Tragedy Exploitation, and Why It Is Evil

Suicide and September 11th have something in common: NO ONE CARES.

Now, what do I mean by that?  I mean that the majority of people merely pretend to have any shred of compassion for the dead.  They pretend to care when it is convenient, when it gives them a feeling of self-satisfaction and a misplaced feeling better about themselves.

It's all an act.  It's a façade.  It's hypocrisy.  It's revolting.

Words mean virtually nothing when placed next to actions.  Wanna show the world that you care about suicide victims?  Then start loving people.  Everyone.  Even people you hate.  Physically get in the way of bullies and their prey.  Don't let adults slap kids around.  Know what I'm saying?

Do something, you putrid insipid hypocrite.

Now, you might be thinking, "But Nic!  I'm not a hypocrite!  I actually do care for victims of tragedy!"  If that's you, then hooray!  This post is not directed at you.  This post is for me to rant and once again call out the hypocrisy of the pop-culture bandwagon.  For starters:

One "Like" does not equal one prayer.

I'm sure you've seen these fluttering around Facebook (if you have a Facebook account, that is).  It's usually a picture of someone who is sick, injured, dead, or dying.  They appear vulnerable to invoke pity in the people who view the picture.  The scenario in the picture might be real, or it might be a hoax.  The caption will talk about the victim and their current tribulation.  Again, sometimes it is real, and sometimes it is a hoax. But then it gets better: they ask for "Likes" and "Shares", promising that if you "Like" or "Share" their picture, then God will hear some imaginary prayer that just pops into existence!

As if that does anything.  In my eyes, the people who do this are sadomasochistic sociopaths who care only for their immediate and shallow desires.  They are exploiting the tragedy of another person or people just to satisfy their petty wants.  It's mortifying to me.  It disrespects God, it disrespects the victims, and it disrespects anyone unfortunate enough to view the picture.  It has to stop before I go postal.

Remember 9/11, but also move on.

...WHAT?!  NIC!  YOU HATE SOLDIERS!  YOU HATE AMERICA!  YOU HATE JESUS!

Yes, I've been accused of such things because I have my own opinion on 9/11.  It's just another example of tragedy exploitation.  News Flash: 9/11 was eleven years ago.  I guarantee you that the families of the victims got over it after the first couple years.  I say that because the grieving process usually takes about that long.  By keep bringing it up every year and clogging the internet with insipid drivel, you are basically saying that moving on is unhealthy.  You are suggesting that we are to pick at those wounds and let them bleed again every year.

You are disrespecting the people who lost their lives and their families.  Leave 9/11 back in 2001, where it belongs.  It was a tragedy.  Tragedies are sad.  I get that.  But get this: you need to move on.  We got over Pearl Harbor, and Pearl Harbor was equally as tragic!

I'm not Anti-America.  I'm not Anti-Soldier.  I'm Anti-War.  Therefore, I do not support the idea that 9/11 can be used as our grudge against the terrorists in the Middle East.  The Taliban and Al-Qaeda kill more Muslims every day than they ever did during 9/11.  We've even shot dead Osama bin Laden, for crying out loud!

I remember 9/11.  Modern culture will never allow me to forget.  I also remember that 60 Muslims who were law-abiding American citizens were killed in those attacks as well.  The 9/11 hype is a testament to human stupidity and immaturity.  It's disappointing.

Now, back to suicide...

People really over-think the motivations behind suicide.  It is never an act of cowardice; it is almost always an act of despair or a cry for attention or help.  Cowards are way too afraid of death to deliberately take their own lives.  Suicidal people are too scared and confused and sad to consider that they might be leaving a family and friends behind, or that their might be a God who might not want them to die.  They aren't saying, "I think I know what's best for me, and God doesn't."  They aren't saying, "I feel like making my family and friends suffer because of my passing."

They are saying, "I'm in pain.  Will someone help me?"

So, as a young man who has attempted suicide twice and had to bury three grandparents, I never want to see anyone exploiting another person's tragedy ever again.  I never want to hear someone say, "Suicide victims go to hell" or "Suicide victims are cowards".  No one benefits from hearing those words, so please keep them to yourselves and get some help, you sad and twisted and pathetic excuse for a human being.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're guilty of the problems I have addressed in this post, then the blood of every victim of tragedy is on your hands.

Laws and Law-Givers

In order for there to be law, there must be a law-giver.

What I say is true, because laws by nature are things given.  This is because laws are the result of a deprivation.

There are are three things that every human being is inherently entitled to: life, liberty, and property.  A human must have life, otherwise he is not alive and therefore dead.  A human is by nature a self-sovereign, self-governing entity; therefore, a human must have liberty in order to function properly.  A human must have property--things that are his, that belong to him--in order to satisfy his needs and wants.

There are four basic things that are necessary for life.  These four things are food, water, shelter, and love.  I include love because human beings are social beings, and because studies have shown that when love is completely absent from a person's life, they do not function properly as human beings.  I mean completely absent, i.e., complete ambivalence from every human being they come into contact with.

There are three basic things that are necessary for liberty.  These things are free-will, self-sovereignty, and metacognition.  A person must be aware that they exist if they are to experience liberty, so metacognition is important.  They must also be capable of making their own decisions, so free-will is also a must.  Finally, a person requires self-sovereignty so that they can execute the decisions that they made using their free will.

Property ties into the necessities of life.  Food, water, and shelter are all pieces of property.  If a person lacks these things, their lifespan decreases significantly.

When a person has one or more of these needs taken away, therein lies our deprivation that I mentioned earlier.  Now, people are naturally self-seeking; they look out for themselves instinctively.  That means that when faced with deprivation, people naturally take steps toward relieving or satisfying that deprivation.  This is where laws come into play, but before I discuss laws, I think I should address what happens when there are no laws.

Introducing a little Anarchy:

An anarchy is the total absence of government.  No rules, laws, or restrictions; just people protecting their own lives, liberties, and property.  Anything goes in an anarchy, so what is stopping someone from interfering with the life, liberty, or property of another?  Nothing!  Sure, the defender could attempt to protect his needs or exact revenge afterwards, but in so doing would be infringing on the offender's life, liberty, and property.  This is why anarchy is almost nonexistent in today's world.

Therefore, laws are issued.  Laws protect one's life, liberty, and property by defining one's liberties.  Laws give a person a framework in which their liberties can operate.  They outline the Cans and Can Nots of our liberties.  When we overstep these boundaries, then the enforcers of these laws step in and exact countermeasures so that we will be dissuaded from attempting to overstep these boundaries in the future.

And now, to really drive my point home:

Now, what about the Laws of Physics?

The Laws of Physics outline the Cans and Can Nots of the universe, as opposed to a person's personal liberties.  These laws apply to our physical liberties.  These laws cannot possibly be broken because they permeate the very fabric of the universe.  The universe itself is our "enforcer", in a sense.

So, who was the Law-Giver?

Well, that's the problem.  According to scientists, there isn't one.  These laws have just always existed.

...WHAT?!

Sorry, I don't buy that.  There has to be a Law-Giver, and I'll show you why.

In the beginning, there was nothing, and this nothing became everything.

How did the universe enter existence?  "The Big Bang," you might say.  There's a problem with that answer, though.  My chemistry teacher describes it thus: In order for there to be a Big Bang, you need a Big Banger.  He was being facetious, of course, but he has a good point.  In order for there to be a Big Bang, the Laws of Physics would have had to already been present, otherwise the laws that allow the Big Bang to happen would not have been there, which means no Big Bang.

And, as scientists have proven, time did not exist before the Big Bang.

That means there was no time for these laws to come into existence--let alone come into effect.  This means that these laws would have to predate time itself, which is impossible.  These laws could only exist after time began, because before time began, there was nothing at all for these laws to govern, thus rendering these laws superfluous!  Unnecessary!

Therefore, there must have been a Law-Giver.

This Law-Giver is above the Laws of Physics, and can easily violate, bend, or change these Laws at will.  It predates both existence and time itself, and why not?  It is not bound by the same rules that we are.  This Law-Giver can be infinite, limitless, timeless, and completely and infinitely powerful.  Why?  Because it makes the rules.  It defines, interprets, and executes the laws of the universe.  This Law-Giver transcends both the natural and the supernatural.  It is above all things, both existence and non-existence.  Why not?  It makes the rules.  It is completely independent and, if you look, you will see that it, too, has life, liberty, and property.

This Law-Giver, I believe, is the Christian God.

God does not require food, water, or shelter, but is the embodiment of love.

God is self-aware, capable of making His own decisions, and does so all the time.

The universe is God's property.  We, along with the rest of the universe, are His.  This makes Him easily qualified to be our Law-Giver.  It is the only way the universe makes sense to me.  The universe is not an anarchy, nor is it a democracy, a republic, a dictatorship (though many would call it that), an oligarchy, a monarchy, or a parliament.

This universe that we inhabit is nothing short of the total Theocracy.  The very laws by which we all abide are proof of this compelling idea.

Artistic Criticism

What is "Art"?

If I say, "Artist!" to someone, they might think of your average Frenchman with a crooked beret with a paint brush and pallet stroking water lilies on a canvas.  Other's might think of their Asian friend who can make armies of dragons from a piece of charcoal.  And then there are others still who think of the quirky kid they refuse to understand who can create anything with a pen and paper.

I, on the other hand, think of band geeks.

So what is "art"?  That's a tough question, so I decided to ask my good friend Wikipedia (who has become much more reliable from four years ago), and he told me that art was a very diverse range of human activities.  Not only activities, but also the products of these activities.

• Painting
• Sculpture
• Printing and Printmaking
• Photography
• Architecture
• Music
• Theater
• Film
• Dance
• Literature

These are just the umbrella terms for what "art" can describe!  If I were any more specific (and I'm not being specific at all), then the list could be limitless!  But I did not start writing this thing to talk about art.  I came here to talk about artistic criticism.

I think professional criticism is a crime against humanity.

Here's why: let's say that you are a visual artist.  You have just created a masterpiece in an awesome display of creativity and self-expression (which is why art is so wonderful, in my opinion).  Your friends love your artwork; this piece is no exception.  You yourself are feeling pretty good about this one as well.

Enter Mister Critic: not a constructive critic, mind you, but a professional or certified critic; someone who is paid to make value judgments on other people's work based on their own subjective opinion.

...WHAT?!

This critic gets money to either praise or degrade your work.  He's paid to tell you what you did well, or how you could have been better, or how terrible you are as an artist.  Due to the self-expressionism associated with art, it is almost impossible for the artist to not take such criticism personally.  As a result, the critic isn't merely judging the artwork; they are judging the artist.  Not only that, but what they say can either expedite or curtail your progress in the artistic community, depending on their influence!  What is that if not blatant robbery?

Do not judge, so that you will not be judged; for in the same way you judge others, you will also be judged.

I am a musician.  I compose scores, write tracks, string together lyrics, and then perform and showcase all my hard work myself.  I never pay attention to critics who try to correct what I am doing, because they are totally ignorant of the sound or the message I am attempting to get across.  Such ignorance, I find, is wholly disgusting and putrid, and should be disregarded unless, of course, you specifically asked for critique.

I have no problem with artists (or anyone, for that matter) asking for constructive criticism.  I personally do not ask for it myself.  My issue lies with the professional critics who receive income for spouting their unwarranted opinions.  I don't want to hear what they have to say, because judgments are selfish by nature.  When a journalist provides an editorial, it is biased towards his views, his opinions, and his wants.  This is simply human nature.  Critics are the same way.  They judge artists based on their tastes, their interpretation of the art, and their own personal bias.  This kind of bias is unavoidable, as it permeates your default line of thought.  How you interpret facts influences every decision you make, and bias influences how you interpret facts.

Now, maybe you enjoy a healthy dose of criticism.  Perhaps you do not.  Either way, I would like to empart to you my two cents:

You are your toughest critic.

Don't try to impress anyone.  Anyone.

Why not?  Because no one can be as hard on yourself as you can.  No one can judge you more harshly than you can judge yourself.  This is because you, as a self-aware individual, can readily see the things that you don't like about yourself almost on demand.  If this is true (and I have no reason to doubt myself), then if you are able to impress yourself, others will be impressed as well.  If you're trying only to make something, as an artist, that you will be happy with, then you will have reached the pinnacle of self-expression, which I believe is paramount in the world of art.

I have been told by my friends and family that I am an accomplished composer.  This is a positive critique.  I have also been told that my drumming style (for I am a drummer) is sloppy and basic.  This is a negative critique.  I equally disregard both of these criticisms, because neither of them are objectively true.  Since neither of them are objectively true, then they have no bearing on reality, and therefore I would be wise to disregard them when it comes to self-analyzation and personal growth.  I think I am an accomplished composer for my age, and I also think I am an accomplished drummer for the short amount of time that I have been playing.

Critics are flawed because they are completely incapable of making educated judgments on your works, because they cannot understand the context of the work, how it was created, and the inspiration and/or story behind its conception.  A critic can only give you their opinion: an uneducated and narrow opinion.  That, to me, is not something I should take into consideration.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but everyone has a responsibility to have an educated opinion.  This rules out critics.  Critics have my permission to silence themselves in my presence.

The Problem of Good vs. Evil

What is evil?  What is good?

If I took away the objective standards of the Bible, to me, good and evil would no longer have relevance.  They would cease to exist.  I only have an understanding of "good" and "evil" because I was raised a Christian from birth.  Mom and dad told me good and evil were real, and I believed them.  I still do.

But what if I did not believe in God or the Bible?  Say I was completely non-religious.  Those standards of good and evil would be gone, wouldn't they?  Yet the majority of the human population will say they believe in a good/evil, or at least a right/wrong.  But why?  If there is no objective standard for either, how then can people say good and evil exist?

Science is man's observation of the physical world.  Science cannot explain thought or human behavior.  Any honest scientist will say the origin of our universe is pseudo-scientific  because no one was around to observe it.  Detectives aren't scientists, but many scientists play detective when trying to explain how we got here.

It's amazing how important the origin of everything is to people.  What does it matter, in the long run?  Are we so passionate about proving the other side wrong that we will go to such lengths to determine whether the universe exploded into existence or spoken into being?  It shouldn't matter, should it?  Somehow, we got here, and we are here now, and we'll never stop arguing.  God vs. No God, Good/Evil vs. No Good/Evil, Science vs. Religion.

Can one put science and religion in the same arena?

One is a method of observation and explanation.  The other is a method of practice and belief.  One is fact-based.  The other is faith-based.  The two are completely separate, no matter how much we try to say God is scientific.

If God could be proven scientifically, we would have done it already.  The circumstantial evidence IS there, but after however many thousands of years, we're STILL arguing over who's right.  Are we so completely stubborn that we can't accept that no matter who's right, NOTHING WILL CHANGE?  We'll STILL be here, sharing the planet, and TRUTH will STILL apply to everyone.

Truth is the same for all people.  I can say that because that's the definition of truth.  If you say truth is different depending on what you believe, you aren't talking about truth.  You are arguing not with me, but with the entity of semantics--the very MEANING of the word "truth".

How the universe got here is a millenia-old argument.  It's bigger than any of us, yet we somehow think we're going to come up with the magic bullet that will put the whole debate to rest.  It staggers the mind how passionate some people get about it.  I still wonder, What does it matter?  Why focus so much on a past even that no one witnessed, and instead prepare for the future our descendants will witness?  How could that possibly determine what's "good", and what's "evil" when both standards need to be objective anyway?

I say there is no good or evil if and only if there is no deity.