A Scary Proposition

Two Percent of Voters Thought Mitt Romney's Real Name is 'Mittens'

        If the United States as a nation was to be wrung out and sieved until only the most fundamental of ideals remained, the principle last standing would almost certainly be democracy (or "democracy" –but that's an argument for another time). Our nation was established by men who believed in affording citizens the right to decide for themselves how their country would be governed. Rallying behind the cry, “No Taxation Without Representation,” thousands of patriots fought tooth and nail in the hope of attaining the freedom of choice that their fathers never had. And that’s wonderful! But in today’s world, a world in which approximately four and a half million people believe they would be voting for someone named after a cat, was that struggle really worth it?

          Our democracy commenced in an imperfect way, extending voting rights only to white, male, property holders. Evidently they were the only civilians who knew what was best for the fledgling nation. But then poor whites and black males became members of this prestigious guild (although registration fees and literacy tests limited their involvement), and finally women could cast their ballots. Nowadays, the government is practically imploring us to take part in any given election, as voter turnout has been so low. We’ve come a long way.

          But at what cost? The quantity of the vote may have increased exponentially, but can the same be said about the quality? In any major decision there lies an opportunity cost, and the extension of voting rights is no different: there now exists a substantive group of people who will cast a vote next Tuesday without knowing who, or what, they are supporting.

          Am I arguing for a return to the oppressive measures of our forefathers? Of course not. The uninformed voter does not lie exclusively in any one demographic, and to brand it any other way is purely un-American. Rather than alleviate the problem through restrictive measures, we as a nation must make strides in our yearning for knowledge, and that knowledge must be readily available.

          Lest I am unclear, by uninformed voter I do not mean someone who is oblivious to the candidates that are running and their stances. An uninformed voter in this sense behaves similarly to a sponge, in that they blindly soak up anything seen or heard when it comes to their political views. They don’t actively seek out information, and make no judgments on their own accord.

          This voter proves hazardous, as one misstep by an aspiring leader could sway their opinion indefinitely. In this year’s election cycle, Romney’s 47% comments or Obama’s Benghazi cover-up undoubtedly swayed some voters with nothing else to center their opinions around. Political ads provide the same bias with their malicious nature. Both candidates bring to the table much more than their faux pas and gaffes. As a result of these isolated incidents, misinformed voters spread throughout the nation will be casting ballots for candidates without having paid attention to the core of their policies.

          There is no quick fix to this dilemma, as unqualified voters are inherent to a democratic state. And as unfair as allowing these citizens the vote may be, revoking that right of expression would prove ten times as iniquitous. Until money is invested in a constructive form of voter education (I'm looking at you, or you, political ads), we as a nation must simply concede that although our system is imperfect, it perfectly represents the people it governs.

Anyone Can Be Blind

60% of atheists and agnostics claim to own at least one Bible.

Back in the time of our forefathers, America was founded on secular principles, protected in the Bill of Rights that was tagged onto the Constitution. But if not for Christianity (or religion in general), where do cultural mainstays like the illegality of same sex marriage, or the prohibition of female voting until 1920 really come from?

Essentially, America is not the poster child for separation of church and state as so many like to believe, which is exactly why atheists are still to this day discriminated against for their faith (or lack thereof).

"This stunning anti-atheist discrimination is egged on by Christian conservatives who stridently — and uncivilly — declare that the lack of godly faith is detrimental to society, rendering nonbelievers intrinsically suspect and second-class citizens."

But from where does this distrust and subordination root?

According to the above Washington Post article, research has shown that atheists are more ethical, intelligent, and happy than the common religious American. How does this group of people present a burden to society?

When atheists begin belittling the beliefs of their fellow Americans, then non-theism becomes a problem. But the same goes for Christians and imposing their values on others.

Atheists can and should be able to believe what they choose to, but blatant disregard for other religions is always unacceptable.

Reverting back to the initial statistic provided, at least 60% of atheists own a Bible. To me, this indicates a heightened level of self-awareness and spirituality.

Many make the argument that atheism exists as the by-product of pure and utter laziness. "I don't have time to devote to a religion..."

But those people do not take the initiative to declare themselves atheists. They simply become non-practicing Christians, or Muslims, or Jews.

There are certainly atheists who accept their status blindly, simply drawing that religious orientation out of a metaphorical hat. But from my experiences, far more Christians are anointed that way. And that doesn't have to be a bad thing; I'm one of them! But I was born into a family where both parents were Christian, because they were born into families where both parents were Christian, and so on.

Atheists tend not to have such a luxury in the form of spiritual predisposition. Their decision tends to be forged through much personal contemplation, as well as through reflection on their experiences with the Bible or other religious texts.

One can be Christian before knowing anything at all about the Christian faith. Most are baptized before their first birthday! But very few are born atheist. To declare oneself as such requires at least a working knowledge of the abandoned religion, because something must have spurred this break from "the norm."

In Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible, readers begin to notice a shift in religious fidelity among several of the narrators. These are the daughters of a devout Baptist Reverend, mind you, and cannot possibly spend more time with the Bible and its Scripture. Yet through years and years of exposure some of the girls begin to notice aspects or teachings that do not jive with their own personal myth, and lose faith in not only their lifelong religion but their own upbringing as well.

If you are able to briefly transpose your way of thinking, you might find it in your heart to agree with me when I say that atheists, on the whole, are equally, if not more religiously aware than any other faction. In any denomination you will have your devouts. But a significant chunk of any religion's population are the previously mentioned blindly accepting, yet unaware. That chunk does not exist among the atheist crowd. Who's lazy now?

The Modern Number

17: Years of age.
161: Pounds (73.03: Kilograms).
24: hours of sleep...over the past five nights.
1: Caffeinated drinks in that same span (kicking the habit).

There are over 42 million blogs in the country, very few of which focus on statistical analysis and the importance of numbers in today's society. This one does.

3: Brothers.
0: Brothers older than me.
2: Dogs.
1: Quiet moments (The family went to Cooperstown last summer without me).

Ever since I can remember, I have always retained a bizarre attraction to the sheer dominance of numbers. Something about the preciseness, I suppose. You're right, or you're wrong, and that's that. No gray area.

But these numbers have to come from somewhere and go someplace else. Numbers existing in a vacuum alone have no place outside the classroom. No, this blog talks about important numbers, numbers that reflect global tendencies and shape our world on a day to day basis. Numbers that indicate future occurrences and evoke memories occurrences past. This blogs talks about numbers that are alive.

11: Colleges applying to.
6: Trips to the emergency room.
2: Semesters of Linear Algebra and Multivariable Calculus this year.
88: Keys on my piano (52 White and 36 Black)

The Digital Age both requires and generates more extensive data collection than ever before. There are those that choose to utilize this accessibility and those who throw it to the wayside. To tie in my love of baseball, I find that a Moneyball reference tends to reach a broader audience now that Michael Lewis' nerdy creation has been transformed into a Brad Pitt approved, Academy Award nominated blockbuster. Which team won?

There are those who were brought up in a world prior to the information age, where gut instincts ran rampant and ill advised decisions were even more commonplace than today. Important verdicts were reached with little to no effective research or examination. That isn't to say issues were taken lightly back in the day, but rather the resources for valuable data crunching simply did not yet exist.

2800: Homecoming Queen ballots tallied today.
22: Days spent in Germany this past summer.
6: Movements in this year's Marching Band show.
10: Freshmen in my Peer Group.

But then came along the Tim Berners-Lees, Bill Gates-es, the Steve Jobs-es. And all of the sudden, facts traveled infinitely faster and informed decisions were now feasible. Statistics were being used in the stock market, in foreign policy, in athletics, and in marketing. They were available for public use and they were locked up for the right eyes only. But most importantly, they were there. They existed, and not in a vacuum. And thus, the modern number was born.