So today I think its time for a little bit of philosophy. Specifically about my view on patriotism.
I've been raised in what most would call a very patriotic place. My entire family is conservative, probably even down to my cat. Most of my relatives are Republicans, a few are conservative Democrats, and then there are others that don't know the difference between the two but are conservative because the Bible said so. While this does make the family dinners a bit drab (it would at least be entertaining if there were some gypsy relatives) it does mean that my Dad, at least, has given me a better understanding of political philosophy than any liberal media outlet. But anyways. I also live in the Bible belt where God looks favorably on the faithful USA since his name is on the currency and all. Lift all praise to the United States on high. On top of all that I'm an Eagle Scout. Boy Scouts is one organization in particular that presses patriotism as one of its main tenets.
Maybe its just the rebellious teenager in me but I really could care less about patriotism for a country. I'm especially not patriotic for this country, and I can't think of any others that I could really be patriotic for right now. Some time in the past I could have been a patriot. Far enough in the past when certain ideas were still respected and understood. I could have cared about what America stood for, but I don't care now, because it stands for nothing.
People will say that we have progressed into a better undestanding of society and we have made many good reforms to the way a society is run. Yes there have been many good reforms, but there have also been many bad reforms that people championed at one time as great ideas. Does the nation function any better now? There is still poverty, there are still wars being run by politicians instead of generals, and there is still apathy. Perhaps I should be apathetic too. It's becoming increasingly popular and it is being recognized even less and less. There are people who go through their lives who only care about getting through the next day and don't pause to think, to care, or to admire the beauty that is life. All that America stands for today is apathy, and those few with ardor are drowning in it.
So it is because of this that I ask: Why should I be patriotic for my country? The dog has been in existence for 15,000 years. That is far longer than any other country has ever lasted. Do we in our arrogance assume that America, or any other country will still be here in 15,000 years? That was a point raised to me in Joseph Heller's Catch-22, and a very good point it is. All countries fall eventually, why should we be patriotic to a country more than an idea? As a country progresses new ideas form and old ones become less popular. But if there is an idea that I believe in, it doesn't matter how unpopular the idea is, I should show fervor to the idea over my country. Rather than jump on the "progress" train I should hold to what is true. Even if America is moving away from what it once valued, I will continue to support the idea.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
Donkeys and superdelegates
I think a hilarious contradiction in the Democratic Party is often overlooked by most people. The superdelegate. The symbol of the democratic party is a donkey, supposed to represent the common man. But what I don't get is why only the democratic party has delegates that represent only their self-interests. Superdelegates are delegates that can vote at the democratic convention. They are in no way chosen by the people during the primaries, and most of them are governors, congressman, and other political power figures. They are not obligated to vote any particular way. The last time I checked Obama had quite a few more delegates than Hillary, but she had almost double the superdelegate count. That's what has kept them neck and neck for so long. If you ask me, that is not helping the hard-working common man at all. I suppose liberals would defend the superdelegates by saying that they usually vote similar to the people's wishes. They certainly don't have to vote according to the people's wishes. Ideally shouldn't the Democrats stand up for the common man and be the party without the superdelegates? Superdelegates undermine the definition of "Democratic".
Monday, January 28, 2008
Politics
I've decided to post a blog about who I endorse for president 2008 in easy-to read sound bites so that the general populace will understand.
I will start with the republicans.
The Huckster/Huck&Chuck Inc./Huckleberry or Huckabee as he is commonly known:
I liked some of the things he said. Things like getting rid of the IRS, his immigration policy, and the nice (though somewhat meaningless) sound of more art in schools. Then he said he had a divine right to be president and I decided that my vote would be best spent elsewhere.
Mitt Meister/Mitt Romney: He's the average neo con in my view nothing is really going to change with him except that the Bible Belt will have to deal with the fact that Huckabee didn't win.
McCain: I have a lot of respect for this man. A real war hero and a real leader. I agree on him with many things and he is my 2nd choice for republicans. He likes things like conservative spending, tax cuts, and border security, and so do I. He does have a streak of Neo-con in him though which is why he is my second choice.
Rudy Giuliani/The Rude: He's my least favorite for republicans. He's also probably not going to win. I like that. Nuff said.
Ron Paul: My number one choice overall. He has capitalist solutions (which are the only ones that work in the end) to the Health Care crisis, which is my number one issue. He shows an understanding of the issues above and beyond every other candidate and he plans carefully. He has solutions to America's laughable Social "Security" and he wants a true limited government. Some people call him a racist, which is funny since he is the most anti-racist presidential hopeful by definition of the philosophy he follows: Libertarianism. He's a true fiscal conservative who wants to get rid of America's debt and get out of a war that has gone on too long for all the wrong reasons. Sadly, he probably won't win. Either way he started a movement that will continue on to the next election.
Now its time for the Democrats!
Hillary Clinton: If anything I am anti-Hillary. She is the last person I want to see as my president and it has nothing to do with her gender before you accuse me of being a chauvinist pig. Also make sure you can spell that before calling me one. She has such noble robin hood-esque ideals such as taking big bucks from the big bad corporations and giving the money to innovation (a contradiction with government) of fuel. Not only is she investing the money of the companies into a really dumb alternative fuels, (corn Ethanol) but whenever government socializes business, innovation bombs. I also don't want socialized medicine. That will completely destroy the health of millions of people and outright kill others. I also hate really bad actors. To people who support her wholeheartedly I would encourage them not to be so blind. She's running for president so that she can have power. Helping the people only comes after her agenda.
Barack Obama: On a happier note there is someone who can actually defeat Hillary in this race. Obama. He is my number one choice for democrats and my number two choice overall. People say he's inexperienced, but if he's made it this far in the presidential race then we can at least say he's a fast learner. He's an idealist. He wants to make politics totally transparent and I can't help but jump onboard that train. If he had a conservative economic policy and was for privatization, I think Obama would easily surpass Ron Paul in my book.
John Edwards: I like that he put poverty on the forefront of his campaign. Because of that he's challenging other candidates to place importance on the issue and give their plans. As for his policies I'm kind of unimpressed. He's on the same level as Huckabee to me. The mid-range. I wish him luck in his political career and I'm glad he's still around to mooch votes off Hillary.
So there you have it. My political viewpoint. If you want to you can tell your friends that I endorse Ron Paul and because of that they should too. If they ask who I am just give them a vague answer about my political power. If you tell the whole story then they will think nothing you say is credible ever again. Now how would that make you feel?
I will start with the republicans.
The Huckster/Huck&Chuck Inc./Huckleberry or Huckabee as he is commonly known:
I liked some of the things he said. Things like getting rid of the IRS, his immigration policy, and the nice (though somewhat meaningless) sound of more art in schools. Then he said he had a divine right to be president and I decided that my vote would be best spent elsewhere.
Mitt Meister/Mitt Romney: He's the average neo con in my view nothing is really going to change with him except that the Bible Belt will have to deal with the fact that Huckabee didn't win.
McCain: I have a lot of respect for this man. A real war hero and a real leader. I agree on him with many things and he is my 2nd choice for republicans. He likes things like conservative spending, tax cuts, and border security, and so do I. He does have a streak of Neo-con in him though which is why he is my second choice.
Rudy Giuliani/The Rude: He's my least favorite for republicans. He's also probably not going to win. I like that. Nuff said.
Ron Paul: My number one choice overall. He has capitalist solutions (which are the only ones that work in the end) to the Health Care crisis, which is my number one issue. He shows an understanding of the issues above and beyond every other candidate and he plans carefully. He has solutions to America's laughable Social "Security" and he wants a true limited government. Some people call him a racist, which is funny since he is the most anti-racist presidential hopeful by definition of the philosophy he follows: Libertarianism. He's a true fiscal conservative who wants to get rid of America's debt and get out of a war that has gone on too long for all the wrong reasons. Sadly, he probably won't win. Either way he started a movement that will continue on to the next election.
Now its time for the Democrats!
Hillary Clinton: If anything I am anti-Hillary. She is the last person I want to see as my president and it has nothing to do with her gender before you accuse me of being a chauvinist pig. Also make sure you can spell that before calling me one. She has such noble robin hood-esque ideals such as taking big bucks from the big bad corporations and giving the money to innovation (a contradiction with government) of fuel. Not only is she investing the money of the companies into a really dumb alternative fuels, (corn Ethanol) but whenever government socializes business, innovation bombs. I also don't want socialized medicine. That will completely destroy the health of millions of people and outright kill others. I also hate really bad actors. To people who support her wholeheartedly I would encourage them not to be so blind. She's running for president so that she can have power. Helping the people only comes after her agenda.
Barack Obama: On a happier note there is someone who can actually defeat Hillary in this race. Obama. He is my number one choice for democrats and my number two choice overall. People say he's inexperienced, but if he's made it this far in the presidential race then we can at least say he's a fast learner. He's an idealist. He wants to make politics totally transparent and I can't help but jump onboard that train. If he had a conservative economic policy and was for privatization, I think Obama would easily surpass Ron Paul in my book.
John Edwards: I like that he put poverty on the forefront of his campaign. Because of that he's challenging other candidates to place importance on the issue and give their plans. As for his policies I'm kind of unimpressed. He's on the same level as Huckabee to me. The mid-range. I wish him luck in his political career and I'm glad he's still around to mooch votes off Hillary.
So there you have it. My political viewpoint. If you want to you can tell your friends that I endorse Ron Paul and because of that they should too. If they ask who I am just give them a vague answer about my political power. If you tell the whole story then they will think nothing you say is credible ever again. Now how would that make you feel?
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Gun Control and Idiots
So I watched Micheal Moore's documentary, Bowling for Columbine, a few days ago. It was quite an interesting revelation of how disgustingly afraid American society is and the power of the Media. It did not, however, convince me that I shouldn't have a collection of firearms hidden away in my underground basement/bombshelter/government hold out center. Not only was I not convinced by his arguments (perhaps I've done more research than him over the years?) but after doing a little looking on the net I discovered that the whole "documentary" was pumped full of lies. Sorry Mr. Moore, I don't date liars. Hilariously enough a few of the "facts" provided on his own website even discredited him. Particularly the entire speech by Charlton Heston that he so graciously provides on his website. If it's not obvious how Mr. Moore altered his speech then you might want to check this out.
But anyways, rather than tear Mr. Moore's "documentary" (after all it has already been done) apart I will talk about my stance on Gun Control, this really nifty thing that Democrats think will save the world. Being a southern boy I suppose I'm a bit biased, but I like to back up that bias with facts, unlike many of the left.
Let's take the example of the recent shootings in Colorado. A crazy man walks into a church and kills some people. Another church takes proactive action and one of its members volunteers to have a gun at the service in case of another shooting. The crazy man walks into the armed church and is killed. The armed citizen is praised as a hero. Then you begin seeing all sorts of gun control debates pop up with the anti-gun crowd ignoring the facts and ignorantly claiming that citizens shouldn't be able to get a gun. Now let's think about this for a second. If the woman in the church that stopped the shootings was not armed, there would have been several people at that church killed. Since she killed the man before he had a chance to kill a lot of people there were very few deaths and the lady was praised as a "hero". How ironic. Criminals do not want to give up their guns. Why would they listen to the government, which they so readily disobey on other subjects, when the government tells them to hand over their guns? They won't. Only law-abiding citizens will. That means that law-abiding citizens are the ones who are harmed because ONLY the criminals have firearms.
And another example. September 11th. Now the most infamous day in history, hopefully, for the rest of history. What if a citizen had had a gun on those flights? The terrorists only had knives. The deaths of 2,996 killed in the towers, pentagon, and flights. Don't forget the 4,233 US and UK soldiers. And the number that everyone overlooks; an estimated 80,000 - 88,000 dead Iraqi citizens. The bloodiest disaster since vietnam could have been stopped with the civilians on the airplanes having the right to hold a concealed firearm. For the leftists who are still scared that a perfectly sane, law-abiding human being will suddenly go crazy and go on a killing spree because the person behind them has their music turned up to loud; perhaps we could compromise by allowing armed pilots? No one had a defense. Thanks to that the most infamous day in history is no longer D-Day or Pearl Harbor.
Don't forget to think. The Nazis took away guns from the Jews before they began to systematically kill them. The Soviets didn't allow guns in the hands of their citizens because they were afraid that the citizens would rise against them. I am not a warmonger. Guns are not even a hobby of mine. But, if the government ever comes knocking on my door for my weapons, I'll be pointing a rifle right back in their face saying "Get off my property!"
But anyways, rather than tear Mr. Moore's "documentary" (after all it has already been done) apart I will talk about my stance on Gun Control, this really nifty thing that Democrats think will save the world. Being a southern boy I suppose I'm a bit biased, but I like to back up that bias with facts, unlike many of the left.
Let's take the example of the recent shootings in Colorado. A crazy man walks into a church and kills some people. Another church takes proactive action and one of its members volunteers to have a gun at the service in case of another shooting. The crazy man walks into the armed church and is killed. The armed citizen is praised as a hero. Then you begin seeing all sorts of gun control debates pop up with the anti-gun crowd ignoring the facts and ignorantly claiming that citizens shouldn't be able to get a gun. Now let's think about this for a second. If the woman in the church that stopped the shootings was not armed, there would have been several people at that church killed. Since she killed the man before he had a chance to kill a lot of people there were very few deaths and the lady was praised as a "hero". How ironic. Criminals do not want to give up their guns. Why would they listen to the government, which they so readily disobey on other subjects, when the government tells them to hand over their guns? They won't. Only law-abiding citizens will. That means that law-abiding citizens are the ones who are harmed because ONLY the criminals have firearms.
And another example. September 11th. Now the most infamous day in history, hopefully, for the rest of history. What if a citizen had had a gun on those flights? The terrorists only had knives. The deaths of 2,996 killed in the towers, pentagon, and flights. Don't forget the 4,233 US and UK soldiers. And the number that everyone overlooks; an estimated 80,000 - 88,000 dead Iraqi citizens. The bloodiest disaster since vietnam could have been stopped with the civilians on the airplanes having the right to hold a concealed firearm. For the leftists who are still scared that a perfectly sane, law-abiding human being will suddenly go crazy and go on a killing spree because the person behind them has their music turned up to loud; perhaps we could compromise by allowing armed pilots? No one had a defense. Thanks to that the most infamous day in history is no longer D-Day or Pearl Harbor.
Don't forget to think. The Nazis took away guns from the Jews before they began to systematically kill them. The Soviets didn't allow guns in the hands of their citizens because they were afraid that the citizens would rise against them. I am not a warmonger. Guns are not even a hobby of mine. But, if the government ever comes knocking on my door for my weapons, I'll be pointing a rifle right back in their face saying "Get off my property!"
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Its not that easy...
Something I've been noticing a lot over the past few months is when people use arguments that make you wonder a little and then jump to the conclusion that it disproves the existence of God. For example I recently saw on a forum where an atheist found a description of the earth in the Bible that was written by an author who did not have a very scientific view of the earth (because the Bible was written a long time ago). He concluded that because of this the Bible was not written by God and that there was no God.
Did you notice how he jumped to the conclusion that God does not exist so quickly? That wouldn't even hold up in a freshman philosophy class. In this case they found a spot where man inserted his own theories about the earth. Now we know better and we realize that was a faulty viewpoint. But God should have known better all along. So why did he use archaic mythology in the description? Because God didn't write the Bible. That point could certainly be argued but to say that God doesn't exist is a non sequitur. When people find contradictions in the Bible or when they find a verse they misinterpret for lack of knowledge and they say that God does not exist is a huge logical fallacy.
Rather than saying that God does not exist we should realize only that our previous notion of him does not exist. Dr. Weatherhead stresses this point in his writing. I think it is a very important point. To limit God to whatever idea we have of him is dangerous. Because if that idea is disrupted by a new thought or another idea then our "God", that we have created in an attempt to understand, is disproved. I think that is probably (and many people will disagree with me) the reason why many people are atheists. Because their idea of God was fallacious and they did the intelligent thing and abandoned the idea. Unfortunately they did not innovate their beliefs and ideas about God afterwards.
It is not so easy to disprove whatever the true idea of God is. There is probably no human on this earth who entirely realizes what God is truly like. But if we did we would have no need to search for answers then would we?
Did you notice how he jumped to the conclusion that God does not exist so quickly? That wouldn't even hold up in a freshman philosophy class. In this case they found a spot where man inserted his own theories about the earth. Now we know better and we realize that was a faulty viewpoint. But God should have known better all along. So why did he use archaic mythology in the description? Because God didn't write the Bible. That point could certainly be argued but to say that God doesn't exist is a non sequitur. When people find contradictions in the Bible or when they find a verse they misinterpret for lack of knowledge and they say that God does not exist is a huge logical fallacy.
Rather than saying that God does not exist we should realize only that our previous notion of him does not exist. Dr. Weatherhead stresses this point in his writing. I think it is a very important point. To limit God to whatever idea we have of him is dangerous. Because if that idea is disrupted by a new thought or another idea then our "God", that we have created in an attempt to understand, is disproved. I think that is probably (and many people will disagree with me) the reason why many people are atheists. Because their idea of God was fallacious and they did the intelligent thing and abandoned the idea. Unfortunately they did not innovate their beliefs and ideas about God afterwards.
It is not so easy to disprove whatever the true idea of God is. There is probably no human on this earth who entirely realizes what God is truly like. But if we did we would have no need to search for answers then would we?
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
First Post
Alright heres my first post out of I don't know how many to come. I've been both reluctant and wanting to start a blog for some time now. I've been reluctant to since it sucks time for those (me) who already overdose on computer time. I've wanted for some time to have a medium to record my thoughts on. I have many thoughts, insomnia is a major contributor to these so many of my thoughts are not worth writing down. BUT the ones that are I'd like to record. So since I am currently fairly busy I don't know how often I'll be able to post but at least for now it won't be too often.
So now an introduction of me is in order. I'm 17, I'm a senior in high school. I'm exceedingly interested in philosophy, theology, and science so you can expect that most of my posts will have something to do with that (because the title wasn't a dead giveaway or anything). I'm a musician, I play the guitar and the drums and while I don't consider myself very good yet I hope to one day be very good at both (and maybe more) instruments. I'm a Christian in some sense of the word. I don't agree with a lot of mainstream Christianity today, perhaps that is one reason why I started this blog, I even like to use the term Free-thinker to describe me even though I know that Atheists are usually the ones who use the term. So now I have introduced myself and I have introduced my audience because you wouldn't still be reading this if you weren't just a little bit interested. We'll see what happens from here.
So now an introduction of me is in order. I'm 17, I'm a senior in high school. I'm exceedingly interested in philosophy, theology, and science so you can expect that most of my posts will have something to do with that (because the title wasn't a dead giveaway or anything). I'm a musician, I play the guitar and the drums and while I don't consider myself very good yet I hope to one day be very good at both (and maybe more) instruments. I'm a Christian in some sense of the word. I don't agree with a lot of mainstream Christianity today, perhaps that is one reason why I started this blog, I even like to use the term Free-thinker to describe me even though I know that Atheists are usually the ones who use the term. So now I have introduced myself and I have introduced my audience because you wouldn't still be reading this if you weren't just a little bit interested. We'll see what happens from here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
