Just the other day, I was listening to George Carlin's "It's bad for ya" to laugh on the way to Miami to visit my Step mom's family for Thanksgiving. I may recall we were at the airport when I reached his famous segment, "Child Worshiping". I must say, while I agree and diverge with many of Carlin's ideas, I did not give to much thought into this one, after all, it could've been one of his silly moments when he hilariously approaches a non-important subject, yet it did not occur to me, after meeting with my little cousin, that this was, perchance, one of the most important issued Carlin ever addressed, sparking further inspiration for me to write this.
You can watch the segment at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFN3CtcYs0Q.
My twelve year old cousin, or perhaps, my step mom's niece, is one of those persons who has talent waiting to develop, little by little, in order for her to eventually make a pretty good living out of it. She dances magnificently and has great load of energy and stamina difficult to find in dancers nowadays. I also met with her eleven year old friend, who, I shall confess, sucks at the dance floor. Anyway, I noted a trophy displaying proudly in her studio that read "Renaissance Middle School Dance Contest". Fair enough, it did not seem like a big deal until I set my eyes on the same trophy, this time at my cousin friend's living room. So, did they both get the same merit? That kind of sucks; If one has a talent that makes him or her different from the norm, I personally think that person ought to be awarded independently from the rest of the losers. Fine by me if you want to give the other kids trophies reading "participant", but this was not the case. It was not a group merit, they all danced separately and where awarded the same freaking trophy. Much to my dismay, my cousin's conclusion was that she and her friend, along the other fourteen kiddos, demonstrated the same agility. Geez!
Comparing and contrasting to this event, the eleven year old also showed an intellectual and comprehensive level notoriously higher than that of my cousin's; I was not only astonished by the fact she owned a copy of "The Feast of the Goat", but also because she took the opportunity to express her own opinion, in which she concluded that "calling Balaguer the 'puppet president' was merely necessary since, from an historical point of view, the reader already knows he was supposed to gain a great deal of power". Outstanding, ain't it? I was barely surprised she was on the Honor Roll; however, I was utterly perplexed as I observed my cousin's Honor Roll diploma hanging in her bedroom. Seriously? We're taking about a kid who thinks Guadalajara is a kind of food! Something is screwed up in here. The school was nice and honest enough, though, to include her academic range in the document: 70% to 80%? That shalt be honored!
While we go back to the good ol' self esteem movement taking responsibility for this atrocity, we must also take into account that this, by all means, is not psychologically healthy for either girl. Just as I watched my cousin saying everybody had the same abilities, I was hearing the words reminiscent of a Politically Correct interest group. A talent is supposed to give you a feeling of individuality, for you can do something most people can't. Meriting children with no talent takes the imagination and inspiration away for those who do bear one; they're going to say, "well, if everybody's good at it, what's the point?". Furthermore triggering early that angst that ought to be found in adolescence, for their quest for finding what makes them different is going to result futile. This might not be the case for my cousin's friend since she might also develop critical thinking skills that will lead her to understand how ridiculous the idea of trying to improve every child's self esteem through undeserved praise is, but what about those toddlers who are still living in a "Disneyland state-o-mind" where everything is so shallow, narrow, innocuous, and naive?
No, if the kid isn't good at something, let him come to be by himself! In contrast to those who did not succeed because they could not figure a way to "get out of the system", picture, as Carlin said, those who find out they suck at life when they are in their early 20's. All problems and dilemmas in society can be traced back to the issue people don't want to be realistic.
I took the advantage to create a list of possible consequences for the majority of these kids if this self-esteem lingo goes on:
*Those who have a talent might: Find a way to make their talent known to the masses (To my way of thinking, I find this unlikely since now big entertainment tycoons randomly choose the prettiest face among the bunch and, basically, make a fake talent out of it) - Grow as normal adults, go to a regular university, and live carrying the weight they could've been bigger than Jesus. - Develop a Napoleonic complex where they, somehow, feel inferior to those who show no skill at all and are still rewarded for this (This can actually be developed in the matter of loathe and jealousy, or what I like to call the "Ted Bundy" Complex)
*Those who bear no skill might: Never find their real talent. - Live with an arrogant ego their entire lives. - Grow as accomplished human beings, but only if this act of not recognizing true talents extends to adults, too. - Eventually grow as politically correct activists who think "every child is special" ,but paradoxically "the same".
I think that, for the sake of the argument, I might as well add a few facts:
*A pole dancer has unique dancing moves
*Fred Phelps is an avid public speaker
*The Pope is a great at modifying statements and adorning the truth
*Fidel Castro was (probably is) a hell of a leader
*Lee Harvey Oswald was a great sniper
*Elvis was not a black guy
*George W.Bush was not born to be president
*Dane Cook is not funny
*Not every Latin American celebrity is a stand up comedian
*George Carlin? Not the best Irish. Or Catholic
Well, the latter is that we shouldn't be wearing the same clothes, or at least, not during the summer.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
A Delusional Reality
I personally want to thank Brenda Siles upon her influencing my introduction.
On the way to the old highway to Leon, in the top of an almost glorious and platonic hill, stands a magnificent and meticulously made Christian temple where the deepest sermons and the most beautiful analogies of life are heard. At the foot of the hill lays one of the poorest towns in Managua; corruption, disease, and empty promises had brought that little place into ruins. It is quite horrid to see all these priests, driving their luxurious vehicles, gathering to spread a supposed gospel of humility, reflecting the inequality of income in such a devastated country as Nicaragua above a town where not even the most skilled raconteur could bring happiness to those toddlers begging for a childhood on the streets, waiting for the real world to be changed by some joyful fantasy. These events might even detail a complex web of sociological and psychological fears that make the people indifferent regarding their country, for those who thought it was a good idea to change the status quo and approach the government with a deontological have been silenced in order to keep the people in a straight and untrustworthy line.
There are two basic social classes: Those who have money and those who do not. In most instances, neither class pays any taxes nor holds any respectable job. Those who do pay their taxes are characterized for being foreigners who, unfortunately, earned a citizen status and have a high standard of living. As for the ones who do not pay their taxes, most of them have the vicissitude of holding a public position or knowing somebody in the latter. It might be as simple to say that those who have some money pay all the taxes, whereas the poor are not in the position of doing so and the rest, who have money, do not wish to do so. This bypassing of economic assessments has sparkled some international controversy, Nicaragua being one of countries who lists the bottom of the corruption perception index list and the GINI coefficient, yet it does not seem to awake those revolutionary ideals that the Sandinista government of the 1980's exploited in utter dismay. People are often stricken by the scare of being murdered if said values are tried to be evoked. The teleological approach the government has been using all this time, “everything seems okay to you and to us”, has blindfolded those who could not see the fire in the first place, causing a feeling of conformity upon them.
There are also two major political parties that have controlled that respective sector since the “Democratic Transition” period: The FSLN, which follows a Marxist-Leninist doctrine, and the Liberals, or PLC, which are molded after a combination between the basic principles of Republicanism and Libertarianism. The major flaw between this bureaucratic struggle for power is that they have made people believe that they have freedom of choice; of course, there are other parties as well, but these hold less than the three percent of the total public support. Whereas people should vote for one or for the other, the outcome would most likely be the same; Before favoring private sectors and establishing a libertarian economy, the government has to make an effort trying to increase the rate of public education and college and High School drop-outs due to economic necessity, which is unlikely to happen, or at least in such an abrupt manner, causing the country to be stuck in the same problems. Opting for the current government would not be a good idea either, for the amount of subterfuges within the governmental system could increase, not to mention there is no abiding to the principles of a limited democracy, regardless of what economic system the country leans towards to, but in a world where ignorance and poverty prevails, the public opinion is not going to fall in favor of those anew groups that actually introduce great solutions to the problem, for this groups are short of members; therefore, the people might choose whoever seems to promise prosperity to the country, when, in reality, will only crush that hope into bits.
The media also attributes to the delusional thinking there is freedom of choice. Not only are some of the largest newspapers run by big companies, but these also own several radio and television stations. The curiosity lays in the fact that the government does the exact same thing, opening and publishing several stations and newspapers that tell the people the country is doing fantastic. There seems to be no solution since the private media is busier attending matters they think is are of uttermost importance, such as sensationalist stories and empty publicity. Those who dare to publish their opinion about what is going on are either censored by the government owned newspapers or put in a tiny section called “opinions” or “the people” in the private papers, when, at this circumstances, ought to be in the front page. An average reader finds Sandinista-sponsored stories in one side of the road, or crudely chronicled events in the other. With all this explained, it should be implicit the majority of the Nicaraguans barely have access to a newspaper might believe a fallacious story, or say “why bother” and turn their heads back.
Religion also appears to be a factor that influences how the clock ticks. From the beginning, the country was set to be secular and independent from any church, notoriously the Roman Catholic doctrine, yet several politicians appeal to the fear, rationality, and nationality of the people by saying a good Christian Nicaraguan is someone who votes for John Doe's party. Some go even further by saying they abide to the Christian standards of the constitution. This also reflects in the form of bandwagon, where others convince those who deliberately express unconcern regarding a definite political affiliation, pushing them into voting for the party who “follows the path of God”, which is an euphemism for “has powerful political connections with the Catholic Church”. As long as the sovereignty of the nation is not threaten by this standard and separated its values from a religious doctrine, less problems should arise. The truth is, this is hardly achievable in this society.
Some might say reform is inevitable, and that an enlightenment period shall come for Nicaraguan society. Others say, like the folktale, that the Devil is dead; economic, social, and political stability has already been reached. A few know something is wrong, but expressing that concern beholds impossible. But at the end, why do I need to comment on this? What is my position? Why would I, a foreigner with no expertise on Nicaraguan history argue the need to change? After all, it all comes to denizens taking that position, but would not be that the last piece of the puzzle to make this country a dystopia? To isolate society from the opinion of a world out there? It seems we are getting closer to that reality. It would be convenient to educate people freely on the subject and letting them choose what future they want.
On the way to the old highway to Leon, in the top of an almost glorious and platonic hill, stands a magnificent and meticulously made Christian temple where the deepest sermons and the most beautiful analogies of life are heard. At the foot of the hill lays one of the poorest towns in Managua; corruption, disease, and empty promises had brought that little place into ruins. It is quite horrid to see all these priests, driving their luxurious vehicles, gathering to spread a supposed gospel of humility, reflecting the inequality of income in such a devastated country as Nicaragua above a town where not even the most skilled raconteur could bring happiness to those toddlers begging for a childhood on the streets, waiting for the real world to be changed by some joyful fantasy. These events might even detail a complex web of sociological and psychological fears that make the people indifferent regarding their country, for those who thought it was a good idea to change the status quo and approach the government with a deontological have been silenced in order to keep the people in a straight and untrustworthy line.
There are two basic social classes: Those who have money and those who do not. In most instances, neither class pays any taxes nor holds any respectable job. Those who do pay their taxes are characterized for being foreigners who, unfortunately, earned a citizen status and have a high standard of living. As for the ones who do not pay their taxes, most of them have the vicissitude of holding a public position or knowing somebody in the latter. It might be as simple to say that those who have some money pay all the taxes, whereas the poor are not in the position of doing so and the rest, who have money, do not wish to do so. This bypassing of economic assessments has sparkled some international controversy, Nicaragua being one of countries who lists the bottom of the corruption perception index list and the GINI coefficient, yet it does not seem to awake those revolutionary ideals that the Sandinista government of the 1980's exploited in utter dismay. People are often stricken by the scare of being murdered if said values are tried to be evoked. The teleological approach the government has been using all this time, “everything seems okay to you and to us”, has blindfolded those who could not see the fire in the first place, causing a feeling of conformity upon them.
There are also two major political parties that have controlled that respective sector since the “Democratic Transition” period: The FSLN, which follows a Marxist-Leninist doctrine, and the Liberals, or PLC, which are molded after a combination between the basic principles of Republicanism and Libertarianism. The major flaw between this bureaucratic struggle for power is that they have made people believe that they have freedom of choice; of course, there are other parties as well, but these hold less than the three percent of the total public support. Whereas people should vote for one or for the other, the outcome would most likely be the same; Before favoring private sectors and establishing a libertarian economy, the government has to make an effort trying to increase the rate of public education and college and High School drop-outs due to economic necessity, which is unlikely to happen, or at least in such an abrupt manner, causing the country to be stuck in the same problems. Opting for the current government would not be a good idea either, for the amount of subterfuges within the governmental system could increase, not to mention there is no abiding to the principles of a limited democracy, regardless of what economic system the country leans towards to, but in a world where ignorance and poverty prevails, the public opinion is not going to fall in favor of those anew groups that actually introduce great solutions to the problem, for this groups are short of members; therefore, the people might choose whoever seems to promise prosperity to the country, when, in reality, will only crush that hope into bits.
The media also attributes to the delusional thinking there is freedom of choice. Not only are some of the largest newspapers run by big companies, but these also own several radio and television stations. The curiosity lays in the fact that the government does the exact same thing, opening and publishing several stations and newspapers that tell the people the country is doing fantastic. There seems to be no solution since the private media is busier attending matters they think is are of uttermost importance, such as sensationalist stories and empty publicity. Those who dare to publish their opinion about what is going on are either censored by the government owned newspapers or put in a tiny section called “opinions” or “the people” in the private papers, when, at this circumstances, ought to be in the front page. An average reader finds Sandinista-sponsored stories in one side of the road, or crudely chronicled events in the other. With all this explained, it should be implicit the majority of the Nicaraguans barely have access to a newspaper might believe a fallacious story, or say “why bother” and turn their heads back.
Religion also appears to be a factor that influences how the clock ticks. From the beginning, the country was set to be secular and independent from any church, notoriously the Roman Catholic doctrine, yet several politicians appeal to the fear, rationality, and nationality of the people by saying a good Christian Nicaraguan is someone who votes for John Doe's party. Some go even further by saying they abide to the Christian standards of the constitution. This also reflects in the form of bandwagon, where others convince those who deliberately express unconcern regarding a definite political affiliation, pushing them into voting for the party who “follows the path of God”, which is an euphemism for “has powerful political connections with the Catholic Church”. As long as the sovereignty of the nation is not threaten by this standard and separated its values from a religious doctrine, less problems should arise. The truth is, this is hardly achievable in this society.
Some might say reform is inevitable, and that an enlightenment period shall come for Nicaraguan society. Others say, like the folktale, that the Devil is dead; economic, social, and political stability has already been reached. A few know something is wrong, but expressing that concern beholds impossible. But at the end, why do I need to comment on this? What is my position? Why would I, a foreigner with no expertise on Nicaraguan history argue the need to change? After all, it all comes to denizens taking that position, but would not be that the last piece of the puzzle to make this country a dystopia? To isolate society from the opinion of a world out there? It seems we are getting closer to that reality. It would be convenient to educate people freely on the subject and letting them choose what future they want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)