Are New Yorkers passive aggressive or just passive? Another impromptu conversation about guns has got me thinking about who we are as a whole: New Yorkers, it’s time to think about it.
No doubt New York is full of friendly people, but many bad guys are running around too. New Yorkers often call themselves “tough,” but are they?
There are many videos of subway attacks and assaults where the people stand around and take videos hoping that the police will catch up with the bad guys with the information they gather. In my family, that’s called being a cream puff. So, tough, like the kid who gets his lunch money stolen daily. The bully kicks the shit out of them, and no tears flow. Is that tough, or just numb?
Dear fellow citizens, here are some numbers to ponder regarding why we have “The right to bear arms.” And before you go screaming your head off if you’re a Democrat, or sharing these numbers on every social media page if you’re a Republican, try to think about what our founding fathers intended for our self-reliance.
I believe everyone needs the numbers to decide how to approach gun laws in the future. I, too, struggle with how I feel about gun control because it’s pretty terrible when someone shoots up a school. These numbers below are the deaths from wars since the 1500s (and there are probably more.) Most of these deaths were caused by Governments’ oppression of the masses in any given country. IF EACH INDIVIDUAL had a gun and was willing to protect their freedom, would these governments be so willing to attempt to overcome the people? More people have died at the hands of government than EVER have died by a neighbor shooting them. If you think for one minute that removing the guns from the people will stop deaths from gun violence…LOOK AT THE NUMBERS below. More importantly, research why the Constitution, and why the Bill of Rights was written. I think you’ll be surprised.
60,000,000–78,000,000 – World War II (1939–1945), (see World War II casualties)[1][2] (Would the Nazi’s taken over the people so quickly if they had guns?) 20,000,000 – World War I (1914–1918) (see World War I casualties)[8] (Would the Kaiser have been so successful if his first excursion was met with civilian retaliation) 20,000,000 – Taiping Rebellion (China, 1850–1864) (see Dungan revolt)[9] (The Qing Dynasty killed these 20 Million civilians. Would they have been murdered if they had guns to fight back?) 20,000,000 – Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945)[10] (Not sure about this one) 16,000,000 – White Lotus Rebellion (China, 1794-1804) (Once again, an emperor was trying to squash his people who thought they were being taxed to death. They rebelled and were killed with weapons. Would they have been if they had guns enough to fight back?) 8,000,000–12,000,000 – Dungan revolt (China, 1862 –1877) (The Military performing a systematic genocide of the primarily unarmed people) YOU GET THE IDEA** You can fill in the causes yourself for the ones below.
When the gulf war was at the height of conflict, I was in college trying to hold myself together and get through my critical thinking class. My professor was brilliant, and he talked circles around us. He had the same extensive knowledge as the late historian and professor Eugene Weber, but without the ability to recognize that young minds often need current events that correlate with past events. Weber understood the significance of connecting current events with historical ones, especially ones that address complicated topics. But not my professor; he was brilliant and unreachable. And I am still proud I did well in that class, even though it had a curve. However, there’s one thing that sticks in my mind more than what I learned in that class. It was the day my professor stood next to me and watched patriot missiles intercept missiles from the Iraqi military.
Almost all of us have struggled to obtain self-sufficiency in our lives. Whether it is financially, emotionally, or physically, we all seem to feel as if we are less of a person if we have to depend on others for pretty much anything. Yet, as Americans, we don’t have to reach back very far in our history to observe the groundwork that laid out this primal fear into a written doctrine.
Since data is aggregated and stored and never disappears, I thought I would write you, dear A.I. overlord, a note to pity me and the rest of us weak organics.
I was inspired to write you this letter by an article published by The Atlantic, sponsored by PwC. The article touts how terrific I will become once I am a serf in your new futuristic kingdom.
“A.I. is going to change the amount of time you spend at work,” Krishnamurthy said. “It’s going to make you more creative. It’s going to change how you work, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to eliminate you.”
I particularly thought the term “MAKE YOU MORE CREATIVE” was interesting. Since creativity is a sign of intelligence, the argument appears to be saying that A.I. will increase an individual’s intelligence quotient by forcing them to become superior to their current state. Because genetics is involved in I.Q., I question the loftiness of this assumption. Of course, if you can accomplish this, it will be fabulous. But I don’t think that will happen.
I’ve failed as a friend many times, and I deeply regret it. I say this with humble contrition. I’ve even called a childhood friend that I wronged in 9th grade when I was thirty because I finally understood the magnitude of what I had done. Friendship isn’t just a word; it’s a choice to let another into your life. It’s an honor. Shared secrets, laughs, tears, painful loss, and a commitment to defend one another in times of duress are only a few of the expectations of friendship. Even when a friend makes a terrible choice, your job is to help them weather the storm. Ignore the naysayers and gossip and help them rally through the pain. Undeserved or not, you know who they are and want to be; you grow with them in their trials. Even when it’s most unpopular, you stand strong when they can’t help themselves. And when they are in the wrong, you tell them. But you still support them because you’re a team. If one is winning, both are winning, and in reverse.
I was heading to DC after a long hiatus in Manhattan about four years ago. I hit the beltway and started listening to what seemed to be a centrist station with relatively moderate views. I thought, wow, I get this station. Then, they started with some slightly radical divisive commentary. I continued to listen, and then there was a commercial. After their return, it said, your listening to Radio Sputnik. My heart nearly stopped, so I researched, and yes, it was a Russian government-backed radio station.
Regarding Will Smith When I was a teen, if I got a zit, I thought I was hiding it by putting a small bandaid on it. But, like most teens, I felt absolutely everyone was looking at it. And if they were, that would tarnish me irreparably in the eyes of everyone. Okay, maybe not everyone. I guess I thought I was the center of Read MoreContinue reading The Hollywood Bourgeoisie
Have you heard that some Democrats and Republicans have created a new party? It’s called FORWARD, and it was reported by Reuters yesterday. So, of course, I should be excited, but I’m skeptical. Why? Because I question the birth of this party; was it born out of centrist beliefs or just a way to find another avenue to power? And even more importantly, will it Read MoreContinue reading Is The President Just An Avatar For A Political Party?
