Politics:
​
Growing up, I did a online test I remember back in about 2007 where it asks various questions and give's a person a square chart of where they lie on the political spectrum. Back then, it told me (and I found it to be true) that I was a moderate liberal libertarian - very close to where Hilary Clinton was at on the chart. After going to college and developing more nuanced political views (being influenced by Bernie Sanders, Noam Chomsky, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and others) I've became more socialist in my views, and also a bit more authoritarian on some issues. I would say my policy stances are mostly just highly democratic, more nuanced with the realities of the world and our Countries' culture and norms (our modern society).
​
I was just substitute teaching today (November 11, 2020) and helping a kid get information on his "special person" they (the kids) are to do little presentations on (kids minds are so much more pure and untainted than us adults). This particular kid's person was Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was a Progressive Republican that served as the 26th President of the United States (1901-1909). He was a conservationist, an outdoors man, a military leader who won the Nobel Peace Prize for ending the Russo Japanese war. We still teach our youth about these kinds of things yet it's seemingly forgotten when we get older and into the "real world". Where socialist democrats are called "radicals" and socialism is some hugely wrong movement in our Country and parts of the world.
What I think is radical is allowing our culture to be brainwashed by a few corporations who control the media. What I think is radical is the unquestioned belief in the free market economies' ability to solve and deal with all of the wrong's and to be our "guide". What I think is radical is glorifying people who spend thousands on themselves - or anyone or any entity who spends their money (often millions) or resources on unjustly personal gain only to the determent of the world or their own supporters. All the while the environment is warning us of the imbalance and calling out for help (if we listen and look) in the world and millions are food or water insecure (would only take 160 billion a year to end global food insecurity it is estimated I saw in a news piece today). To not be adopting and buying products such as solar panels that would save a person money in the long run (making one's own energy and not being so reliant on others) and help the environment. People adopt other new technologies that improve their lives. People wait in line for hours to get the latest smartphone but question other new technology and oppose it? Based on? Does that seem logical? They/We doubt the scientists who are experts in Earth Geography and atmospheric science when we/they have satellites monitoring the conditions of our planet 24/7. Other scientists (in all aspects of science) find evidence in ice cores and other geological data, biologists find evidence in animal and plant behaviour, physics and chemistry confirm the behavior of matter and molecules, etc. They all work to fit pieces of the puzzle together to gain a more perfect understanding of science, nature the universe and our planet. Yet the same people (and basically all of us) will use these same technologies every day for navigation using our phones and relying on cellular and wireless communication etc. (and without questioning the effects to human health as the CDC stopped research on cellular/wireless waves being potentially harmful to humans in 1998 and has not tested since then, at least publicly) but think scientists around the world are trying to supposedly "con the world into believing climate change is real"? Craziness.
​
More about me:
​
I love video games (especially first person shooters and StarCraft 2) and things with unlimited skill potential. As an American raised kid I love sports (basketball, football, playing golf or fun type of games) and do spend a bit too much time on both of these things to my detriment of course (but at least video games etc. are mentally active instead of passive, which can help keep a person more mentally sharp). I'm an ISTP (Meyers Briggs) personality type but with more of a sociologist or political kind of mind (investigating, and also an always improving personality type, which is another). I didn't learn of my sociology type of mind up until a few weeks ago (Oct. 2020) but I've always known I was a big picture type, very good systems type of thinker who likes to try and understand systems and the way they work and to optimize for efficiency. I've never been great at nor cared much for smaller details of how like an gasoline engine actually works piece by piece. Just give me the big picture so I can know the basics, unless I need to design the engine, then I would be more interested in the minute detail to optimize and make more perfect the design of an engine. I like biology for example when I find the information interesting or useful (like how complex life began, or how to optimize metabolism) but I'm not good at remembering the small details such as memorizing the terms or the little things that come together to make say, genetic inheritance work. I love ecology, physical geography, hydrology - those kinds of things. Would probably be very good at sociology, I took Intro to Sociology and got an easy A (- maybe, it's okay though) and most everything was already learned by me and self apparent - just more thought out and written into stone (/paper). I'm very humble and able to take criticism (for what it's worth), I don't get upset easily at personal critique or attack except I do get very mad at injustice, lies, deceit, that kind of thing (I remember only one time as a kid about telling on another kid at recess for trying to cheat while playing a game of kickball, felt like such a bad thing to have to do). As an ISTP I have many different interests but kind of lack expertise in any one field.
​
​