Speaking Out: Making a Difference as a Bold, One-Man/Woman Responsible Citizenship Entity

 

Do you have a heightened sense of responsibility?  If not, would you like to?  All you have to do is do a little bit of "easy boldness" work on yourself, and tell yourself that you want to be a conscientious, above-and-beyond US citizen, in some way--often, the way you become a super-citizen is based on something that is easy and even fun for you to do.


Here's my basic template:  "As a citizen who belongs to group _____, I feel that I am at least somewhat responsible for the modern dilemma of _____.  Thus, I feel that even though it might seem 'awkward' or 'unnecessary/absurd/frivolous' to some other people, I feel that I can make it my above-and-beyond 'advanced duty' as a citizen to take it upon myself to speak out about _____."


It doesn't make you any money, but, if you select a good cause--and it doesn't have to be a traditional political cause--that you can basically stand up and say, in relation to that cause:  "I am not a Sarah Palin person, I am a US citizen who is *very sorry* about _____, and I boldly propose action steps ______ and perhaps beyond that to make the wrong right."


Anyone can do this.  It makes you stand out as a good citizen.  There might be no positive reward for it, other than, you will *feel better* at night when you go to bed.  People who stand up for the right thing, after having made sure of course that it is the right thing--if your mind works this way, imagine yourself in a debate with someone who disagrees with you, and sharpen/modify your position to adapt to possible objections and criticisms of your position--can get a great, buzz-like feeling from being powerful, responsible, bold, virtuous, and morally advanced.


I suggest you try it!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Math Update: My P != NP Proof Might Be Correct!!!!! -- (update, no it's not, see the note at the beginning and the updates near the bottom)

EDIT:  No, this proof is not correct.  See the updates at the bottom for details on why (based on Dr. Zelinsky's comment).  Fortunately, my GLL proof and MSR proofs still appear to be correct. It could be that Joshua Zelinsky's comment actually helps me to complete the proof. The GLL proof appears to be correct, AFAIK. The thing is, the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent --> P != NP" within PA and the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent" as a theorem of ZFC just shows that P != NP is a theorem of PA.  That isn't a contradiction, it's just another step in the proof. I think the striking idea is, P != NP is a theorem of PA, but not of ZFC.  That is what I worked to prove.  AFAIK it is possible for a proposition to be a theorem of PA but not of ZFC.  In particular, PA can be proved consistent from ZFC, so we would think it s possible and even likely that there are some non-theorems of ZFC that are theorems of PA. So this is great!  It l...
Read more

Hello, Texas - A Quick Monopoly Lesson

  So today, I thought I saw some people running around blurting code gestures at me.  One of the codes seemed to say, "Riot for a[buse] v[ictim] time -M".  Oh, M?  M as in Monolith, or M as in Monopoly fan who doesn't get it? Here, Houstonian code-talkers...let me teach you how to play Monopoly, since you are so hungry for free knowledge:  - Make deals with other players that benefit you.  - Offer deals to difficult players that are somewhat beneficial to them, knowing that they might reject.  - Watch which deals other players reject, and identify what *deal types* they are not likely to accept from you or anyone else.  - Be very very careful about your own deals--and behavior--lest you get figured out by your opponents and backed into a corner, with good, beneficial deals being made without you by cunning adversaries who know your every move. There's a poker lesson in there, too, but I don't want to get too educational right now.
Read more

Flash Non-Fiction: James Bond and Masculinity

  This was going to be a longer essay, but I decided to just blurt out my point rather than trying to write well. Basically, I think James Bond movies are good, and the songs are high-quality too, but it sends semi-dangerous messages to men in particular about what it means to be a man.  The Bond character is intransigent, aggressive, violent, and absolutely sure of himself in all cases.  He is portrayed as a big winner--able to date and have sex with beautiful women, almost impossible to kill, and lethal and elite at both armed and unarmed combat. I'm concerned that some men, including my estranged father ASW, have had their sense of morality warped by Bond movies.  They think that this dramatically presented way to be masculine is the only way.  I think that's unhealthy, and when people get the not-so-original idea to "try to be more Bond-like" in their personal lives, that leads to catastrophic conflicts with and major potential for deep pain for people that ...
Read more