On My Right to Read and Singers

Recently, I've been reading some non-fiction, mainly philosophy or political (which are one in the same, really). For my birthday/Christmas (they've close so the gifts received are simultaneous) I attained a copy of the six hundred page monster that is Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf . I'm kind of on a Hitler thing at the moment (before that it was Che Guevara) and I've read many books about his life, views and promiscuity. Now that I read Mein Kampf, which is semi-autobiographical, I can see where he's stretched the truth to achieve his means. On that note I will say that Hitler was quite an awesome man. He's certainly no one anybody should emulate, but his power to gain popularity through a book? His legendary oration? These are all the skills of a super hero. Here old Ben Parker comes into play for, "With great power, comes great responsibility." Hitler did not shy away from his responsibility, he just thought of himself as a bit too great. I believe that he did what most would do, he attained riches and power through a certain lifestyle and he tried to impress that lifestyle on others. But his eyes were clouded by hate and vengeance, so he ultimately failed.

I'll save my full thoughts on Hitler for a later date, my point of this post was to rant about my outrage at my lack of freedom of readership. People give me weird looks when I read this, even my history teacher is questionable? I'll admit that a white-boy with a soon to be shaved head (world's greatest shave) in a community of mixed ethnicity may look a bit sus, people should realize that I'm merely trying to gain his perspective, and I'd be a fool to enact his desires. If I hated other races I'd lose 95% of my friends, and how many good songs have been written by or about on white people? Like, every single one: Brown Eyed Girl (originally Brown Skinned Girl) Vanilla Ice Cream. You cannot beat these songs. I digress yet again. I should be able to read whatever the hell I want without receiving weird looks. Okay, maybe The Story of Ois pushing it, but nobody knows what that is.

My second point of posting is to state my thoughts on music. I like all music, and I'm forever trying to broaden my tastes. I currently struggling with the heaviest of metal, but I'll persevere. Anyhow, a few months ago, I was listening to Rihanna, I had two of her songs thanks to some compilation CDs, and I was thinking that her music was pretty space (that's the new word for "cool", kiddies). However, a quick wiki search of her revealed that she doesn't write her own songs. I was shocked by this. I'd never given it much thought until recently when I realized that one just goes into the studio and sings what's on the paper. The artist doesn't have the connection to the song that they would if they'd written it, that magical bond is shattered, so the singer just becomes a sort of whore.

On Richard Dawkins

Reading over I guy I know's blog, I saw a topic which I thought I might cast my two cents on.

Richard Dawkins

In a sentence: I don't like him. Aside from looking like the devil incarnate in the above picture, I hate his ethos. But it was not always like this. Throughout the course of my life I have watched many of his programs and read one or two of his books, the latter medium being read in a compulsion to give some sort of reason to his frankly offensive methods. I digress, for those of you who are unaware Richard Dawkins is an achieved biologist and a staunch atheist. The latter of the two is a title he has flaunted in recent years, much to my distaste.

I don't consider myself an atheist, at least not yet. I was raised in a christian world, though I don't see a reason to discriminate against those of other religions, gods or no. This is where Mr. Dawkins and I diverge. While I find some of his books on behavior absolutely fascinating, I find his close mindedness off putting. In his books it's okay, his arguments against the god complex are thorough, sustained and completely logical, but his documentaries are not.

In I can recall one scene wherein he enters a deeply religious shop owner's workplace and begins to badger him about his faith. He asks things such as "But why do you believe in something that does not exist?". He then goes on to pester the man about why he converted to Islam, even though it is so "violent". Through the course of the documentary, this process is repeated with different interviewees and as little as twelve minutes in, I felt as though I wanted to punch him in the face. I am not at all deeply entrenched in any form of religion. In fact I'm often the first one to poke fun at each faith's idiosyncrasies (this does not go over well at funerals, trust me). Though I find the path he is taking completely misguided. Writing his beliefs in a book are all well and good, for it is the choice of the reader to continue reading said literature. Yet going up to people on the street and pestering them about their lifestyle sickens me. It reminds me of another ism in my culture evangelism.

Ah, evangelism. Personally, I think this is why Dick Dawkins took up his cause. It has it's good sides, its followers obstain from murder and a generally nice, not to mention spur some of the greatest media in the world (see: Skillet and NGE). Though its major drawback is the faithful are very set in their ways and will be firm with those who think differently. I remember one interview from an Andrew Denton piece where he confronts tree elderly choir siblings with the question "but what about people who were born homosexual? Do they deserve to go to hell?" to which one of the gentlemen calmly answers "No! Homosexuality is a lie told to them by Satan and they must find the truth for their soul to come to heaven." I find this response as offensive as anything Dawkins spews out, and I can concur with him on his reason to be against it. Yet his method of combating such people is, in effect, perpetuating the same act. He is attempting to convert people to atheism with aggression, I'm not sure, but I believe that can be called evangelizing. Does he not realize that Atheism is becoming one of his hated "religions"? He is becoming his own enemy on his search for "a better world". He is also displaying stereotypes of white supremacy, ignorant white man and the snobby Brit. Therefore, through the act of himself becoming his own foe, all of his arguments should be disarmed.

Also on the subject of snobby Brits, dearest woman down the street, if you are reading this, know that neither I, nor any member of my family scratched your car. We merely place a note on it requesting its removal from our laneway. Bringing the police into the matter was uncalled for and only further strengthened out point. The act of knocking on my door (which is older that the sum of our ages, by the way) quite violently at seven in the morning and yelling at me heralds an apology at the very least. Though its obvious you were not, some of us were trying to watch Ninja Turtles.

If you've read this far, please click the ads at the side, only once or twice, please.