"Music takes us out of the actual and whispers to us dim secrets that startle our wonder as to who we are, and for what, whence, and whereto."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

In today’s society, cultural heritage is not restricted to material manifestations, like monuments and objects that have been preserved through the years. This idea also encompasses existing expressions and the traditions that myriad groups and communities all around the world have inherited from their ancestors and continue to pass on to their offspring lack This intangible cultural heritage is the mainspring of our cultural diversity and its upkeep is a security of our enduring creativity.

Through oral traditions and expressions, the performing arts, social practices such as rituals and festive events, traditional craftsmanship, and the transmission of knowledge and practices, our musical cultures continue to strive and keep alive the heritage of those before us. In this way, we are carrying on in their footsteps and keeping alive that which makes us who we are.

Music is constantly recreated from generation to generation and between changing/growing groups and communities. In response to environment, a groups’ interaction with nature, or their history, music gives a people a sense of identity, security, and permanence and promotes a true respect for differences and self-expression.

As times change, however, multiple aspects of the intangible cultural heritage behind the beauty of music is becoming more and more endangered, due to effects such as globalization and uniformity. The old appreciation and understanding of truly wonderful music seems to be morphing into some new form, certainly unrecognizable to me.

As a united culture, we need to realizethe purpose and truly priceless worth of cultural expressions and practices. Such elements have opened the door to new methods to the understanding, protection and respect of the cultural heritage of humanity (and it’s invaluable musical traditions). This living heritage provides every bearer of such wealth a sense necessity and meaning, insofar as he or she takes ownership of them and constantly recreates them. So in the words of pop singer Rhianna, “Please don’t stop the music”.

"Music speaks what cannot be expressed

soothes the mind and gives it rest

heals the heart and makes it whole

flows from heaven to the soul.”

-Unknown Author

Having been a concept since the beginnings of time, music is an expression of the pure essence of a person through the exploitation of various instruments and beats; whether you utilize what is typically defined as an instrument or merely slap your leg and clap your hands, music is an individual means of communicating one’s deepest emotions to the outside world.

With instrumental tunes, music is a way to “converse” without actually having to employ the too often baffling and exigent exploitation of the spoken word. And with lyrical melodies, musicians (meaning those average people who simply love to belt out a song, all the way to the professional artist signing a recording contract) anyone can articulate something they found just too tricky to plainly say in the standard day-to-day prose.

From culture to culture and person to person, music tastes vary drastically from strictly structured compositions to improvisational to those random pieces composed through the application of chance. Yet, somehow, from culture to culture, person to person, music has always been a way for people to connect; whether two people bond on a favorite band or disagree over a preferred genre, music is always a successful conversation generator. Oftentimes in a culture, the music of a people can even come to define who or what that society is. Ask anyone about New Orleans, Louisiana, and what genre is most frequently thought of? Most likely the response is Big Band blues and jazz. How about Latin America? Probably the reply will be salsa and meringue. And Jamaica? Reggae and Bob Marley certainly would pop up in my mind. To any given individual, music can be used to energize for the big game or to relax into a deep slumber. While a certain song may make one person weep in profound emotion, it could make another want to leap up and dance around in utter ecstasy.

In our everyday lives, music has become somewhat of a habitual tradition. The instant you turn on your television, every program and commercial is set to some jingle; when you go to a store there’s always music to hum along to as you peruse; go to the movies and there is a score for nearly every scene; go on the internet and an add pops up with a catchy beat. Music is a facet of life at every turn. So go ahead and sing along to the beat.

“Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.”

-John F. Kennedy

On March 20, 2003 the continuing conflict of the Iraq War, also referred to as Operation Iraqi Freedom or the occupation of Iraq, began with the United States-led invasion of Iraq by a multinational coalition made up of troops from the United States and United Kingdom and backed by smaller troops from Australia, Denmark, Poland, and other nations.

At the commencement of the conflict, officials stated reasons for the invasion to be as follows: in concern of the Iraqi people and the abuse of their rights under a failing government, to extend democracy, and for the protection and securing of Iraqi oil reserves. And in his pre-election State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush elucidated on his key reasons for occupying Iraq, stating that Saddam Hussein had supposed "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities" (WMDRPA). They were buried everywhere... And any day now, proof of such weapons is bound to turn up somewhere, right?

The Bush administration’s grounds for the Iraq War have faced weighty criticism from innumerable sources both within and outside of the U.S. As stated by the Center for Public Integrity, President Bush’s administration made a total of 935 false statements between 2001 and 2003 about Iraq’s supposed risk to the U.S.; in only two years, the administration in control of our country (and, essentially, our lives) made nearly a thousand slip-ups. Now I don’t know about all of you out there, but that sure makes me feel just oh so pleasantly safe and sound. Both advocates and adversaries of the occupation have also condemned the actions of the war effort along a number of other lines. Most notably, proponents have attacked the Bush administration for not assigning enough troops to the mission, while opponents have assailed the administration for not efficiently preparing and planning for the problems that would undoubtedly be posed in a post-war zone Iraq and for allowing (and oftentimes even being the cause of) insidious human rights exploitations. As the war continues, critics have also found both lofty human losses and soaring financial costs to be a topic of highly-legitimate concern.

An estimate of the number of people killed varies from over 150,000 to more than 1 million in all. The financial cost of the war has been over $845 to the United States alone, and more than $9 billion to the United Kingdom and other nations. As of yet, total costs to the United States economy are estimated to be at around $3 to $5 trillion. Talk about being in debt, eh? I definitely don’t see the U.S digging themselves out of this hole any time soon.

Personally, I do not see what people deem as “success” happening anytime soon in this war effort. Yes, it is true that we have accomplished some of our goals such as removing the Saddam Hussein from power, giving aid to Iraqis in need, and securing the nation’s oil fields; at this point, however, I think the Bush administration has covered their eyes and ears to the screams of the people and is now more concerned in protecting their foreign interests in the oil industry. The Bush administration has to take a step back and really decipher the catastrophe that has been fashioned from this war. Too many lives have been lost, too much money has been wasted, and there are too many other local problems that should be taken care of at home in the U.S. before we take on the troubles of our neighbors (although it’s a little late to go back on our word and abandoning the chaos we’ve created in Iraq). If we don’t terminate this conflict soon, it will undoubtedly only escort us to an existence of yet more misery and obliteration.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
-Samuel Johnson

Not everyone is as optimistic as the feelings expressed in my previous post, however,when speaking of patriotism.

Advocates of "patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel" believe such a theory not because there is no such thing as genuine patriotism, but more owing to the fact that its meaning and utilization tend to get obscured with all of the garbage out there on the topic. More often than not, people appeal to patriotism to justify principles that they can't reasonably support by any other means.

It is my belief that patriotism is an “allegiance” (if I may) to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one deems (in their personal opinion) to be the finest (for their particular situation) in the world but which most have no wish to force upon others. When defined as “a love for and dedication to one’s country”, patriotism can only work to make us stronger as a united nation.

The national government may have the ability to speak for a country but it is the duty of a nation's citizens citizens to speak out when convinced that their country is following a foolish or unjust action. One must not conform to all of government’s policies and actions simply because they are the norm.

I consider true patriots to be those individuals willing to fight against those who pilot us (the people) down a slippery slope to losing liberty, those brave enough to fight for what’s right for the people when the government has no clue. Others are only the cowards who follow the path of least resistance and naively assume that all is well.

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

-Mark Twain

At one time, patriotism meant possessing the enthusiasm and courage to challenge government rules and regulations regardless of fashionable opinion. Today, though, the meaning of patriotism has become a vague subject.

Americans like to think of themselves as patriotic. Women and men, old and young, rich and poor, whites and blacks, urbanites and farmers: nearly everyone agrees that they are “patriotic”.

But really how frequently do you hear someone actually elucidate on what they mean when they pronounce themselves as patriotic. The meaning of patriotism has always been somewhat of a moving target. It has different connotations for different people at different periods throughout history. It is ceaselessly open to reinterpretation, and has been a loaded term called upon to make the case for a variety of issues such as military sacrifice, unity and opposition, inclusion and exclusion, anti-Communism, anti-Catholicism—the list could go on and on.

To some patriotism merely signifies a love and dedication to one's country, being strictly devoted to something and trying to do what is good and right. Patriotism doesn’t necessarily need to imply that we are superior to everyone else; it just means that we are extremely proud of what we as a nation have accomplished and that we have no plans of giving any of it up. It is understood that most of us wish for “world peace”, but furthermore the recognition that there are also those few who want to do us harm and that we must guard ourselves and protect each other from such confused people. As patriots, we are aware that our liberties come with responsibilities and, if necessary, we must defend those rights.

Patriotism does not have to entail nationalism; it is not a religion, nor is it politics. It isn’t limited by time or space, and (although often depending on the subtext) has no correlation to individual gain or personal pain. It is a feeling, a sense of a bond with, and a love for something that is, at once, both deeply your own and legitimately of equal value to all. True patriotism is a piece of one’s soul and one’s conscience, a sense of belonging to something greater than one’s self.

The trouble with always trying to preserve the health of the body is that it is so difficult to do without destroying the health of the mind. ~G.K. Chesterton

Humans’ “appeal to nature” is a commonly witnessed fallacy of relevance (an argument that could in itself be true, but which does not tackle the question at hand). Such an erroneous belief is made up of an assumption that something is good (as in healthy or acceptable) simply because it’s natural, or that something is bad (unhealthy or not normal) exclusively based on the fact that it is unnatural. Numerous issues, however, arise from such an argument.

First of all, the word “natural” is regularly used as a “loaded term” that draws people to appeal derived from feelings and emotions habitually subconsciously linked with “what’s normal”; its utilization in most circumstances is simply a style of bias having nothing to do with logic. For example, humans may have the right/choice to be omnivorous by nature, but it isn’t a necessary “is” statement for survival. And true, omnivores can digest meat, but they can also digest fruits and vegetables and still live just as healthy of a lifestyle.

Secondly, what is considered to be “natural” is rather vague and therefore the declaration that everything natural is good is a rather fuzzy truth. For example, many plants can be found naturally on the planet, but many of these plants are actually poisonous “by nature”. The theory can swiftly be overthrown by a counter-argument exhibiting things that are natural, but which have undesirable properties—take for instance aging, sickness, and death— all very natural occurrences, but all very much undesirable.

Lastly, when thinking of the idea of “the appeal to nature” take for example cocaine. As informed citizens, we are all taught that it is an addictive, dangerous, and often deadly drug that inflicts destruction on the body’s organs. It is, however, an “all-natural” drug derived from the coca plan and was prescribed for years as a remedy for everything from chest colds to depression.

Just because we are trained that something is good or bad according to society’s standards, does that mean that it “is”, in actuality, good or bad? Is whether a product is “all-natural” or not justly an essential determinant of its safety and effectiveness?

Theories are private property, but truth is common stock. ~Charles Caleb Colton

As originally stated by David Hume, numerous journalists construct suppositions about what “ought” to be derived from societal statements about what has been proven to be absolutely true, or what “is”. There seems to be a significant discrepancy between descriptive claims (those declaring what “is”) and prescriptive claims (those stating what “ought” to be). In his argument, Hume urges all writers to be on the lookout for these types of suppositions, making sure that if there is no valid reasoning behind why the “ought” claims allegedly derive from the “is” claims, to be careful utilizing such “loaded terms”. But just how is one supposed to develop an “ought” from an “is”? With one’s understanding of how the world is, is it even feasible for a person to truly know how the world ought to be? It is Hume’s belief (as well as mine) that such a derivation is absolutely impossible.

At present, humanity’s natural “hard-wiring” is being studied in the area of evolutionary psychology and, with any luck, as society expands its knowledge, redesigning the “ought to be” and “what is” claims built into our culture and minds will become much more possible and “user-friendly” to humans, animals, and the environment. As the well-known primatologist Frans De Waal states, “In the words of Edward Wilson, biology holds us “on a leash” and will let us stray only so far from who we are. We can design our life any way we want, but whether we will thrive depends on how well the life firs human predisposition.”

To summarize everything, going directly from an “is” claim to an “ought” claim is just utterly impracticable for, although we can survive based on what “is”, we can never be truly satisfied without our predispositions of what “ought to be”.