It is a myth to suggest that that which is Omniscience is a function of change. For if that which is Omniscience changes, then this means it was never Omniscient in the first place. In the Twilight Zone, the notion that "the house always wins" connotes a function of non-change. The counter argument may note that when a solid becomes a liquid and then a gas, this is in essence a function of change. Yet, the very same atoms and molecules that make up such composition is still the same. A couple of atoms and molecules may have dissipated elsewhere, yet the remaining atoms and molecules were the same one as in its prior state. When something is a "Was, Is, and Always Will Be (including Omniscience)", it means It will be able to see any foreseeable events or things. This ability to see such things in the present moment before such an potential event can occur is a function of non-change. Yet some argue that it can adapt to changes when necessary in the future. However, if It Was Always As Is, Is Now, and Always Will Be, then It Is What It Is and such adaptation was always known anyways, hence, such a result of change is a function of non-change.

The whole process of change should be viewed as within or inside the framework of non-change. I am not saying that It is changing. Think of this as a bunch of fictional power rangers characters morphing and transforming into their respective uniforms. The change as an occurrence is only of the composition of the material itself for the purposes of adapting to the atmosphere and conditions of the "in the present moment." Yet the very foundational personality of such power rangers remains the same. Red ranger behaves as it always has been and that is a red ranger. Same applies to the blue, pink, green, and other rangers.

The 44th president of the United States president Barack Obama used "change" as a his central political campaign. The real question is, "Can he really fix the United States, fix the poverty, fix the economy, and revolutionalize the United States like never before?" Yet, I am very confident that former President Lyndon Johnson did everything he could with his "War on Poverty" doctrine. As of 2008, poverty rates among those under the age of 18 has risen significantly compared to the 1960s of president Lyndon Johnson?s times. In spite of the mentioning of changes noted throughout the past 30 years, I would say not much has changed. The economy has rose and declined, repeated this pattern several times, and although experts talk about "economic decline due to supply and demand" yet in theory, the flip-flop of economic rising and decline is essentially a normal course of action similar to the numerous global warmings and global coolings we have had for milleniums. These changes from high to low and low to high really are not changes for when one sees this in its precedent position of view, highs and lows as well as lows and highs are expected and have always been expected. Thus, these "changes" are a part of the process within the framework of non-change. I am not saying that the economy has changed from an accession to a recession or from a recession to blooming times, but I am saying that this is expected and so there really is no change. The process of change is the activity of moving back and forth but the overall picture is unchanged.

Many experts and dissenting viewpoints recommend avoiding the use of extreme ended and/or what they term "all or nothing" words. Yet I have come to realize over the years that there are cases in which "all or nothing" words do occur and one can never deny the reality of such extreme truth. For example, in my reference to the fictional power rangers characters I noted that "red ranger behaves as it always has been?". I decided to italicize the word "always" because this word is one of those "all or nothing" words. This emphasis in italics also negates the criticism of using "all or nothing" words for generally speaking on a global scale perspective, the behavior and personality dispositions of the red ranger really does not change. Hence, dennotatively speaking, one could argue that the behavior of the red ranger changes from one hour of the day to the next (one moment he seems quiet; the next he seems loud). Connotatively speaking, from a macro-level standpoint, or even someone else besides the red ranger who knows the red ranger well (like the other rangers or close loved ones), one generally knows the true un-changing personality traits of the red ranger.

I would like to bring attention to the following passage:

The light after the storm,

Knows that hope was never gone.

One may interpret this poem from a fairly simplistic standpoint that in the midst of experiencing something dark or of uncomfortable nature, one has always maintain that "hope" and one has always known the future occurrence of something great in the end. Still, one can argue that during the process in which the individual was in the "storm", there were doubts and that it is only natural to have doubts (and hence imply a notion of change). This is a fair argument to reckon with because it diminishes the power of the how "hope was never gone." Nevertheless, hope may be defined as: 1). to cherish a desire with anticipation. 2). to desire with expectation of obtainment. 3). to expect with confidence. Due to a potential anticipation, some doubts are permitted to be inclusive of those thoughts. The key importance here is to note that seeing the future positive prospect was indeed never gone and the usage of an absolute word "never" is completely fine. From another angle, perhaps one did knew that there was hope in the outcome anyways, a further contribution to the function of non-change. The shifting back and forth between optimism and pessimism shows a change but it is in the framework of an all encompassing function of non-change. Either one knew that it was going to work out or not work out and this starts in the initial position just before the "storm" hits. In this particular case, contrary to the self-fulfilling prophecy, whether or not one believed it was going to work out or not is irrelevant. For that which is Omniscient already knew the end-result. Now keep in mind that I am not trying to refute the theory of the self-fulfilling prophecy, on the contrary, I am actually in support of it. The power that is given to the individual to potentially change the result or outcome (through means of beliefs and persistent attempts to change) is an extremely difficult concept to discuss. As mentioned before, I am not saying that it is impossible to change the situation (actually, one can shape one's reality through determination and perseverance) and despite enormous dissent, it is possible to change it but the probable likelihood of this change may be unlikely (yet the statistics show an even more pessimistic probability). Nor am I saying that change is fully open and left for usage to its full capacity.

Many people think and believe that they can "change" their spouses, "change" their loved ones, or "change" other people and even the world. While this belief is of worthy cause and should be commended for, the end-result is almost always negative. The agent enacting the change may spend years if not decades trying to change the people around them and although those around them may try to do so, they were always the same person as they were in the first place. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson tried to change the world at a global scale and the question as to whether or not they were successful remains to be of debate. Rascism still exists (and to say that it is only between black and white or skin color is simply just too narrow-minded) and may have actually amplified and evolved into other areas of discrimination (like light-skin blacks versus dark-skin blacks). Poverty has yet to be eradicated too. So much for the self-fulfilling prophecy of believing that one can change the world.

Going back to the campaign of "change." I find it very entertaining to watch politicians yacking about change and reform of our healthcare, education, and other programs typically used as a political means to obtain both popularity and votes (both among the citizens of the United States and among the peers themselves in Congress). If one has paid attention in school and studied United States history wholeheartedly, one would know that the act of reform and change has always been a central issue in enaction. Yet the true and reality outcome of numerous years of such attempts has not much yielded much reform and change, now has it? Again, one could argue that there have been changes and we "have come a long way" so-to-speak, yet in a sense, those "changing reforms" are really a function of non-change. For example, I am sure that the government has attempted several times to bridged the gap in student achievement with regards to the education system. True, certain achievements tests may have improved over years, but then there is debate as to whether these scores really do reflect the performance and ability of the student. Although research has suggested that there is a strong correlation between student achievement tests and performance at the university level, I am not sure if this strong correlation is a strong enough argument to suggest such a potential correlation is solid suffice to warrant the giving of such standardized testing. Are we really teaching students the necessary skills and abilities required for the real world or are we simply teaching them to pass multiple-choice examinations? One could also go into a debate as to whether multiple-choice exams really do reflect the student's knowledge (versus an essay). What about the students who never really do well on exams, yet can perform (like for example, the exceptional essays they write, their participation and contribution to the classroom setting, and their ability to debate in a cohesive manner with a finishing victory)? What about the students who have high test scores but "C" average performance versus the students who have low test scores but "A" average performance? Does the systems itself really take into account of subjective ideologies, philosophies, and the power of the individual mind itself, like for instance, motivation, perseverance, empowerment, and overall speaking, the psychology of the individual with a potential power to break through any typical rules and/or barriers? The idea that "one can do anything" coupled with the student's "belief of such a success" may break through normally traditional rooted beliefs (like the notion that if you performed poorly on the tests that this is an indication of your inability to perform) and can become a self-fulfilling prophecy regardless of the enormous dissenting viewpoints by other individuals who do not know of such great power (perhaps they do not have limitations that will enable them to discover such power). Although what I have just stated is just a theory with a subjective result (which may or may not happen), it is certainly an ideology that could happen and should not be discounted for such a potential occurrence can become very powerful because it goes against the norms of expectational results.

A dissenting point brought on by those who accept the giving of standardized testing is that there is improvement over time. This may be true, however, there is no connection to the true performance of students and we have no way of measuring in proximity between the test scores and performance. I define performance here in broader terms as the ability to comprise essays of exceptional quality, the ability to apply concepts taught in the classroom to the real world setting, and the ability to skillfully use critical thinking methods when graduated from school and sent out to make an impact in the world. Furthermore, these standardized tests have absolutely no way of measuring one's true potential, motivation, and many of the subjective factors that can contribute to a student achieving the grade mark of an "A" (like writing an essay for English course due in a couple of weeks rather than being forced to sit in a classroom under time pressure to take an essay exam which may ultimately yield no compelling result of an exceptional essay by those not gifted in writing within the allocated exam time schedule of one hour).

Perhaps we got caught up in all those little issues that have no significance whatsoever. Maybe the end-result of the student was already foreshadowed in the initial position, that the individual was going to do well in all adversity anyways regardless of what standardized testing methods used or given to them. So what we thought or believed was the changing agent (like the changing of tests from multiple choice to essay writing application utilizing critical thinking) was just a changing agent within the context of a function of non-change. The non-change being that the expectational result was the result intended and the result-to-be anyways.

In the beginning series of Harry Potter books and movies, for the most part, everyone knew and got a sense that Harry Potter himself was going to become of something great and that they were "going to expect great things from Harry Potter" himself. Did Harry Potter "change" from that immature somewhat ignorant little boy to a wizard with great powers? Or was it always known that he was going to become the person he was going to be?. If this was the case, then this is within the context of a function of non-change. The expectation of a foreseeable potential outcome is a function of non-change.

Rehabilitation programs has usually been a hot debate as to the program effectiveness and efficiency of change. Does rehabilitation in drugs, behavioral programs, and prisons really work? We know for a fact that relapse for drugs is very common, that prisoners who get out would commit additional crimes (and may even become smarter in subsequent rounds), and that many behavioral programs as the only and sole treatment may not work in the long run. One would think that the threat of incarceration and the death penalty would discourage or keep crime down. So did many who thought that the prohibition of drinking mandated by constitutional law in 1920 would ban it but only resulted in its constitutional repeal. I look at the paragraph I had just wrote and can only see a bunch of "changes" within the framework of a non-change embodiment function.

When there is a problem that needs to be solved, we (the politicians, the educators, and all other persons with the desire to enact change) tend to think that we can fix it (or at least try to fix it). We think we can "change" the situation to better suit the needs for everyone involved. By enacting the solution provider, we believe we have solved the problem. Or have we? Although we may have solved the problem at hand, we may have actually created another problem. Perhaps we are simply just rearranging the problem and it may have come at the expense of someone else and the gaining of yet another individual. This "shift" or "change" is essentially a function of non-change. The problem being attempted to be resolved morphs into another problem and the problem has been passed on to someone or something else. Yet, has the problem been solved? This is why I believe that functionalist theorists are somewhat correct in their resistance to change. Altering one part of society has an impact on other parts of society and so change in one area may adversely affect all other parts. Ignorantly, functionalism does not remain as a support to functionalism and instead contributes to the conflict theory since change is simply just a rearrangement of the problem, the problem remains and so there is a never-ending power struggle between groups of individuals (Thus, functionalism is in actuality a subset or sector of conflict theory).

In conclusion, I decided to discuss the subject of change because I feel that many people do not really comprehend what it means to change, what change is, and the implications as a result of how an individual defines change. My central argument is that these changes are really a part of a function of non-change as if liberals and conservatives will ever change, change each other, or simply be what they are and that is a liberal or a conservative. Finding a common ground in which both liberals and conservatives would have to compromise is a great alternative to consider but it would only negate each group to zero in resulting in a non-accomplishable activity like a stalemate in chess where neither party is a winner and no problem is solved or the problem becomes rearranged and morphed into something else. Hence, the battle between the haves and have-nots rages on.