HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Nov. 26, 2005 In December 2004, the editor invited me to contribute to this site. I read several of the articles and saw the variety of subject matter that bounced from scientific to religious; from politics to pop culture. There were several articles about pop phenoms Eminem, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. There were the usual debates: Liberal Vs. conservative and atheists Vs. Christians. Two things immediately impressed me: That the barbs between authors were sharp and constant and the authors had opinions on a variety of subjects. I then realized that Useless Knowledge would be a good place to call home. The best thing about the Useless Knowledge is the diversity of opinion. The second best thing about this site is the fierce tete-a-tete that takes place. No side really ever “wins,: but the readers do by having the many facets of a particular issue laid out in a thoughtful, well-written, and sometimes vitriolic manner. Whether it’s race, Natalee Holloway, Dems Vs. GOP or whatnot, Ukies get into their literary foxholes and engage in merciless battle. My first nine articles came over a period of three months and were relatively tame. Then in early April I finished a novel and two screenplays, which gave me time to focus on what I hoped would be a series of thought-provoking columns. Over the next five months I turned out more than 100 articles; in less than eleven months I am within a hair of reaching the 200 columns mark. (For the record, 17 writers have supplied approximately 1/3 of the sites 10,000 published articles). I have covered a potpourri of subjects: Baseball’s steroids issue, so-called “reality TV”, blacks in the entertainment industry, hurricane Katrina, the future of the Democratic party and whether or not romance is “dead”. I’ve written about personalities as diverse as Michael Jackson, Terrell Owens, John McCain, Nancy Grace, John Rendon, Natalee Holloway and Terri McMillan. Initially I received a lot of nice letters, until the subject turned to race. Then many of the e-mails I received turned venomous. I knew I was on the right track to proving my point, that race is the most polarizing issue in America. I began with the Natalee Holloway case, writing that I believed race was a significant factor behind the extensive media coverage of the young woman’s disappearance. Two other UK articles voiced a similar viewpoint. It was then that the Natalee missives took on an angry tenor. Most of those missives attacked my article and were accompanied by vicious e-mails, some of which came from individuals who were just readers of the site. These diatribes came from all over the world, and I responded to them immediately and in a no-holds barred fashion. To quote Tom Petty, I don’t back down. Next came the debate on whether or not blacks have a predisposition to crime and violent behavior. Again, I took the lead in this debate. Others soon weighed in with their opinions and a serious ideological battle ensued. I too, was guilty of being less than diplomatic, but only because I believe in fighting fire with fire and mine is nuclear in genesis. Between September 14 and October 10, there were 361 articles posted at UK. Only 43 dealt with race (11.9%). 9 of the first 173 articles written during that time focused on racial issues (5.2%). But from October 4 to October 10—a mere week, spanning 100 articles—26 of them dealt with racism. FIVE times as many as usual—and only 3 were penned by yours truly. The arguments were bitter, often personal and proved that nothing gets the blood boiling like a discussion in black and white. Not the Red Sox Yankees rivalry, Liberal and Conservative “duelogue”, nor the religious tête-à-tête—but RACE. I’ve always believed that this country needs to have a national dialogue on this most volatile subject. Who knows what good, if any may come of it. But I do think it is time we addressed it honestly and sensibly. This is what happened at U.K. and along the way, I learned quite a bit. To paraphrase Ken Hughes, we are on different sides of the fence, but with the same goal of building a better America brick-by-brick. I learned that vehement disagreement per se does not make someone a “racist,” as have my counterparts. In short, the warring factions “agree to disagree” but continue about the business of providing food for thought. The real racists can be found at sites like stormfront.com, or any of the various skinhead blogs. Now we seem to be entering a phase what I call, “The UK Religion Wars”—an unwinnable battle to say the least. The debate ranges from “Is God real?/Are Christians crazy?” to whether or not intelligent design should be taught in schools. (It already is—SUNDAY school, where it should remain). I believe that the people arguing these incongruent points realize the futility of their debate, but nonetheless feel the need to express their opinion. When the dust settles the argument never is, and no one has converted to the others’ line of thinking. I am a Christian and when I see my brethren being bashed, I am disheartened. However, I understand the other person is simply exercising their right to free speech and believe that the Bible is not only irrelevant, but categorize it in the same vein as the works of the Brothers Grimm. God’s existence lands outside the miniscule range of science. The Holy Spirit isn’t something that can be conjured up in a chemistry lab, found in a petri dish or made to appear by any sort of experiment. Since God is outside of this realm, scientists and like-minded individuals deny his existence. By these standards God’s existence cannot be proven, nor can it be debunked. Furthermore, science requires more of a mental and sometimes hands-on approach; faith requires a spiritual and emotional commitment. Christianity is faith and feeling rather than physics and formula. Science, in relation to religion, seeks to do two things: Convince the masses that there is no God, so that man might exercise free will; that is, sin without fear of repercussion. The second idea (assuming there is a Supreme Being) is to trivialize the powers of God. Rather than accept being created in God’s image, science insists that God be created in our image. Anything God can do, man can do better—let man tell it. God creates life and so does man—in a test tube. God controls the weather, so can man—at least, in theory. God made the plants and animals, man made them bigger and stronger. God is no longer a player in a game he invented. My intelligence sources indicate these people have WMD (Willful Misrepresentation of Deity). They’ve hijacked scripture, twisted it and have launched their own personal jihad. This debate has been raging since UK began and all it has served to do is make both sides more deeply embedded in their beliefs. Still, it is interesting, particularly to outsider and that is what makes UK the wonderful site that it is. I’d like to express appreciation for my fellow columnists. No matter what their perspective, the debate is always intriguing. But there are two writers I want to recognize and they are from opposite ends of the age spectrum: First, Mr. Brooks A. Mick. In most of his columns he seeks to impart knowledge, or an opinion honed by experience and what I assume is a studious nature. On the other end is Jack Lepiarz, who has sometimes been subjected to criticism for of all things, his age (17). This young man has proven that if we listen to young people, we just might learn a thing or two. Had I not joined useless knowledge I wouldn’t have been introduced to the heartfelt works of Judy Ramsook, Kaycee Nilson Patrick Hurley and Meri Ulrich. I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to meet Ron Lewis and Ken Hughes; nor would I have had my interest in sci-fi literature piqued by Claxton Graham. I have a deep respect for Claxton and consider him a good friend. Not only do I admire his work as a contributor to UK, but he has aided immensely with technical data for a sci-fi novel I’ve written. Claxton, knowing you is a privilege. I also admire the writing of Michael John McCrae (he will be missed, whether you agree with him or not) who was the elder statesman of this site. Like most who hold such a title, his opinions are rooted in wisdom and research. Another long-term UK columnist whom I like reading is Robert Paul Reyes, even though we haven’t always agreed. Brian Barbeito, Frederick Smith, Stan Grimes and Mark Gelbart are friends who I like reading and hearing from with regularity. And despite having several detractors, I’d like to hear more from the missing in action Hal von Leubbert. Then there are the newcomers like Alexander Flynn, Bonijean Isaacs, Steve Dayton, Dell Gines and Gerald Walker, whose writing makes this compilation of “useless knowledge” just the opposite. These talented individuals personify UK’s dedication to diversity of thought. And while “Ukies” don’t always agree, I believe we all are committed to churning out work for argument, analysis and eventual enlightenment. My UK columns are written to either praise, pump up, educate, alienate, enlighten, put on, piss off or get a smile out of the reader. I seek to spawn debate and dissemination and leave readers with something to mull over. The combative tenor of the majority of e-mails I receive verifies that I have done just that. I must ask, where would the site be without the vision of the editor? Useless Knowledge is his vision and he refers to it as a “funny” site. I think the authors and readers take the works appearing on this site very seriously. In fact UK could best be described as a source of news analysis, with an unmatched diversity of opinion. Despite the malicious tone of some of the missives, there are always wonderful arguments presented on the issues of the day—from cultural to social and political. I look forward to the upcoming year. I say that “Useless Knowledge” is a misnomer because our website is where divergent viewpoints meet; where opposing assertions of “truth” do battle. This is knowledge that if anything, is quite useful. Hopefully, the fur continues to fly, while in the end peace be with all of us. ------------ About the author: Timothy Stelly is a 46-year old California native with a wide variety of interests-from fishing to politics, which have a lot in common: Both require you to deal with worms and most of your time is spent idling. He is a former Democrat, believing that Party represents outdated ideas. He is officially registered as an Independent, choosing to keep his options open. Timothy is also the author of more than 80 screenplays and novels, two of which have been "published": "Tempest In The Stone" and "The Malice Of Cain", both available through PublishAmerica. He defines his writing style as "Hip-hop fiction; a cross between Richard Pryor and Richard Wright." His UK columns is written in a hard-edged style, but he is not yet a curmudgeon or a conservative. (Is that redundant?) After all, one of his favorite movies is "The Adventures of Milo and Otis." stellbread0.tripod.com Email: stellbread@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
