.

John David Smith died of old age,

never understanding why

the Rapture didn’t happen

and Jesus didn’t return.

“Where Are You in General?”

 by Jayson X

 June 15, 2014

 (“Nobody wants to kiss when they are hungry.” –Dorothea Dix)

1. Do you have all your physiological needs met? Do you have adequate air, water, food, shelter, clothing, sleep, excretion, homeostasis (things such as proper temperature, energy balance, and blood composition), and sex? If not, what can you do about it? THEN DO IT!!!

2. Do you have all your safety needs met? Is your body safe? Is your mind safe? Are your finances safe? Do you have reasonable protection against accidents and illnesses? If not, what can you do about it? THEN DO IT!!!

3. Do you have all your love/belonging needs met? Do you have an adequate relationship with your closest relatives? Do you have adequate friendships? Do you have a wonderful relationship of sexual intimacy? If not, what can you do about it? THEN DO IT!!!

4. Do you have all your esteem needs met? Do you respect yourself, and do others respect you? If not, what can you do about it? THEN DO IT!!!

5. Do you have all your self-actualization needs met? Do you perceive reality efficiently, and can you tolerate uncertainty? Do you accept yourself and others as you all are? Are you spontaneous in thought and action, without being reckless? Are you problem-centered and not self-centered? Do you have an unusual sense of humor? Are you able to look at life objectively? Are you highly creative? Are you resistant to enculturation but not purposefully unconventional? Do you care for the welfare of humanity? Are you capable of deep appreciation of the basic experience of being alive? Do you establish deep satisfying interpersonal relationships with a few people? Do you have experiences of great joy? Do you have a need for privacy? Do you have democratic attitudes? (For example, do you believe that all humans are of equal intrinsic worth, share power without relinquishing all power, think critically, discuss effectively, struggle against injustice, work cooperatively and with solidarity, feel empathy for all creatures, respect others and celebrate their worthwhile achievements, work for a better world, participate in worthwhile endeavors, respect differences, develop responsibility in yourself and others, and work toward helping generations in the present and future?) Do you have strong moral standards? Do you experience life like a child, with full absorption and concentration? Do you try new things instead of sticking to safe paths? Do you listen to your own feelings in evaluating experiences instead of the voice of tradition, authority, or the majority? Are you almost always honest? Do you avoid pretense, also known as game playing? Are you prepared to be unpopular if your views do not coincide with those of the majority? Do you take responsibility and work hard? Do you identify your defenses and have the courage to give them up when you should? Are you striving to do the best that you can in at least one worthwhile endeavor? If not, what can you do about it? THEN DO IT!!!

“True Religious Statements from Three Different People”

by Jayson X

April 15, 2008

Joe Deist: “The universe seems created, so it probably has a creator. Thus, God probably exists.”

Jim Atheist: “If God exists, God remains hidden and silent. God doesn’t seem very involved at all.”

Joe Deist: “One can believe that the universe seems created and that God is not very involved in the universe. After all, a clockmaker makes a clock but is not very involved with how the clock works after it is made.”

Jack Christian: “If God is not very involved in the universe, it does not matter much if Theism or Atheism is true. Besides the fact that God created the universe, God is irrelevant to us.”

Jim Atheist: “It is generally best to base one’s beliefs on reason. If I base my beliefs on superstition like you do, Jack, I am likely to believe in all the nonsense you believe, for example, the miracles and scientific inaccuracies of the Bible.”

Joe Deist: “Plus the evil morality promoted by the Bible.”

Jack Christian: “I understand your thinking, but reason alone does not lead one to believe that God exists and is completely good. Unless God is completely good, or at least very good, I don’t think that anyone of us wants God to exist. If God is very evil, God can torture us for all eternity! But if God exists and is completely good, I want God to be very involved with the universe because I want to be perfected, dwell in Heaven forever, and know that there is true justice. Relatively good people deserve to be rewarded, and relatively evil people deserve to be punished until they truly repent.”

Joe Deist: “Let’s agree that non-philosophical beliefs should be based on just reason because we want to embrace reality as it is, but philosophical beliefs should be based on reason, compassion, and hope so that our philosophical beliefs will be likely to be true while encouraging us to be kind and hopeful.”

Jim Atheist: “Then we would believe that God exists and is completely good without being superstitious.”

Jack Christian: “I would have to simplify my theology, but that would be a good thing. Reason is better than superstition.”

Joe Deist: “Well, now we all agree.”

“Who Am I?”

by Jayson X

May 14, 2014

Am I a body?

Am I a spirit in a body?

Am I a body and a spirit?

What is a spirit?

If a spirit is the memories and personality of a person,

how can the memories and personality of a person change

when the brain is damaged?

I don’t believe that I am a spirit.

In fact, I don’t believe that spirits exist.

That means that I am a body,

but what part of the body am I?

Am I my hand?

That depends.

I believe that my hand is part of me.

But what would happen if my hand got cut off?

Would it still be part of me?

No.

Am I my heart?

That depends, because my heart can be replaced

and I can keep on living.

In fact, my memories and personality might even remain unchanged.

Am I my brain?

Perhaps a brain can be transplanted,

but unlike a heart,

one’s memories and personality will be transplanted with it.

One’s memories and personality seem fundamental to whom one is,

if one is a human;

and the brain is the thing that stores the memories

and is the personality.

So I am my brain

if nothing else.

But what part of my brain am I?

Am I all of it,

or am I only part of it?

I don’t know.

For the sake of simplicity,

I will say that I am my brain

and every part of my body that is directly connected with it.

My brain is directly connected to my head,

and my head is directly connected to my neck,

and my neck is directly connected to my torso,

and my torso is directly connected to my arm,

and my arm is directly connected to my wrist,

and my wrist is directly connected to my hand.

Thus, my hand is directly connected to my brain

through my wrist, arm, torso, neck, and head.

If my hand is ever completely separated from my wrist by something like air,

it will then be disconnected from my brain.

While my hand is directly connected with my brain,

it is part of me.

If my hand stops being directly connected with my brain,

it stops being part of me.

When I breathe in,

that air becomes a part of me.

When I breathe out,

that air stops being a part of me.

The same is true when I drink water

and eat food.

I am a unique human brain in a unique human body.

That’s who I am.

The following is the letter I sent to my archbishop, asking to be restored to the rank of layman. Notice my carefully reasoned arguments and his dismissive response.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

August 8, 2002

Dear Metropolitan PHILIP:

I hope and pray that this letter finds you and everyone else at the chancery well. Paula, Zack, and I are fine overall. However, for about the past four or five years, I have been agonizing over what to do about being an Eastern Orthodox Christian and a priest. As you know, I took a leave of absence from the ministry for the last few years. Now it is time to officially quit.

In my heart and in my head, I am not an Eastern Orthodox Christian anymore, or even a Christian for that matter. Towards my last year as a pastor in Niagara Falls, I began to disbelieve in the miracles of the Bible. To me they seem unproven, farfetched, and unnecessary for salvation. God can save us without becoming incarnate, being crucified, being resurrected, and ascending into Heaven. If God is just, then God will save those who deserve to be saved, that is those who consistently try to be good people. God will not save people because they are able and willing to believe in the miracles of the Bible. If they exist, even demons can believe in miracles.

Moreover, I began to disbelieve in some of the Bible’s morality. The following are five examples. One, the supposed flood in Noah’s time was the act of an evil being. God murdered almost all land creatures because people were not doing what He wanted them to do. Surely there had to be a better way to handle the situation than mass murder! Besides, the flood fixed nothing. Humanity soon became as evil as ever, after the waters receded. Two, the supposed holy war to conquer and settle Canaan was evil because the Canaanites were there first, all people are intrinsically equal, the Israelites were the aggressors, and the Israelites murdered thousands (if not more than a million) of innocent men, women, and children with God’s encouragement and help.

Three, the supposed Atonement is evil because God should make people responsible for their own freewill actions. Those who voluntarily do evil should be punished, and those who voluntarily do good should be rewarded. People should not be punished or rewarded because of what Jesus did. Furthermore, God would be evil to create the universe in such a way that a murder would be necessary for people to be saved. I know that, at least compared to traditional Roman Catholic and Protestant theology, Eastern Orthodox Christian theology downplays the doctrine that Jesus saves people through his sacrificial death. But this doctrine is supported throughout the Bible. At least collectively, Mk. 10:45, Rom. 3:21-26, Heb. 9:11-15, and many other Bible verses teach that Jesus had to be murdered (or, if you prefer, sacrificed to God) for any human being to be saved. Four, the supposed existence of Christian Hell is evil because nobody deserves to be tortured for all eternity, not even Satan himself.

There are many more Christian doctrines I believe are evil, but, mainly for brevity’s sake, I will only attack one more. Five, it is evil to claim that people must believe in what is absurd to be saved. If God is completely good, then we can be saved without being hypocritical and dishonest. In fact, we must be un-hypocritical and honest to be saved. We should apply the same standard of reason to religion as we do to the rest of life. Although doing so is difficult at times, I am convinced that this is what God wants and this is what is best for humanity and the creatures whom humanity impacts. If God does not want us to think for ourselves, then God should come out of hiding and directly tell us what we should believe and do. Otherwise, we have to think for ourselves. If we chose to let the Church or some theologian think for us, then we still have thought for ourselves and made a choice.

In light of all this, please do three things. One, please believe that I like and respect all the bishops of the Archdiocese as much as I know them, including you. Two, please realize that there is much that I like and respect about Eastern Orthodox Christianity, but it is not my religion anymore. And three, please laicize me as soon as possible. I have been heading away from Eastern Orthodox Christianity for about four years now, and I do not believe that I will be coming back. I hope and pray that being laicized will bring me some long overdue peace of mind and help me focus on the present rather than regret the past or fear the future.

Sincerely,

Jayson . . .

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Jayson:

Greetings in the name of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ. I am in receipt of your letter dated August 8, 2002 in which you have denied the Holy Orthodox faith in general and your priesthood in particular. Needless to say, I am very saddened by the transformation that has taken place. Nevertheless, due to the nature of your heretical statements and clear misunderstanding of Orthodox doctrine, I have no choice but to depose you from the ranks of the holy and sacred priesthood and, needless to say, by your own actions and statements, you have excommunicated yourself from the Holy Orthodox Church, effective immediately.

I pray that in due time, the light of Christ, which illumines all men, will again pierce your heart with the truth and faith that was “once and for all delivered to the saints.”

In Christ,

Metropolitan PHILIP

Primate

Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America

An Introduction to Conservianity

by Jayson X

July 4, 2013

Conservianity \kən-sûrvʹē-ănʹə-tē\ is the religion of many 21^st century Americans. These people are called Conservatians \kən-sûrvʹə-chənz\, although perhaps none of them know it. The following are some of the dogmas of Conservianity.

1. Everything the Bible teaches is true, even the parts that disagree with the consensus of modern scientists and historians.

2. The rich deserve their wealth, and the poor deserve their poverty.

3. The United States is always on the right side of every war.

4. The United States has the right to attack any nation or change any foreign government.

5. True democracy is evil.

6. The separation of religion and government is evil when the religion is Conservianity.

7. It is good that some people are very rich and many more people are very poor.

8. Laissez Faire Capitalism is the best economic system.

9. The Second Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights is the most important amendment. The other amendments don’t matter much.

10. Everyone (with the possible exception of the Jews) must worship Jesus of Nazareth.

11. The United States is the holiest nation in history, and Israel is a holy nation too. Therefore, the United States must support Israel no matter what.

12. Raising taxes is always bad, and lowering taxes is always good.

13. Government exists to help the rich. It does not exist to help the poor.

14. The less the government helps the poor, the better.

15. It is good to destroy the environment, if doing so makes rich Americans richer.

16. The vast majority (if not all) abortions should be illegal.

17. Same-sex marriage should be illegal.

18. Flag burning should be illegal.

19. Consuming marijuana should be illegal.

20. Euthanasia should be illegal.

21. Anyone who criticizes any of these dogmas is a Communist.

22. Socialism is evil, and Communism is very evil.

“Seeking Missile: A Poem for My Beloved Son”

Sing to the tune of “Holy Diver” by Dio.

by Jayson X

October 13, 2012

Hmm-hmmmm.

Yeah, yeah.

Life often sucks,

But do your best ‘til the day you die,

Then meet God with head held high.

Damn excuses!

Be a success-seeking missile that flies

No matter how much you cry.

Gotta keep tryin’,

Seeking Missile!

Yeah!

God put us here

To teach and test us for what comes after death,

So make the most of each breath.

Death to theocracy!

Support religious-neutral government.

Make the Enlightenment.

Gotta keep tryin’, keep tryin’.

The rich are rich enough.

Help the poor and middle class,

But don’t just give them stuff.

Keep the lazy off their ass.

Seeking Missile,

Base all your beliefs and your deeds

On the three best wisdom seeds:

Rea-son—

Reason gives you truth,

Compassion gives you actions based on care,

And hope saves you from despair.

Seeking Missile,

Do your best until the day you die,

Then meet God with head held high. Yeah! Yeah!

Damn excuses!

Be a success-seeking missile that flies

No matter how much you cry.

Gotta keep tryin’, keep tryin’.

Gotta keep tryin’, keep tryin’.

Yeah.

Seeking Missile, God’s whistle,

Your heart is good.

Seeking Missile!

Seeking Missile!

You’re stuck here with seven billion just like you, Seeking Missile.

Oh, Seeking Missile!

Yeah alright!

Keep tryin’, keep tryin’, keep tryin’!

Seeking Missile!

Seeking Missile!

Oh, Seeking Missile!

Hmm-hmmmm.

“The Five Parts of the Human Personality”

by Jayson X

July 23, 2014

Many people believe that humans are composed of two things: bodies and spirits. God puts the spirit in its body at conception; and then at death, the spirit leaves the body, and the body starts to decay back into the inanimate matter from which it was made. However, I believe that humans are completely physical creatures. They are not ghosts in biological machines. Probably most of a human’s emotions and all of a human’s thoughts are the product of his or her brain. Whatever emotions are not the product of her or his brain are the product of some other part of his or her body, such as her or his gonads. A human body and a human self are one and the same thing.

This seems like as good a place as any to define the words emotion and thought. An emotion means something that is psychologically felt inside oneself such as fear, anger, happiness, sadness, lust, love, and hate. A thought is something psychological that is not felt. Instead, it is produced by the brain when the brain thinks. A thought can be an idea, an opinion, a plan, something that is imagined, and/or something that is mentally pictured.

Although emotions and thoughts feel different than other things that the body experiences such as hot and cold, and pleasure and pain; emotions and thoughts are equally a part of the body. Simply speaking, they are generated and felt by the brain.

The truth seems to be that the first humans came from non-human apes, and the first non-human apes came from some other kind of mammal, and the first mammals came from reptiles, and the first reptiles came from amphibians, and the first amphibians came from fish, and the first fish came from some other kind of multi-celled aquatic creatures, and the first multi-celled aquatic creatures came from single-celled aquatic creatures, and the first single-celled aquatic creature came from the Earth. In order to successfully reproduce, all these different types of creatures had to have some kind of programming which strongly encouraged them to do what was required to reproduce.

Very simple organisms such as bacteria might not lust, but very complex organisms such as humans do. Bacteria are probably like machines that do what they are designed to do, without any emotions or thoughts. But humans are like machines that do have emotions and thoughts. I believe that it is generally true that the more simple an organism is, the less emotions and thoughts it has; and the more complex an organism is, the more emotions and thoughts it has.

Simply speaking, there are five types of creatures on Earth. I will refer to them as Level One, Two, Three, Four, and Five Creatures because some are more simple or complex than others. The lower the number of the level, the more simple the creatures of that level are. The higher the number of the level, the more complex the creatures are.

Level One Creatures do not have physical feelings, emotions, or thoughts. They don’t feel (physically or emotionally) or think anything because they don’t have a nervous system. They are living machines that instinctively eat, excrete, breathe, and reproduce. Plants eat by consuming sunlight, water, and minerals. Probably most (if not all) single-celled creatures and plants are Level One Creatures.

Level Two Creatures have physical feelings, but no emotions or thoughts. They have a very simple nervous system, and with that nervous system, they feel pleasure and pain—two things that strongly encourage them to do what would generally increase their chances of successfully reproducing. Probably most (if not all) jellyfish, starfish, and oysters are Level Two Creatures.

Level Three Creatures have physical feelings, simple emotions, and simple thoughts. They have simple emotions and thoughts because they have simple brains. Like their ability to feel pleasure and pain, these emotions and thoughts generally encourage them to do what would increase their chances of successfully reproducing. They can feel fear, anger, and lust. Examples of common Level Three Creature thoughts include I should eat that, I should not eat that, I should attack, and I should flee. Probably most (if not all) fish, insects, amphibians, and reptiles are Level Three Creatures.

Level Four Creatures have physical feelings, and even more sophisticated emotions and thoughts. They have more sophisticated emotions and thoughts because they have more sophisticated brains. As far as I know, their emotions are equal to the emotions of Level Five Creatures, although their most sophisticated thoughts are not as sophisticated as the most sophisticated thoughts of a Level Five Creature. They can feel happiness, sadness, love, and hate as well as fear, anger, and lust.

Sophisticated thinking means the act of using one’s brain to consider something carefully. Unlike a fish, a dog can think, Should I eat that food on the counter? I want to eat it because it looks delicious; but I don’t want to eat it because I might get hit and yelled at, and (if I’m caught) my master will be angry at me.

A fish would not be able to consider so many variables when deciding to eat something or not. Instead, a fish would probably think, Is it good and safe to eat? Yes, then eat it. No, then don’t eat it. A fish would not worry about how eating the food makes another creature feel or the relationship between subordinate and master. Most mammals and some intelligent birds are probably Level Four Creatures.

The idea of intelligent birds brings up an issue: What about unintelligent birds? I assume that they have advanced emotions but simple thoughts. What level are they? For now, let’s consider them Level 3.5 and not worry about them. Our focus is on the levels of creatures that are found in the personality of humans. Humans were not descended from unintelligent birds or, for that matter, any type of bird; but it is possible that humans were descended from some other Level 3.5 species. Yet I will not worry about that species because I don’t know what it might be and it doesn’t seem to matter much. What does matter much is that humans have physical feelings; simple, medium, and advanced emotions and feelings; and five main parts to their personality.

Level Five Creatures have physical feelings, and advanced emotions and thoughts. They have advanced emotions and thoughts because they have advanced brains. Advanced thinking means the process of using one’s brain to consider abstract ideas carefully. Not only can Level Five Creatures feel and think in a similar way that the creatures of the lower levels can feel and think, they can contemplate abstract ideas such as those found in religions, philosophies, and sciences. With the possible exception of dolphins, whales, and some nonhuman apes, humans might be the only Level Five Creatures who currently live on Earth. Since humans evolved from creatures from the other four levels, the human personality has aspects of all four of the five levels.

All these aspects are important, and none of them should ever be completely ignored. In their own way, they all encourage survival and reproduction. Furthermore, our Level Two Part helps keep us from being trapped in a body that lacks physical feeling; our Level Three and Four Parts help keep us from being emotionless organic machines; and our Level Five Part enables us to learn profound truths and make wise decisions.

Personality means the combination of qualities that form an individual’s distinctive character; and character means the emotional, mental, and moral qualities distinctive to an individual. Most (if not all) humans have each of these five levels in their personality. It is like every human personality has five individual parts that come from these five levels of human and pre-human ancestors. A human personality is the result of her or his five parts and whatever part he or she chooses to side with on various occasions.

Sometimes all these parts agree, and sometimes they don’t. When they disagree, a human feels inner conflict. For example, the Level One, Two, and Three Parts might want to drink some sea water because the human is thirsty, but the Levels Four and Five Parts do not because they know that doing so will hurt more than help in the long run.

How are such conflicts resolved? Either the parts or factions in a conflict compromise with each other, or one of the parts or factions wins while the other part or faction loses. A faction is two or more parts of a personality that agree on an issue. In the temptation to drink sea water example, the Levels One, Two, and Three Parts were one faction, and the Levels Four and Five Parts were the other.

Perhaps the human will is either one part of the human brain that chooses between such options or it is the choosing itself. In the former case, the human will might be located in the parietal cortex. In the later case, the human will is caused by whatever part or parts of the brain are deciding at the time, and the part or parts which decide one time might not decide another time.

The former hypothesis (if true) might sound like undeniable proof of freewill, and the later (if true) might sound like undeniable proof of determinism. However, either freewill or determinism might be true, regardless of whether the human will is a thing that chooses or the choice itself. I happen to believe that humans do have freewill because it seems like I control at least some of my actions and thoughts.

Thinking debates within one’s brain and dreams are often dialogues between two or more of the five parts. It is best to understand these debates and the parts involved. All these parts should be respected and carefully listened to for at least two reasons: 1) They are part of who we are, so disrespecting any of them is disrespecting ourselves at least to an extent; and 2) any part and/or faction might be right or wrong in the dialogue.

Humans seem to think in two ways: consciously and unconsciously. Conscious thinking is thinking of which we are aware. Unconscious thinking is thinking of which we are not aware, at least while we are doing it. Generally (if not always), the conscious part of us might be a faction formed by the Level Four and Five Parts, and the unconscious part of us might be a faction formed by the Level One, Two, and Three Parts. Since the Level One, Two, and Three Parts are unable to use verbal communication by themselves, they often communicate through symbols. This explains why dreams are often symbolic, and this explains one reason why people often make, use, and enjoy symbols.

Christianity would still be Christianity without any symbols, but many Christians love the symbol of the cross so much that they decorate their churches, homes, and bodies with it. As far as I know, the same is true for every major world religion and its most popular symbol. Of course, many philosophies and political movements have symbols too. People just love symbols, partly because their lower levels often communicate through symbols.

In conclusion, we humans have different parts to our personality because we evolved from different kinds of creatures. This theory does much to explain why we are often conflicted; why we have a conscious and subconscious; why our dreams often have symbols; and why we value, create, and use symbols so much.