Blog of a crazy man

Here’s my essay on the Guilded Age that I wrote for my US History course:

The captains of industry were men who managed to become successful at business. These men worked hard to earn their positions as leaders in their industry, but most used business practices which were less than admirable, especially for anybody wanting to be worthy of the title “captain.” These men were robber barons.

Of course, not all business men were evil. H. J. Heinz was an example of a fine, upstanding business man who attempted to both provide his customers with pure food, and provide his employees with healthy work environments. His motto was, “To do a common thing uncommonly well brings success.” This is one of the most admirable business practices that a company can strive to maintain. No matter how you attempt to view Heinz he stands out as one of the best examples of a captain of industry, but unfortunately, he was one of only a few.

A look past Heinz will immediately draw one’s attention to Cornelius Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt started in business by beginning a ferry company. His cutthroat competition gave him almost complete control of New York’s waterways, but the Civil War made running ferries a risky business, so he moved into railroads. He began buying out railroads in New York, which isn’t a bad practice, but his takeover of New York’s Central Railroad shows that Vanderbilt was wasn’t fond of friendly buy outs. Unable to convince Central to sell, Vanderbilt stopped all traffic on his rail lines, which supplied to Central’s lines, effectively boxing them in and forcing the company into such a desperate financial situation that Central’s stock holders had no choice but to sell. This type of business practice was typical of Vanderbilt and many of the other “captains of industry.”

One such “captain of industry,” Andrew Carnegie, must be mentioned here because of the simple fact that he is usually pointed to as one of the admirable business men of this time period. Advocates of this view point to the fact that Carnegie was fond of giving his money to charitable organizations, particularly those of an educational nature. While it is true that Carnegie gave his money for good causes, he cannot be excused from the fact that he gained his money through monopolistic practices. His use of vertical integration (controlling a portion of each part of an industry), advocation of Social Darwinism (which used “survival of the fittest” as justification for undesirable business practices), and then eventually selling his company to J. P. Morgan (who was known for creating monopolies and destroying competition) all indicate that this “admirable business man” was just a robber in captain’s clothing.

These three men show the main divisions of business men at this time: true captain of industry, robber baron, and robber in captain’s clothing. Unfortunately, most business men fell into the last two categories. This age stands out as a warning to us today about business and the evils that an overwhelming desire for money and a denial of Biblical principles can bring.

I had a discussion with one of my teachers about freedom of speech and censorship. This discussion, of course, being started because of my post about Howard Stern. So, I’m going to make a longer post about censorship, without cussing.

The question we were discussing was whether or not the government had the right to censor what is published. To make clear, there are two types of censorship, personal and governmental. Personal censorship can be defined as someone either censoring what he says, or what he reads, watches, et cetera. I have nothing against personal censorship. I believe that this type of censorship should be protected.

Governmental censorship, on the other hand, can be defined as the government telling a person what he can or cannot say, read, watch, et cetera. This type of censorship is not only Constitutionally wrong, but detrimental to all of society. The obvious Constitutional wrong is the violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Governmental Censorship is in violation of this because they tell you what you can or cannot say, and regulated speech isn’t free speech. Its detrimental to society because it removes the possiblity for scrutinizing the government or other organization and causing mankind to be slaves to what they are told.

Of course, my teacher brought up the point, “If somebody yells, ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater, doesn’t that fall in under the category of free speech?” Well, no. By yelling fire the person endangers the lives of the theater goers as a result of the following panic, and the right to life comes well above the right to free speech. But an even stronger argument, though less general, is the fact that the theater is owned by someone else who sets the rules over his property, that’s personal censorship. The man doesn’t have the right because he chose to be in a building that has voluntary censorship placed on it.

From here the discussion led into the question of whether or not the government has the right to regulate morals. The answer, no. As a Christian, morals are absolute, but logically, its completely up to the individual. I can say that adultry is wrong, but I can’t prove it. If I can’t prove it, I can’t expect the government to regulate it. I do expect the government, on the other hand, to protect the existence of humanity. This, after all, is the only logical purpose of the government. I can’t prove that adultry is detrimental to humanity, so the government shouldn’t regulate it. I can prove that murder is detrimental to humanity, so I expect the government to regulate it. I can prove that abortion is detrimental to humanity, so I expect the government to regulate it. I can prove that government censorship is bad for humanity, so I expect the government to not regulate speech. I can prove that personal censorship is good for humanity, so I expect the government to protect it.

Feel free to ask me to prove anything I mentioned. Any other comments welcome, as always.

The second in my essay doubleshot.

Difficulties are something everybody encounters. At some point in life everybody meets a problem that seems too difficult to handle. While everybody has them, how someone reacts to them is what truly determines how difficult they actually are.

Some will immediately say that circumstances, not reaction, are responsible for determining the difficulty of a situation. They are simply mistaken. Circumstances can only have so much influence, because they are, in fact, circumstantial. A circumstance can be avoided, it can be changed, and, in some cases, it is brought about only by someone’s reaction to other difficulties. If a person reacts to a difficulty by assuming that he cannot fix it, then the difficulty will only get worse as it continues to fester and grow unabated. If someone reacts with an attitude of being able to conquer any difficulty, he is more likely to succeed in removing the difficulty from his life, as he will attack it head on and go straight for the root of the problem.

It is true that, no matter what someone’s reaction, he can’t control the reactions of others, which can make the situation even worse. This is a good argument, but it misses a very important point. Others reactions are, whether a person admits it or not, influenced greatly by someone else’s reaction and attitude. People are naturally inclined to take on the attitudes of those near them. As the illustration goes, if several lightly positive people are put in a room with one strongly negative person, by the end of the day the entire room will be negative. Conversely, if several lightly negative people are put in a room with one strongly positive person, by the end of the day the entire room will be positive. If the individuals care for their own reaction, the rest will follow suit.

Even with the effects of reaction on others and the difficulty, those effects mean nothing without the last effect of reaction. This most important reaction is whether or not someone chooses to rely on God to carry him through his difficulties. The best thing someone can do is to ask God for help, because He is the only one capable of changing everything.

Reactions are the most important thing in determining how difficult a situation is. No matter what someone faces in life, his reactions are what make the difference. Not circumstances. Not people.

I got an essay doubleshot for you. First is the essay that I wrote for History, then later I’m going to put up te essay I wrote for English. Before I give you the first essay I should give a little background info. We just finished discussing the Civil War, and during the discussion my teacher had been trying to give us examples of the “human face of war”, these were various instances showing what people went through during the war. On the test she gave us the essay, “Describe the human face of war.” This was my responce, enjoy!

Was has no human face. It drags men along helplessly forcing them to either slaughter their brothers, or be slaughtered themselves. It causes loved ones to be lost, families to be broken, and lives of survivors to be destroyed. In some cases, as in the South, it causes those not on the battlefield to face starvation and shotages of clothing and basic necessities of life. War has no human face, and this war was no different.

I go the essay that I wrote for English back. My teacher said that the whole class has to rewrite their papers and turn them in Monday. She said mine was good aside from a few gammar errors. When I get back the second draft I’ll publish it here.

I just finished the essay. I think it is pretty good. It could have been better if I didn’t have to follow the no first-person rule. When I get a grade on it I’ll decide if I want to post it here or not.