Election 2008… April 18, 2007

…I know it’s way too soon to be thinking about a new election, but if people are already announcing that they’re running, then I ought to put in at least my two cents’ worth. Don’t worry, this is a short blog; I have to get back to studying for my finals.

I have been researching for good candidates for the presidency, and had been discouraged by the lack of consistent, ethical, true-to-form, (and especially) pro-life candidates. No, Romney isn’t a true pro-life candidate. While I applaud his change of view on the abortion and stem-cell issues, it’s not enough for me to trust that he’ll be a pro-life president. Brownback, I’ve just recently found, is a true pro-life, as far as I can tell. I found him while working on my Facebook profile. He’s seems consistent, voting-wise and issue-wise. He knows life begins at conception, he knows unborn babies feel pain during abortion, and he supports adoption, having adopted himself. Because of that, nobody can call him an hypocrite. He also wants to improve the lives of children and families already born, so he can’t be portrayed as a person who “forgets” that life issues don’t end at birth. And he’s the first true-to-form Catholic. If the Vatican endorsed candidates, they’d endorse him.

Senator Brownback, if you are reading this, you’ve got this college girl’s vote.

Belonging needs March 29, 2007

My professor was talking about belonging needs on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Since he’s a cool professor and it’s a cool class, a friend and I asked him about something (don’t remember what) after class, and we started talking about belonging needs. He was talking about when Bono turned down the offer to play for the Queen of England, he was showing that he was above the belonging needs of needing the prestige of playing for the Queen. Then he talked about how people tend to like to be in groups and travel in packs (remember cliques and the “jocks”, the “nerds”, etc? It’s still like that in college). That’s the reason why people are Catholics, Democrats, Republicans, etc., is because at a level we still need to satisfy our belonging needs, and those who operate outside of groups are higher up on the hierarchy. I left the classroom, thinking.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and I came up with a counter-argument a few minutes later, but I couldn’t very well go back to the classroom and tell him that could I? It’d look like I was arguing, and it’d look like I need to satisfy my physiological needs. He is of the same opinion of a few philosophers, where religion is “the opiate of the masses” and (this is unconfirmed) God’s existence is not proven. So, it is obvious that he might think that religion is only for those who are at the belonging needs. My brilliant counter-argument is that perhaps for some, religion is a person’s identity, and when it is, that person is at the belonging needs. But for some enlightened people, religion is just a part of a person’s identity. It is not an overwhelming aspect of those people’s lives. True, I am a Catholic, and I am pro-life, and I am a college student, and I am a sister, a daughter, a honor’s student, a Hermione-type, a Harry Potter fan, a reader, a writer, and a girl, and many other identities. Religion shouldn’t be shed just because you want to climb Maslow’s Hierarchy, or just because you’re in college now and can do what you want. In fact, I wonder whether those who deny the very existence of God are, despite their best efforts, succumbed under the popular movement and opinion and joined a group called Athiesm, and embracing and living out the ideals of Humanism in their lives. They can be said to have made their identities wholly humanistic. I just wonder.