The_John_Man's Xanga

Monday, May 19, 2008

Mon, 19 May 2008 02:03:30 GMT

Hamiltonian Philosophy: Christianity in a Blue Like Jazz World

During my freshman year of college an unknown author came out with a book that would soon become a literary mainstay of the "20 something" Christian. The book didn't really catch on until my sophomore year, but when it did the wildfire could not be stopped. Students were talking about it and discussing the book's meaning in coffee shops, book stores, theology classes, and the list goes on. One of the theology professors on campus was a huge fan of the book and pushed for it to be read quite often amongst his students. Soon I had some friends and friends of friends directing me to this piece of Christian literature. The book's title is "Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts On Christian Spirituality" and it is written by Donald Miller.

Before I cracked the spine of this immensely popular book, I couldn't help but wonder what the book was about. I asked each recommender what lies between the cover and all I received in return were various generalities. I got answers like "O well it's the uncensored thoughts of the author" "O it's a really good book about Christians" and "it's a Christian book for non-Christians." Considering I figured all of that out just by reading the title, I didn't have much to go on, so all that was left was to open the book and begin eyeballing each page. 242 pages later, I was done reading what I found to be a very shallow and simplistic book rife with over generalizations and a lack of any spiritual substance. I actually thought the book was written for teens due to it's prose and simplicity, but the version that I read lacked any such indication. I was shocked that this was the book that has sparked so much excitement among many in my age group. When I finished reading I began to gather together my thoughts about this book. I know they won't be popular, but then again I've never pursued likability.

The Good

I would like to start with a few things that I did like about the book. I thought the story about his atheist friend who accepted the Lord was great and I applauded his openness about his faith (an area that I need to work on). I also agree with one of his overall messages about acceptance of those who are perceived as "different." After all Jesus died for all men that they might live, and that does not exclude any living and breathing human being.

The Bad

I found alot of things in this book to be disturbing (I'll go into that more later), but I want to highlight just a couple things that bothered me the most. The first is how Mr. Miller uses broad generalizations to paint a picture of a bovine, narrow minded (page 19), Republican controlled (page 188) race of automatons known as Christians. Throughout the book he builds up a straw man argument that feeds off of our society's stereotypes of modern christians. Each time he described christians, I couldn't help but picture a 60 year old school marm with her hair in a bun rapping every sinner on the hand who didn't wear knickers to church. I read an associated press article in January that does a great job summing up Mr. Miller's self perceived truths about a vast majority of christians. Quote " For [Donald Miller], the word [christianity] conjured up conservative politics, suburban consumerism and an ''insensitivity to people who aren't [christians] .'' Mr. Miller certainly makes alot of assumptions. I mean almost every christian is a conservative...right? Almost every christian is a vain shallow consumer.....right? Almost every christian dislikes anyone who isn't like them...right? I could keep rolling out his little straw men, but that is boring and unnecessary. Sometimes I think he got sucked into a wormhole and ended up stuck in the movie "saved" and has yet to find his way out.

The second major issue I had with "Blue Like Jazz" is the flaky, abstract, paper thin theology he presents to the reader. In 242 pages there isn't one scripture reference or quotation, sure the characters in the book read the bible but that is where the buck stops. Would it have killed him to use scripture to back up his claims about christianity? The only bit of evidence he ever drags out is an anecdote or a conversation with a friend about a particular subject pertaining to christianity. He emphasizes an airy, emotional, right brained type of approach to christianity, while completely ignoring or chastising concrete, logical, left brained portions. I found a video on Youtube where he expresses these sentiments. This interview is particularly reveling because you can tell he was thrown by the first question (how do you balance truth and meaning?) and does his best impression of a politician and says everything and nothing. Then he answers the second question (what if you have a problem with right brain theology?) . His answer paraphrased: The bible is a right brained book and if you have a problem with right brained theology then you have a problem with the bible (1:45-2:39). Wow that is a heavy and almost arrogant indictment. I'm no expert but from what I know about the bible it is both right brained and left brained so as to be accessible to every person on the planet. Did he somehow miss exodus 20 with it's 10 bullet points or proverbs with it's concrete pieces of wisdom? or the whole old testament for that matter? Did he miss how God logically tied the old and new testaments together using prophecy and events that interconnect? Did he miss biblical events that have effected and still effect nations and tribes in the middle east today? Donald is missing out on an awesome part of God, and that is His logic. God is a logical God, we can only understand it in hindsight. To reject the concrete, logical, left brain portions of God is to lesson our understanding of Him.

The Ugly (Christian Relativism)

Postmodernism is taking root in Christianity and is creating an attitude of relativism among young believers. Immoral actions are no longer questioned, because attitude has taken over as a moral compass. After attending a Christian high school and a Christian university I've seen this game played out in a variety of different arenas among a variety of individuals. You would have to be a fool to think that drugs, alcohol, profanity, theft, and all kinds of promiscuity and maliciousness don't play a part in church affiliated institutions. I find it deeply saddening that fellow Christians run to worldly things and turn their eyes from God's direction. I know our human nature drives these kinds of actions, and everyone is destined to fall on an occasion or two. However when Christians justify their wrongful actions based on what they feel is right and wrong, they are creating a kind of cyclical false reality that begins to eat away at their spiritual being. Thus current attitudes become the moral compass, and Christianity stops being about a relationship with God and starts being about self. I lovingly dub this "cool" Christianity, all the benefits (not going to hell) without all the sacrifice (doing what you want when you want to). I write this not to point a finger of blame, but to demonstrate what I have learned on my spiritual journey.

"Blue Like Jazz" displays ideas tauted by postmodern relativism. I'd like to specifically point to one area of the book in which I feel Donald Miller flat out mixes postmodern relativism with Christianity. In the 5th chapter he discusses the topic of faith and called the chapter "Faith: Penguin Sex" (pages 51-58). Here he sets the reader up with a story focused around the life cycle of penguins. He discusses the mating habits and parenting responsibilities of penguins and how their nature always leads them to the right places at the right time. He then draws the following conclusion to his spiritual life:

"[Penguins] have this radar inside of them that told them when and where to go and none of it made any sense, but they show up on the very day their babies are being born, and the radar always turns out to be right. I have a radar inside me that says to believe in Jesus. Somehow, penguin radar leads them perfectly well. Maybe it isn't so foolish that I follow the radar that is inside of me." (page 57)

The only conclusion that I could draw from this analogy was that since penguins have an animal sense to head back to their nests the minute their babies are born, then humans have an "animal" sense that leads them towards Jesus.... What if my radar told me I wanted to go to a strip club and spend $1,000 on lap dances? What if my radar told me to steal something from my neighbor's house? If there is anything I've learned in my 23 years of living, it is human nature is misleading. Human nature wants to appease self and not God. A complete yielding of one's selfish desires to God is probably the hardest feat to be reached by any christian, because we cannot do it alone. I refuse to believe that anyone's "radar" leads them to Christ. Leaving human nature to control one's moral compass will result in complacency and maybe even turning away from God.

"Blue Like Jazz" then continues to create an atmosphere of an "anything goes" type of christian, and is permissive of actions that are deadly to living a Christ-like life. Donald Miller speaks boldly about the times he spent in high school smoking pot and drinking beer with the student leader of his youth group (page 60-63). He also reminisces about other times he sat around a coffeeshop using profanity with his pastor (page 134), and yelling profanity at his house mates while playing video games (page 179). I wouldn't even mention these things, if it wasn't for the fact that he showed no remorse for his actions. I would have liked to have seen him follow these stories up with some kind of a strong rebuke of his past actions, but none exist. Donald Miller's silence is deafening and could easily be taken as a seal of approval by those who seek justification. Mr. Miller has made it easy for anybody, especially christians, to feel as if their actions don't matter just as long as their attitudes are in the right place. I have to wonder what non-christian's think while perusing this book? Why would anyone want to be a christian when other christians act like they do already? I like the fact that Miller wants to reach those who would never even consider stepping into a church. However christians cannot have their feet in both worlds (Romans 12:2), rejection of their old lives are necessary to attract hurting people to the saving knowledge of Christ. Christians aren't supposed to be like secret agents acting like the people they are trying to reach. They are supposed to be who they were made to be, following God's leading and fulfilling His perfect plan. God has given his children a clear cut list of instructions, and all he asks of his people is to trust Him.

Donald Miller's Imaginary Love Life?

In closing I'd like to pose one last question. Why in the world did Donald Miller spend so much time expounding on imaginary relationships with Ani Difranco, Katie Couric, and Emily Dickinson? I could have done without his fantasies involving Miss Couric being his sexy astronaut assistant, or Ani Difranco lying in his arms while watching Charlie Rose, or asking Emily Dickinson if she was a lesbian while alone in his apartment. As I was reading these passages, I kept asking myself how they tied into the chapter? Honestly, they had almost no particular rhyme or reason. I guess he was trying to be funny in some sort of way, but every time I came upon these sections of the book I drifted off into my own world. I kept thinking "why would he choose an aging news anchor who is close to being let go, a lesbian musician who can't sing, and a dead, recluse, free verse poet....? Why choose any of these three females when there are women like Laura Ingraham who can make leaders of domestic communist groups look stupid (not hard mind you), or Mary Katherine Ham who loves hunting and being a meat eater, or Megyn Kelly using her lawyer skills on her morning news program. All three women are alive, intelligent, heterosexual, and stunningly attractive, but that may be too logical or too "left brained" of an analysis for such a "right brained" or abstract thinker such as Mr. Miller. Maybe I'm just a neanderthalic knuckle dragger who doesn't understand the "artistic complexities" of free verse poetry or the significance of a guitar picking hippie who hasn't showered in a fortnight........

Lastly, I'm not claiming to be perfect and God knows that I have lots of problems and issues to work through. I'm just learning to trust in God more everyday so that He will increase my faith and help me to walk on paths that please Him. I don't want to subscribe to cool christianity any longer. If I am to live the rest of my life being scoffed at and hated, so be it may the Lord be with me........

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:47:25 GMT

Hamiltonian Philosophy: The 2008 Presidential Race and Other Pontifications

A year has passed since politicians from both sides of the isle stood up and declared their intentions on making a white house bid. 2008 will bring a host of important issues that will need immediate attention such as radical islam, illegal immigration, rising oil prices, energy independence, a slowing economy, education, health care, global warming (haha--cough--cough--), and (drum roll) impeaching Bush and Cheney. These are only some of the colossal challenges looming ahead, but none the less 12 candidates entered from stage right, and 9 entered from stage left. As the presidential primary election process continues, wars have broken out on both sides of the political spectrum. One side has been split right down the middle because of race and gender, and the other side is fighting to hold on to its base philosophical underpinnings. The war on both sides are dynamically different, yet equally as brutal. I'll begin by analyzing the war on the left, then I'll move to the war on the right.

(Warning: The following paragraphs contain observations and musings from a Conservative standpoint and will unapologetically criticize both sides.This may cause drowsiness, dizziness, and frequent nose bleeds, so be sure to consult your physician before reading. In some rare cases Hamiltonian Philosophy has been linked to increased chances of brain aneurysms so use as directed by your doctor. Batteries not included)

The democrats have always touted themselves as open minded, minority friendly, and racially sensitive, yet race and gender is the very issue that divides the party.The war on the left is heating up, and very soon the sparks and the fur will really start flying. I started observing the activities on the left in early September. At that point 8 candidates were still standing, but anyone with an IQ higher than a breadbox knew the remaining two would be Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. All the debates were extremely similar, because each candidate has practically the same stances on every issue. They all hate Bush and Cheney (some more than others), all want to pull out of Iraq ASAP, all support socialized medicine, all support "comprehensive" (cough--amnesty--cough) immigration reform, all support raising taxes (punish the EVIL rich people), all oppose school vouchers, and all believe in man made global warming. The only odd duck on stage was Mike Gravel because he was a supporter of the fair tax and wants to abolish the war on drugs. Apparently he's still running his presidential campaign, but I have no idea why? I guess every party needs to have at least one persevering kook (the republicans are lucky enough to have 2).

The Opening Bell

The debating and campaigning processes continued on the left without many snags. The Clintons were treating it like a coronation, Barak Obama was gaining momentum, and John Edwards kept playing his class warfare card over and over again. The first sign of racial tension surfaced as Bill Clinton was again touted as "the first black president", and was deemed blacker than Obama because he's been with more black women. Finally all of this came to a head on January 3rd 2008, the night of the Iowa caucuses. Barak Obama won and delivered a speech about.....you know....change.....and hope.....and ahh..and ahhhhh...how much he cares..,soon afterwards Chris Dodd and Joe Biden dropped out (6 left). That night was the turning point for the entire democratic presidential race, because that night is when the presidential race ceased to be about issues and turned into a race and gender war. Hillary's crown was knocked off of her head and her throne was tipped over, she was no longer the presumed nominee and was going to have to work hard for it.

The Crying Game

This leads us to January 6th 2008 a mere 48 hours before the New Hampshire primaries, and the very day when Hillary gave her oscar nominated crying performance. She was behind in the polls and that very performance gave her the necessary boost (even liberals like Maureen Dowd agree) to place her in the lead. Hillary played the gender card in a very big way, and with liberal women voters it paid off. Hillary won New Hampshire and a few days later Bill Richardson said goodbye to his White House dreams (5 to go). This takes us to South Carolina where a majority of the voting population is black American and this was the only reason Barak Obama won....at least that is what Bill Clinton thinks. Obama's victory signaled the end of John Edwards' and Dennis Kucinich's campaign (3 left). Finally super Tuesday (Feb 5th) (a 21 state primary) seemed to expose the rift in the democratic party better then any other piece of evidence I can drudge up. According to a Time magazine political correspondent, Clinton won 50.2% of the popular vote and Obama got 49.8% of the vote. Exit polling conducted in 16 different states by Fox News says that Obama won the black vote 82% to 16% against Clinton, and Clinton won the white vote 52% to 43% against Obama. Similarly Clinton won the women vote 51% to 45% over Obama, and Obama won the male vote 53% to 42% over Clinton.

The Dust Has Yet to Settle

The democratic race is going to be long and brutal if results like these continue to be the norm. Both candidates are very close in delegate counts as well, and rumor has it that the vote count will be so close at the convention that the nominee may end up being chosen by super delegates (Dem. party leaders and representatives). Obama seems to have the momentum right now due to his big wins in Maine, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington this Saturday, but just know that Clinton will do whatever is necessary to win...at any cost. No matter how you slice the democrat race, the vote is being divided either because of race or gender. There is practically no policy difference between Obama and Clinton, so voting based on issues seems to be a moot point. As a liberal who do you choose? Do you choose a white woman who has a large amount of baggage (Bill), not a whole lot of political experience, and is perceived to be cold and hostile? or Do you choose the black male who is a rookie senator with no political accomplishments, and is perceived to be kind and caring?

Close Minded Analysis

As a conservative, I wouldn't want anything to do with either of them. They are both socialistic, nanny state, ultra liberals who want nothing more than to slowly take away your freedoms and money through bureaucracy and tax hikes. The USA will slowly creep its way into becoming the USSA due to political correctness, multiculturalism, and out of control government dependency programs. To quote Hillary Clinton: "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few. Time to reject the idea of an on your own society, and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a we're all in it together society." I wonder where she plans on building red square? I'm sure San Francisco would be open to the idea.....

The fight within the republican party is certainly much different than the one brewing in the democratic party, because the right's fight is ideology driven. However this fight is not new to the republican party, and has taken place in both 1964 and in 1976 during the presidential campaigns of Barry Goldwater ('64) and Ronald Reagan ('76).This fight can simply be defined as the liberal/moderate/independent wing of the republican party (aka the establishment republicans) vs. the conservative base of the republican party. To quote Rick Santorum "There are three political parties in Washington the democratic party, the republican party, and the John McCain party." As the presidential race currently stands for the GOP, there are two liberal republicans John McCain and Mike Huckabee, a very angry and bitter Alan Keyes, and the libertarian Ron Paul.The only republican candidate that actually holds traditional conservative principles is Alan Keyes, but with no money, no support, and his angry kooky tone many wonder why he is still in the race. Base conservatives no longer have anyone who they feel comfortable supporting, and thus the chaos thats witnessed in the republican primaries today. If you hang with me I'll take you through some history and then give you some more of my insight.

Historically Speaking

Former Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) has often been credited as the man who rekindled the conservative movement in the republican party. He was the man that spoke out against wasteful g

overnment dependency programs, labor unions, and stood strongly against the Soviet Union's spread of communism. His ideas were bold and put a new face on conservatism that would last for generations. In 1964 Goldwater was running for the republican presidential nomination against Gov. Nelson Rockefeller. Rockefeller was a moderate republican who loathed conservatives and called for their extraction from the party. Goldwater had a rendezvous with destiny and won the nomination to face Lyndon Johnson, and lost in one of the largest landslide defeats in US presidential politics. Johnson painted Goldwater as a right wing extremist bent on hurting the working class by cutting government aid such as welfare and social security programs. He also painted him as a war monger destined to drag the United States into a nuclear war with the USSR.(Random pontification) If you haven't already noticed, liberals still use the same old "class warfare, poor people hating, war mongering" playbook against conservatives....it's amazing isn't it. I thought liberals believed in evolution?

In 1976 a similar struggle between moderates and conservatives played out but with a much different result. Gov. Ronald Reagan was running against then vice president Gerald Ford. Reagan was running his campaign as a Goldwater conservative to attract the base, and Ford was a moderate republican and ran a campaign to attract moderates, independents, and liberals. Ford won the nomination, but Reagan's speech (2:43) stirred in the ears of every audience member and each soon realized that they had nominated the wrong guy. Ford went on to face Jimmy Carter and lost in a very close race. Carter was a rather unknown political figure who ran as a reformer who longed for change in Washington, and he beat the drum of his outsider status.(Random pontification) Parallels can be drawn between Carter and Obama. They both were unknowns when getting into the race, both play the same tune with their campaigns, and Obama will have the same disastrous results as President Carter. This will include a stagflated economy, a shrinking, underfunded, and demoralized military, massive increases in government spending (buckle up), a failed energy independence policy, and increases in terrorist activity. Obama '08? I hope not....

2008?

The republican establishment vs. conservatives fight in 2008 differs greatly in comparison to those fought previously in 1964 and 1976. In '64 and '76 traditional conservatives had a candidate who supported their policy views, Goldwater and Reagan were candidates they were ready and willing to support. However, in 2008 there isn't a traditional conservative to be found in the list of remaining candidates (two liberals and two kooks). I won't take the time to list the reasons why I don't support John McCain or Mike Huckabee, because I don't have time to write a book. The truth is we haven't had a conservative in the White House since the 1980's (not H.W.), and we haven't had conservative leadership in congress since the mid 90's. Huckabee and McCain will continue to shape conservatism in the moderate fashion so beloved by establishment republican bluebloods that they will begin to change the base forever.

Traditional conservatism as defined by Goldwater and Reagan has three major parts, Strong National Security (peace through strength), Economic Conservatism (less taxes, less gov, and less gov spending), and Social Conservatism (sanctity of life, traditional marriage). Three major candidates represented each piece of the conservative puzzle, McCain had national security voters, Romney had the economy voters, and Huckabee had the social voters. Each piece that composes conservative ideology was fighting each other, social voters hated Romney because he is a rich mormon who flip-flopped on abortion. National security voters hated Romney and Huckabee because they didn't have any military or national security experience. Economic voters hated Huckabee
and McCain because McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts twice, and Huckabee boosted taxes and the size of government in Arkansas. I almost wish I was able to make some kind of Frankenstein candidate and meld all three of them together. Conservatives aren't looking for a candidate that displays only one or two pieces of the conservative puzzle, but all three. This is what a lack of strong traditional conservative leadership and the rise of moderation has done to the republican party. Conservatives dislike the candidates we have left because neither of them stand on the three principles of conservatism.

We Will Nominate the Wrong Guy.....again.....

Throughout my journey of picking a presidential candidate, it took me awhile settle down and stick with one I really liked. If anyone kept count of how many times I changed my election 08 application on my facebook account, it would probably be in the 1,000s. The short list I had made up contained the following:

Like: Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee
Possible: Mitt Romney
NO!!!: John McCain, Rudy Guiliani

Fred Thompson turned out to be a major dud on the campaign trail and Duncan Hunter's campaign never really took off. I liked Mike Huckabee until I checked out his record, and then I ran for the hills like a mad man. That only left Mitt Romney, and I must say that it took me a little while to warm up to him. I didn't really like his flip flops on abortion issues, but he is solid everywhere else. After I had time to think things through and check his record, I came to the conclusion that Romney was the most conservative candidate. He isn't without his flaws, but he should have been our guy. I have yet to cast a vote in this election because the Indiana primary isn't until May, but had it been earlier I probably would have voted for someone else. Last Thursday when he delivered his phenomenal concession speech at CPAC, I felt like the delegates in '76 as they realized that they supported the wrong man. Is Romney Ronald Reagan?...no Reagan was a once in a lifetime political figure, but does Romney have the potential to stand for traditional conservative principles such as Reagan did?...yes most definitely.There are rumors that he will make another presidential bid in 2012, if this is true I'll have to keep an eye on him.

Almost Done......

To sum this all up, I find it amusing that when the democrats want to win an election they reach out and fully embrace their socialistic liberal base. When republicans want win an election they punish those who don't get in line behind the establishment, and reach out for moderates and independents. No wonder why the democrats are so fired up about this race.....you know what...this calls for a party symbol change....What do you think?

Monday, December 24, 2007

Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:29:00 GMT

Christmas is here again!!!!!

Christmas day is nearing and my "must do" list is nearly complete. I love this time of year the most and am going to miss it once it slips through my fingers for the 22nd time. My list only has a few items remaining (in no particular order):

1. Buy Presents and wrap them
2. Listen to Mannheim Steamroller cds over and over
3. Decorate the house
4. Throw snow at people
5. Eat Christmas cookies
6. Attend church Christmas musicals
7. Give money to a Salvation Army bell ringer
8. Attend a professional performance of Handel's Messiah
9. Make fun of politically correct people who don't say MERRY CHRISTMAS
10. Laugh at Jim Gaffigan's Christmas stand up routine
11. Watch either Home Alone or Home Alone 2
12. Watch Christmas Vacation
13. Watch Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (the one with the elf dentist and Burl Ives as the snowman)
14. Watch A Christmas Story

As my list draws to a close, I will leave behind the season of peace on earth and goodwill to men. All of this wouldn't have been possible without the birth of my Lord Jesus Christ. If you cut out all of the entertainment and calories on my list there isn't a whole lot left to behold. I'm so glad that Jesus came in a humble human frame to save me from death's sting.

The old cliched saying goes "Jesus is the reason for the season." Well I believe that to be true. No matter if it sounds like something taken from a Hallmark movie or an ABC Family special, Jesus is the center of our holiday traditions. May I never forget this truth tomorrow as I dig into neatly wrapped gifts and make fun of my family members as they fall asleep after dinner. May I never forget the birth of Christ in the midst eating good food, and may I never forget to think of others on this day.

MERRY CHRISTMAS to you and your family...and may you never forget that without Jesus there isn't much to this holiday. God Bless You......

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:13:18 GMT

Hamiltonian Philosophy: Some People Need To Be Beaten

(caveat: If you despise sarcasm, don't know how to take a joke, or are driven by political correctness stop reading here....you will be offended)

The Origin:

When my brother and I were mere youngins' living in the large and open frontier of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, we coined a philosophy that we still live by to this very day. We used this philosophy to express our angst for each other during heated arguments while our parents were in the room. We used this philosophy as a way to speak out against the rulings of our biological parentage. This philosophy is that in which you read above in bold lettering "Some People Need To Be Beaten."

Imagine with me if you will a bright shiny summer afternoon and a house hidden behind a grove of white birch trees and tucked away from a quaint country road. Inside this house are 2 young elementary aged boys and one is attacking the other while the "attackee" is screaming for the assistance of his matriarch. Upon hearing the shrill tones of her baby birds in combat, the matriarch swoops in to discipline her quarreling duo. She pulls them apart and proceeds to indict each of them for different crimes. The matriarch plays the prosecutor,judge, and executioner (no jury in this house) and each of the boys will serve their sentence according to the ruling. After she finishes reading the punishments, the boys somber off with sad looks of dejection since they won't be watching "Square One" that afternoon. Under the breath of one of the boys leaks the words "somebody needs to be beaten" as he stares at his brotherly adversary.The matriarch's ears don't pick up these words, but the other boy had heard them and they were a call to all out war. Both boys begin fighting once again and the indictment process begins all over.

The childhood origins of the philosophy "Somebody Needs To Be Beaten" was used as a way to invoke anger in an adversary so that they in turn will attack you without a seemingly blatant reason. This philosophical gem worked well at stoking the fires of emotions that were running high between two individuals. Over the years "Somebody Needs To Be Beaten" has taken on a different meaning. Now my brother and I use it when we see or hear someone saying something,wearing something,or acting in a way that we feel is ridiculous or stupid. Here is a short list my brother and I have compiled over the years of "Some People Who Need To Be Beaten.":

Guys who play guitars in common places on college campuses
Guys who wear suit blazers with t-shirts
Guys who wear to much cologne
Guys who yell across campus to other people (usually done with some kind of sound effect or incomprehensible vocal noise) (ex.haaaaaaaaaaahuuuuuuuuuu)
People who blast their music whether it is in their car or in a residence
People who try to act smart by discussing philosophical topics (they are mostly found in coffee shops)
People who ask really dumb questions in a group setting
People who think they're awesome
The ACLU
CAIR
Wiggers or Wigger-like activities
Hot girls who hang around losers
Hot girls who date losers
Girls who constantly complain about being too fat
Pretty Girls who complain about being too ugly
Pretty Girls who complain about their body shape
Emo Kids
Radical Environmentalists
Vegan Hippies (see above)
All forms of Rap, Hip-Hop, or Rapcore
Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi
The U.N.
Dane Cook (I don't get it....is he supposed to be funny?)
Anyone repeating or acting out Dane Cook standup routines
Mahhhhhccccckmoud Ahhhhhhhhccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkmadinejad
People who own Dane Cook Cds
People who own Dane Cook Dvds
Celebrity "political" commentators (Sean Penny, Susan Suranwrap, Timmy McRobbins, Jane "Barbarella" Fonda)
The Revvvvvvrehund Jaaacksooooooon and Al Sharpie
Huuuugo "you go" Chahhhhhhavez
Existentialists
Socialists
Communists
And many...many.....many more

Here is a real life story about some people who most desperately need to be beaten. Late last week I saw a news story circulating around on the Drudge Report, and my first thoughts were.......(yep you guessed it). The story's headline was "college students dress up as dead VT shooting victims." I could hardly believe it...these clowns were mocking one of the most devastating acts of violence on American soil in recent history. I took one look at the pictures and they made blood shoot out of my eyes (thanks Glenn Beck).

There was a video that accompanied the article (click here). I may have been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if they were doing it to raise awareness about school violence, but just from viewing the pictures and the video.......it is blatantly obvious that is not the case. Sometimes I wonder why we don't euthanize stupid people......

These people need to be beaten...........

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:38:27 GMT

Hamiltonian Philosophy 104: College Kid Candidates

Over the last 8 months I've really been paying close attention to the 2008 Presidential candidates from both sides of the isle. I'm sure you already know that I'm not going to vote for a democrat, but I believe it to be beneficial to hear what those on the opposite side of the issues are saying. I have watched 6 republican debates and 2 democratic debates, I've visited each candidate's website and have tried to nail down what their vision is for America. I've also visited their youtube pages and have seen what they have to say on the internet. During all my searches I have noticed a trend that I find to be interesting. There are two candidates, both on different sides of the issues and on both sides of the isle, that are popular among young people (mainly college students). Those two candidates are Barak Obama (Democrat) and Ron Paul (Republican....?). I'm not implying that ALL college students will vote for one of these two, but a large amount of younger college age Americans support these two more then their rival colleagues. I began to turn this information over in my mind and ask the question "whats so great about Barak Obama and Ron Paul?" I'll attempt to answer the question and I'll interject it with some of my own thoughts, I'll begin with Obama and then Paul.

Senator Barak Hussein Obama Jr. (D-IL)

Barak Obama has certainly been an interesting...yet mysterious candidate to follow on his campaign trail. The media loves this guy...he's everywhere. He's on the midmorning talk shows like The View and Oprah, and makes his rounds on Tyra Banks and Ellen. He also has also stopped by on the daily show and spoke with John Stewart. Hollywood threw him a big fund raiser and big wigs like Stephen Spielberg, Ben Stiller, Morgan Freeman, and Jennifer Aniston came out to show their support. He's the hip candidate he dances, he has Jay-Z on his Ipod, he wants Denzel to play him in a movie, he was on SNL...I mean this guy is sooo cool right? This of course begs the question well whats his message? What is he saying that is getting the media and the celebrity base all fired up? ....and the answer is....I really have no idea. I haven't seen him on a venue or real news program (the daily show is NOT real news) answering tough questions on where he stands on the issues effecting Americans today. As a voter I want to see a candidate come out and demonstratively declare where they stand on the issues and why they feel they have the experience necessary for the job. Obama in every debate tiptoes around answering questions specifically and falls back on general ideas or notions that sound good. For example he was asked in the MSNBC debate by Brian Williams "What, specifically, is your relevant experience for being president?" His answer...."The experience I have in politics is primarily legislative (pause)....but here's the experience that I think the next president needs..." He then alludes to working with a Republican Senator Dick Lugar (Lugar is unfortunately my senator and if he's a republican I am Mickey mouse) and with law enforcement in Illinois. Both broad things, but he never specifically answers the question posed by Brian Williams. In my mind I asked these questions.....What did he help pass with Dick Lugar in the senate foreign relations committee? Did the death penalty reforms work in Illinois? Did they even pass the reforms? Was Illinois law enforcement happy with the reforms? Obama's answer to the question of experience was I've worked in legislature....I've worked with a "republican".....and I've worked with law enforcement.....

The only things that I've been able to decipher about Obama through the debates and his tv rounds is that he wants to pull out of Iraq immediately by ordering troop withdrawals each month, he supports free universal health care, he doesn't like Bush and Cheney, and thats about it. I really want to know what he stands for so I checked out is voting record. This was an interesting yet scary adventure. The one thing I noticed off the bat is that he has alot of no votes (NV) on his record, he was probably on a daytime show or doing something more important with his time. He voted against a bill that protects the sanctity of marriage, he voted for embryonic stem cell research not once but twice (Bush vetoed that bill), He voted against (in 05) and for (in 06) the Patriot act, he voted against a bill that denies legal status for illegal immigrants who commit or have committed violent crimes, he voted for the amnesty bill (that bill would have collapsed this country financially), he "didn't vote" for a bill that would label the Iranian revolutionary guard as terrorists and begin diplomatic action and economic sanctions against them, and he "didn't vote" for a bill that would strengthen our border security. HERES THE KICKERS!!!!!! He "didn't vote" to reaffirm support of our military and General Patraeus when being smeared (specifically moveon.org), and finally the most ahorant of all he voted in favor of Habeus Corpus for detainees of the United States (meaning those being held in Guantanamo for terrorism charges will be granted the same rights as an American citizen. That means being granted council and the right to a trail on US soil all paid for by you...the American taxpayer). These are just a few of the highlights..there is so much more here......

Wow this guy is really....really far left. He is soft on terrorism (he wants to convene a meeting of muslim leaders upon taking office for diplomacy purposes), soft on securing our borders, wants to instill a government controlled health care plan, wants to instill blanket amnesty for illegals (regardless of criminal record), fails to protect the sanctity of marriage (between a man and a woman), fails to protect the sanctity of life, doesn't stand up for our military in the midst of a smear campaign, and seeks to grant terrorism suspects in Guantanamo constitutional rights.On top of that he has refused to wear an american flag pin (forgive me "that" pin) because his stands on the issues are what he believes will strengthen America. His stands above stands will strengthen America? As a candidate he is weak and he attempts to hide his positions by dodging tough questions, but keeping in the public eye utilizing soft venues (Ellen, Tyra Banks, Jay Leno...ect.). Barak Obama to me doesn't have the experience or the strength to keep America safe for it's citizens and it's future generations. What ever happened to the transparency that you touted so freely during the last debate Mr. Obama? He is all hype thus lacking substance and moral standings....Obama 08?...I hope not!

Congressman Ronald Ernest Paul (R-TX)

I find the most interesting thing about Ron Paul isn't Ron Paul, but his supporters. Take a second and run a google search on Ron Paul and check out the people who support him. Watch some of his youtube videos (pick one anyone) and the comments left by his supporters gush about how America is doomed without him. His supporters will often say "he's the hope for America" or my personal favorite the "Ron Paul Revolution." Yesterday alone he raised 4.2 million dollars in 24 hours using the internet and his fans raised awareness using a youtube video with a V for Vendetta theme. If you check most post debate internet polls Ron Paul always seems to garner a huge percentage, but whenever professional polls are taken using a scientific methodology he garners 5% or less. A Ron Paul supporter tries to explain it using a theory that its a conspiracy of the mainstream media to control the way people think, its so stupid it's hilarious. Ron Paul's supporters even though there aren't alot of them, are extremely vociferous and monetarily generous in their support. So again I go back to the question....What is his message? What is he saying that connects with his few mostly young die hard fans? Ron Paul most certainly is not a conservative, but he is a libertarian through and through and his message and his voting record both confirm this. He hates government intrusion, government spending, government programs, government institutions (IRS, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security), and taxes. He is also a huge supporter of the second amendment, vehemently pro-life, and an extremely strict Constitutional constructionist. However, I don't believe these are the reasons why people love Ron Paul. I believe it has alot to do with his anti-Iraq war stand and the feeling of voting for the "rebel candidate." From what I've seen from his supporters they seem to think that he is there to screw the system and save the world from Bush's war (a la Ron Paul Revolution). Their mantra is Vote for Paul and screw them all!!!!!

There honestly isn't any discrepancy with his message that I spelled out above and his voting record. He votes down increases in government spending, tax increases, and government programs every time (except for AIDS treatment funding). He voted against the Iraq war in 2002, he voted against the Patriot act not once, twice, but three times, he voted against Iranian economic sanctions, and votes down the Department of Homeland Security funding, although he supports the Department of Homeland Security when it comes border security, the border fence, and upholding immigration laws. I want to highlight this issue because I couldn't agree more with it....withdrawal from the U.N.. A few other things I would like to note are that he supports public display of the 10 commandments, he voted down on the protection of marriage (between a man and woman), and he voted down the idea of the federal government stepping in on state medical marijuana laws. All of the above point to the fact that he has the isolationist thinking that is prevalent in libertarianism. To me it is obvious that he wants nothing more then to cut off our ties to international government bodies (the UN), strengthen our borders so to stop illegal immigration, get out of Iraq (and not interfere in international affairs in general), fight against government programs and taxes, stay out of any and all moral issues in order to not encroach on anyone else's freedom of expression.....Libertarianism.....check.

Ron Paul in general is soft on terrorism, strong on protecting our borders, strong on the sanctity of life, moderate on religious issues, strong on the second amendment, and strong on rejecting government intrusion. Although I believe in alot of the positions that Paul may have, he is weak on terrorism. He refuses to acknowledge the danger that Islamo-fascism presents. I don't know if he was paying attention on 9/11, but the threat is real whether we have troops fighting in Iraq or not. Simply withdrawing our troops and burying our heads in sand won't stop the threat of terrorism we face. This war isn't about power or greed, but about fighting to liberate a suffering people and empowering them to stand as a nation. Under Paul's logic we never should have gone to war against Hitler and his fascist ilk, but we did and we raised a devastated Germany up after a hard battle. I believe fascism has taken on a new face and came knocking at our door on 9/11, it stared us in the eye and said "What are you going to do about it?" Paul is very wrong about terrorism......dead wrong......

The goal of this little musing wasn't to force anyone to vote or not vote for these two candidates, but to spur you to research the 08 presidential candidates and work up your own conclusion. I feel that many people my age or the American people in general just don't care enough to get out and educate themselves and vote for the person they really care about. I bet if you were to ask a random person who they were voting for in 08, many wouldn't even know who is running or what the candidates even stand for. This really disheartens me, considering our right to vote is a unique privilege not shared among many international countries. Going back to Obama and Paul, I feel that both of these candidates widely supported by my age demographic are dangerous to America. Obama looks good on television and he seems like a nice guy, but these don't make a good president. Obama always backs down when he has to take a hard stand on an issue. Again I believe he is weak on every major issue facing our country and if voted in would most likely be the worst president since Jimmy Carter. On Ron Paul I believe him to be strong, unwavering, and consistant in his standings on the issues and doesn't hide behind a media flurry. Again these things don't make you a good president, but Paul's standing on Iraq and terrorism are not only irresponsible but dangerous. Isolationism isn't the answer and the Ron Paul Revolution won't go anywhere...because he has a very very very slim chance of even being a major competitor for the Republican nominee. However I could be wrong.

Get out and educate yourself and above all VOTE!!!!!!!!

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:06:13 GMT

The Democratic Debate Drinking Game

Last night as I basked in the glow of the television set and my rods and cones took in the MSNBC Democratic Debate, I couldn't help but wonder what our country would look like in their control. Each and every candidate is soft on terror, soft on protecting our borders, quick to expand government power, quick to tax (especially the rich), quick to remove school choice, quick to embrace international laws, and quick to enact diplomacy on someone who is building a nuclear weapon and wants nothing more than to destroy Israel and then America (oops I mean "the great satan"). As those thoughts were careening around my pathetically puny, closed minded, bigoted, hate mongering, conservative brain, my mouth became dry and parched. Then it hit me......something to take away the pain of watching my country circle the drain as elitists squabble for its control......create a drinking game.



I know most of these games are created with the express purpose of getting drunk. However I despise alcohol and refuse to drink the stuff so in its stead I used a couple bottles of aquafina. Here is my game:

Take a sip every time:

A candidate mentions or claims to be an advocate for children, the elderly, or the middle class

A candidate mentions healthcare or climate change

A candidate mentions, alludes, or attacks Bush, Cheney, or their Administration

A candidate attacks Hillary Clinton

A candidate buddies up to Hillary (that VP position is still open...even though I already know Evan Bye is going to get it)

Take a gulp every time:

A candidate mentions raising taxes

A candidate wants to create or broaden a government program

A candidate refers to Iraq as "Bush's war"

A candidate wants to use diplomacy with Iran

A candidate dodges a question about Iran

A candidate dodges a question about pulling out of Iraq

A candidate proclaims the rich aren't paying enough taxes

Barak Obama dodges a question (which is a good portion of them)

Hillary Clinton stands on both sides of an issue or dodges a question

John Edwards mentions poverty or special interest groups (ironic)

Take a shot or finish your drink every time:

Dennis Kucinich is given time to speak

A candidate refers to the Iraq war as illegal

A candidate mentions reducing our national defense

Finish everything in sight if:

a candidate makes a joke that includes 9/11 in the punch line (courtesy of Joe Biden)

I'll provide you a few clips from the debate so you can see how the game works:

Clip 1: Gulp: Hillary dodges a question
         Gulp: Hillary dodges the same question
           Sip: Obama attacks Hillary on not answering the question
           Sip: Obama mentions the Bush Administration

Clip 2: Sip: Obama attacked Hillary for being like republicans (in the article)
           Sip: Obama mentions healthcare
           Sip: Obama mentions climate change
           Sip: Obama attacks Hillary for flip flopping

Clip 3: Finish your drink or take a shot: Kucinich is speaking (UFO......Massive Brain Explosion.....!!!!!)
           Sip: Kucinich attacks the Bush Administration

Clip 4: Sip: Hillary mentions the Bush Administration
        Gulp: Hillary dodges the question
        Gulp: Hillary stands on both sides of the issue
        Sip: Chris Dodd attacks Hillary for flip flopping
        Gulp: Hillary dodges the question
        Sip: Hillary attacks Bush
          Gulp: Hillary stands on both sides of the issue

I'm sure you get the point and had I been drinking real alcohol I would have been stone drunk in about 15 minutes. After I went through 2 bottles I decided enough was enough considering there was only three commercial breaks during the 2 hour debate. I must say that I enjoyed playing it and I hope you play along with me during the next televised debate (nov. 15 on cnn).

Thursday, October 04, 2007

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:24:10 GMT

Hamiltonian Philosophy 103: Liberal Guttersnipe Smears

Let me start off by explaining to you this universal truth, no matter what you have been told conservatives DO NOT have an agenda. You can laugh at me all you want but if we really did have an agenda I am certain that I would be well aware of it by now. I have been reading non stop (not literally) since I have been home from school and most of my readings have focused on "controversial" conservative writers such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage. I have also been reading Michelle Malkin's blog site and doing a quick daily scan on the Drudge Report. I did so because for many years I have been told to avoid these people because they are hate mongers. All they do is spread lies and castigate those who stand for the American way of life. Yet through all this negativity they remain popular political icons.....Why? If these people are so full of hate and rhetoric how are they able to be the top radio talk show hosts in America? Why are their books #1 New York Times bestsellers? Let me guess...it's a conspiracy right...George W Bush placed tainted fluoride in the water supply thus urging the masses to tune in to talk radio and rush to the book store to buy the latest Ann Coutler diatribe.....right. Obviously I am joking but there is a commonality in each of their writings that inspires America to pay attention to them. Simply put they believe in standing up for traditional American values and present their beliefs in an optimistic fashion. They attribute alot of the problems America faces to the destruction of the nuclear family and the upheaval and removal of Judeo-Christian principles due to the abhorrent embrace of political correctness. If that is an agenda...where do I sign up for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?

Instead of these views being praised as they are with the American people, liberal elitists attempt to silence them. These past few weeks the so called "fringe" liberal blogs such as Media Matters, Moveon.org, DailyKOS, Huffington Post, Raw Story, Democratic Underground and the like have stepped up the smear tactics on those who dare speak in favor of traditional American values. In the past I frequently used these internet sites as a form of entertainment, they fulfilled my daily need to laugh at lunatics who actually believed their lies were true. I used to think these people had no sway over America's arena of political debate.....well I'm not laughing anymore. These liberal elites have used their money and their smear tactics to buy their way into WE THE PEOPLE'S senate chambers These people are cutthroats and will do anything dishonest to destroy anyone who opposes them. These malicious worms have made it their goal to step up and censore anyone they deem dangerous to their ideology. They will use any tactic necessary to permanently stain the reputation of outspoken conservatives or traditionalists who dare expose them for what they are......Far-Left Liberal Guttersnipes

The past two weeks have been disheartening for me because I have watched two of my favorite political commentators be dragged through the mud. Bill O'Reilly endured the first wave of attacks and was branded a racist while discussing race issues with Juan Williams (who works for NPR). Last week Bill had the entire transcript and taped radio interview to view for free on his site, but he no longer has it up or I would have provided a link. After viewing the interview in question, there is no doubt that Bill was degrading racism and he blamed it on fear and the acceptance of stereotypes presented to us through the media. All Media Matters did was take one portion of the interview, take it out of context, and paste it as the truth. The same thing happened to Rush Limbaugh as well. I happened to be listening to him that day when he made the comment about liberals using "phony soldiers" such as Jesse Macbeth and many others to prop their defeatist attitudes about the Iraq war. I am a staunch supporter of our troops and found no qualms with Rush's comments in the context that they were being used. Media Matters took his two words "phony soldiers" and pasted it to look like Rush was degrading American troops that didn't agree with the war. This could not be further from the truth!!!!!! I have been a fan of Rush Limbaugh for many years and have read both of his books and this man is without question a supporter of our troops. Certainly through all the exposure I have had to this man I would have seen his "hate for the troops" manifest in some manner.

Why does this all matter? I have to admit it certainly isn't the first time these men have been attacked by far left groups on the internet. What concerns me though is the mainstream media spouting the lies fabricated by media matters as the truth. I'm a little disheartened that professional cable news outlets like CNN and MSNBC didn't actually do their job and report these stories accurately. They swallowed what media matters fed them whole without question and without proof. Bill O'Reilly was blasted by mainstream media outlets, but Rush Limbaugh's smear went even further........it made it to the SENATE FLOOR!!!!!!! Tom Harkin and Harry Reid were both major players in parroting these false claims. Both of these men are SENATORS for crying out loud......WHY ARE THEY SPEWING ILK OF THIS NATURE ON THE SENATE FLOOR!!!!!!!! They know it is contrived truth with no basis in reality, yet they continue this deafening drum beat of ignorance. If a 22 year old "mentally challenged" conservative who has never served a senate term can see through this smoke screen, why the FREAKING HECK can't these elected officials? The answer is simple......they are exploiting this for political purposes in an attempt to silence opposition. They want to paint these men as hate mongers and they will do whatever they can to discredit them...and that is now so blatantly obvious. I can't believe that these far left hate groups actually have sway over the senate majority leader....that just blows my mind. The founding fathers would have taken out their muskets and run these rats out of our country. Free speech is important....but when it is used to slander others in which it doesn't agree...it no longer is free speech.....it is a smear campaign.

Well what about the General Petraeus ad John? Didn't Republicans waste time debating that in the Senate? I mean it was only a harmless ad right? Well no.......the Petraus moveon.org ad in the New York Times was a load of lies aimed at an American hero's credibility in order to silence what ultimately was good news about the surge. Republicans denounced the ad because it was being used to destroy the credibility of a war hero, and the allegations were completely false. The Rush and O'Reilly smears are in the same vein although they were brought about by a different group (media matters). The Democrats are shameful for getting behind the ilk of media matters and calling for action on the senate floor. Then they have the audacity to call upon Republicans to speak out against Rush's comments. They are nothing more then stooges that are playing into the hands of these liberal elitist guttersnipes.Generally speaking Republicans are not going to speak out against Rush because the comments he made were not over the line. As a clear thinking American I heard what Rush said...when he said it and he did NOT denigrate the troops. This is nothing more than a cheap ploy devised by the Democrats to take attention away from the failed Petraeus smear so they look like troop lovers. Both the ad and the "phony soldiers" comments are nothing but an attempt to silence opposition. The blood shooting through my veins right now is on fire......that is all for now...more on this later....

Monday, September 17, 2007

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:38:16 GMT

Hamiltonian Philosophy 102: Why I'm a Conservative

(Caveat: Same as before I'm open to constructive criticisms, but if you do comment please read the entire post.)

Many people that know me may not know that I have a strong passion for politics. After all I never really bring up the subject during social events or one on one chats. Usually a conversation with me will often entail making a sarcastic comment about the current topic of discussion, or saying something outlandish in which I'll receive empty looks and awkward laughs. This however doesn't really delineate who I am. It was never my intention to be known as a clown or a goofwad, but it seems thats what I'm known as. I guess I use my dynamic personality and strange sense of humor as a defense mechanism. I utilize this mechanism to avoid spewing out whats actually on my mind. When I'm not being loud and weird my mind is grinding its gears on current events and my opinion about them. I've been outspoken in my writings about my conservative convictions, but I'm going to get to the core of my rational about why I choose to be a conservative.

First let me put to death a few ideas that I'm sure some of you readers (all 2 of you) may be harboring.

You're a Conservative because of your parents.....
You're a Conservative because you're a Christian......
You're a Conservative because you went to Olivet.......
You're a Conservative because you watch Fox News and listen to all those other hate mongers on talk radio.....

All of the above statements don't hold any merit simply because they imply that I don't have a functioning brain that is capable of formulating my own thought patterns. All of them look down upon me as an empty machine looking for input so as to spew out talking points that are not my own. After all I just do whatever Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and George Bush tell me to do as they beam their ideology straight into my brain via secret CIA satellites....right? This couldn't be further from the truth, considering a major component of conservatism is free thinking. I believe that I'm a Conservative because I'm a thinker. I choose to be a conservative because I not only hear what people are saying politically, I evaluate what is actually being articulated.

As a Conservative I always have my brain armed and ready to evaluate everything I'm told through the American media machine. Nobody gets a free pass in my books, everybody undergoes the same amount of scrutiny. From Keith Olberman to Rush Limbaugh, or MSNBC to Fox News everybody gets the same treatment. I do this in order to stand strong in my core beliefs so that I'm not wavered by talking heads or political figures. I take pride in my core beliefs and will fight for them until the day I die. They are as follows:

-Limited Government
-Pro-life
-The right to bear arms
-Pro-military
-Freedom of religion (even though I may not agree with your particular religion)
-Freedom of speech (even though I may not agree with you)
-Political Incorrectness

I'm sure there are more, but this list is what comes to my mind at the moment. I will not stray from this list and it certainly isn't because I'm "closed minded". These beliefs are broad enough to accept a multitude of opinions, yet at the same time weed out those that don't jibe. What I mean is I will not waver from these principles because of flighty emotions or small "feel good" moment, nor will I agree with just any ideology because a multitude choose to follow. As a conservative I can hear what a liberal is saying and understand it, but not accept their point of view.

Here is an example of my mind in action:
The democratic presidential nominees have made socialized health care a major platform for the 08 election year. During every democratic debate I hear the likes of Hilliary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, talk on and on about implementing government funded health care. Their message is "We're going to give free health care to everybody living in the United States (and legal or illegal)." Each time I hear that all I can think about is "what is wrong with this picture?" How can expensive privatized health care all of a sudden become free? Well the answer is it isn't we'll be making up for it in taxes and the price is going to be massive. Sure it sounds great.... free health care for everybody while we all sit around hold hands and sing kum ba yah.

As a realist I question the validity of socialized health care actually working in this country. With the government in control of a precious privatized commodity, competition will vanish thus stagnating medical advances and halting ingenuity. I'm sure there will be less people applying to medical and nursing schools because after all that work they will be stuck as nothing but a government worker. As a doctor why work hard when you can't do what you want to do? After 8 years of college and a 4 year residency program all you do is take numbers and treat people by the dozen instead of on a personal case by case basis. I can imagine doctor's offices turning into a form of the DMV. You wait in a long line to tell someone behind a counter what you need, then you are given a number and asked to take a seat and wait even longer. While you're waiting in a packed room full of disgruntled adults and crying children you scan the workers behind the desks helping the irritated patrons. You look to heaven and pray to God you get a worker that actually knows what they're doing, then your number is called and you get the angry worker who hates people and has no idea what they're doing. As much as I hate the DMV I pray to God I never have to do this while I'm at the doctor's office. I hope that I don't have to scan a set of doctors and say "God I hope they know what they're doing...."

I'm even going to take it a step further. If socialized health care is implemented what about pharmaceutical companies. I mean sick people need pharmaceuticals right? so if government controls our health care wouldn't it make sense that they'd own the pharmaceutical companies too. I mean we can't have these evil companies charging people for their necessary medicine. We'll make medicine free to the public as well that way nobody goes without it. I mean it makes logical sense, if the government is allowed to take over one thing it's gonna want to take over another. I'm reminded of a kids book I read in first grade "If you give a mouse a cookie..he's gonna want a glass of milk." If we the people don't keep our government in check, it will take over and end freedom as we know it. I don't want to give government its cookie, because it will want its glass of milk. So what's socialized health care gonna change? It's going to eliminate competition, stagnate technological advances, lower the bar in medical treatment, take away the people's freedom of choice, and guess what....IT STILL WON'T BE FREE!!!!!

By now you must think I'm paranoid, but this is precisely the reason I believe in limited government. It would be so easy to say yeah Hillary and Barak just want to help people by giving them free health care. Do you actually think they're the ones who are going to be paying for it?...no no no...hard working men and women of America are. Of course the allure of free health care sounds good...but it's to good to be true.

To sum up I believe Glenn Beck said it best "[If] you have a heart you can be a liberal, but if you couple your brain with your heart then you can be a conservative." This certainly rings true with me I have a heart for poor people, but I can't accept pipe dreams such as socialized health care to solve their problems. I question such things because I can't bear to watch our freedoms dwindle away. Our greatest power as American citizens is to question and keep accountable those who are in leadership positions. As a conservative my goal keep the government in check, so that it doesn't invade on my freedoms and the sanctity of life. I am a conservative because I am a thinker and not because I'm a brainwashed automaton. I am a conservative because it is my choice and no one else's.............

Monday, September 10, 2007

Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:26:57 GMT

9/11/2001

I will never forget the men and women who died in this vile act of hate. I still can't believe it's been six years since I sat in shock watching the second airplane crash into the World Trade Center. Today reminds me why America fights a brutal war in Iraq. No matter what your opinion about the Iraq war may be, it is limpid that we continue to stand up to Islamic Fundamentalism. We stand against an enemy that doesn't care if we're republican, democrat, liberal, or conservative, we're all infidels in the enemies eyes and we all deserve to die because we aren't Muslim. Diplomacy is not an option to our enemy because we are all apart of "the great evil" as Ahmadinejad (the Iranian president) would refer to us. Pulling out of Iraq would be chaos and in our wake a bloodbath would ensue and another dictator will take power. Although I don't know every facet of the war, I feel that it is imperative to keep fighting and so do alot of our troops. America looked Islamic Fundamentalism in the face on 9/11/2001 and what it saw was evil.

Today is also a very important day due to the release of General Patraeus's report on the current surge being utilized in Iraq. Many of those who have made it a platform to oppose the war seek to undermine this man and his report. A great example would be the giant ad (here it is) taken out in the New York Times by Moveon.org to slander his position and his hard work. I trust this man's judgment and I feel (and so did congress) that he was the right one to lead the surge and to evaluate the new strategy in Iraq. What will the radical left and Hollywood do if they find out that after all.......Bush was right........... Americans should be celebrating!!!!! From what I've seen on Patraeus's exclusive interview on fox tonight the surge is working. America is moving forward pushing back terrorism and the oppression of totalitarian Islamic Fundamentalism. We're empowering a battered and bruised nation who deals with violence, pain, and suffering on a daily basis. HOOOOORAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't think of a reason why moveon.org, George Soros, and the like spread their ilk like a disease. Although its not only the radical left...it's also the democratic presidential candidates. I was watching The O'Reilly Factor tonight and was shocked to hear that none of them opposed the ad that moveon.org submitted. O'Reilly's producers and co-workers called the republican and democratic leadership as well as the presidential nominees and asked for statements about the ad. All the republican presidential nominees and leadership spoke out against the ad, but none of the Democratic presidential nominees did.......NOT A ONE!!!!!!!! Although Joe Lieberman, and surprisingly Nancy Pelosi opposed the ad also. If Pelosi rejects the ad....why in God's name would those who are running for PRESIDENT not??????? Who is going to elect and individual who doesn't stand up against slander and lies of this caliber. The democratic party has certainly taken a huge swing to the left if they don't reject diatribe of this nature. This may be a sign that the democrats are in trouble considering they were counting on America's perceived failure in Iraq. It must suck to be a candidate and watch a large portion of your political platform fall apart. Decent is one thing....but not standing up for American success during a time of war is another. This is why I LOVE being a conservative......I don't need to protect lies in order to continue following my principles. BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:53:49 GMT

Hamiltonian Philosophy 101: The Monolithic Conservative Mind

(Caveat: What I have to say here in is my own humble opinion, and I do not pretend to be fair to those who don't share the same mindset. I encourage commenting and I'd like to know what you think. If you do comment please have the common decency to read the ENTIRE post. Thanks for reading)

There are few things that bring me great pride, first and foremost is that I'm a Christian and the second is that I'm an American! Of course there are other things that make me proud, but those are dwarfed when paralleled to the aforementioned reasons. Whenever I attend Sunday morning worship or look upon the American flag I get the same feeling of freedom. Freedom to express my opinion, freedom to pursue my calling, freedom to worship God without severe persecution, and the list is endless. I am a true to life, bleeding heart, burger eating, apple pie loving, patriotic American and of which I have no qualms. I firmly believe that America is a beacon of liberty to the entire world and as a citizen I stand proudly defending it. America's best days are just around the corner and I've never been so proud to be apart of this nation.

While watching the news and following current events over the last few years I've noticed a specific furor (I love that word). It would seem that alot of political commentators, comedians, actors, lobbyist groups, special interest groups, ect. are making it their mission to portray anti-America sentiments. Of course this is not a new trend, but it bothers me all the same. Why is it that in a country where you can say what you want, be what you want, and act like you want (to a certain extent) the citizens with the highest amount of influence seek to damage its reputation? America (more specifically President Bush) seems to be the cause of most news worthy disasters. Katrina could have been avoided had Bush signed into law the Kyoto Protocol, or had taken global warming seriously........America caused the terrorist attack on 9/11 and by our presence in Iraq now its citizens are garnering more hate towards us..........Bush doesn't care about aids victims and refugees in Africa......and the list is endless. Day in and day out a large portion of the media machine chews up all the same diatribe and regurgitates it back out again into a different form. Whether it be magazine and newspaper articles, news blogs, tv shows, movies you name it the prevailing message is that America is a bigoted, intolerant, racist nation that seeks to expand itself through violence and exploitation of the poor and minorities.

This could not be further from the truth. Comically I state that a large portion of the media suffers from a really bad case of displacement. I just can't wrap my mind around why very influential Americans choose to heavily scrutinize a nation that offers them so much opportunity. If it's not corporate America's fault it's either President Bush or those who choose to speak positively on America and its traditions. Oh come on John what a load of crap you can't mean that, well I do mean it. If you don't believe me just look at the people who do stick up for America in our media. One particular man comes to mind by the name of Sean Hannity and I can almost feel the liberals shutter at the sound of his name. I can't think of another American who loves the U.S. of A like Mr. Hannity. Another one is the infamous Rush Limbaugh who sits behind the golden EIB microphone, and of course you can't forget Glenn Beck. What about the beautiful and intelligent Laura Ingraham and the lovely and vivacious Michelle Malkin, and a name that sends liberals into a tizzy Ann Coulter. These women are without a doubt the sexist females the media has to offer. They are just as smart as they are beautiful and I can't think of a better combination.

These are the men and women that speak out for traditional American beliefs and look how they are lambasted (search on google and youtube for any one of these names and you will see how much they are hated). If they aren't being called right-wing bigots, fascists, nazi's or hate mongers, they are being misquoted and taken out of context. I'm sure some of you already have presupposed opinions of those aforementioned names, but I encourage you to look into what they have to say. I listen to and read what these men and women have to say on a daily basis, and I have yet to see racism, bigotry, fascism, or any other form of hate come from they're mouths. In fact I find what they have to say refreshing and informative. They are actually very positive people and have alot of good things to say about America and standing for it's traditions. They are just as sick as I am of the day to day slandering of the US. The best part is they don't claim to know it all, they come off as common people who are honored to be in their current position. (or having more fun then a human being should be allowed to have)

This is truly how I feel and I really don't care if you like it or not. You may not like what these people have to say but I encourage everyone to at least check them out. I don't feel that I need to defend any of them, I'll let their work speak for itself. I've provided links to all their sites above and go here to listen to Glenn Beck (9am-12), Rush Limbaugh (12-3pm), and Sean Hannity (6pm-9pm) and go here to listen to Laura Ingraham (9am-12). These sites offer free (legal) internet streaming of their programs (no radio necessary). Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter are both authors, so most of their work comes from their site. Although Michelle does video blogs as well found HERE and as a side note I only vouch for Miss Malkin on that site because I don't really know alot about the other people who blog there.

I've had it up to here with people who tell me that conservatives aren't "open-minded." Well from what I've seen liberalism has changed the word open mindedness to mean "accept my beliefs carte blanche." Well if you're a liberal I strongly urge you to listen to what these people have to say. Throw off your preconceived notions and turn on your brain.....who knows.....God forbid.....you might hear something you like......