One of the best comments I’ve recently heard from a person who disapproved of the latest Swiss vote on minaret construction was something like “only a symbolic victory over symbolism can be a Swiss victory.”
That comment alone made me laugh heartily…guffaw, even. That tickled my funny bone.
The popular vote to ban the construction of any new minarets in Switzerland has polarized opinion, with half of everyone supporting the Swiss people’s efforts to preserve the unique character of their nation, and the other half bemoaning the alleged intolerance and bigotry of the Swiss people.
The opponents of the vote have a point: the banning of a religious symbol is discriminatory, and it will make Muslims angry. What the opponents have gotten completely wrong is the reasoning that such discrimination is a mistake or “evil” in some way.
The Swiss have had it pretty good so far in the past few decades. With a culture that reflects a blend of European influences, multiple official languages, and unwavering neutrality, internal and external conflict with and within Switzerland are rare. As most articles have pointed out, Islam is the second most popular religion in Switzerland behind Christianity, and most Islamic activity that occurs in Switzerland is under the radar. Thus, to many, the banning of minarets is a rough-palmed slap in the collective face of Switzerland’s Muslim community. This is true, but only to the extent that one assumes the premise that the Muslim community in that country is going to expand to an extent that would require the building of more and more mosques and minarets. Otherwise, the banning is symbolic only, and we know how Muslims react to symbolic offenses (see: the Danish Mohammed cartoon scandal).
The supporters of the vote claim that the minaret is a political symbol implying creeping Sharia law and Islamic dominance. This is like saying that crucifixes on top of churches are political symbols implying Judeo-Christian dominance and the supremacy of God’s law. Both assumptions are both true and not true, because the fact of the matter is a building is just that: a building. What it means is only what people give it. To some Muslims, a minaret in a country that’s ethnically and culturally homogenous (Western) may indeed be a symbol of coming Islamic dominance; to others, it may be a proud symbol of their faith. To others still, it might just be a building.
But the banning of minarets is indeed symbolic. It is a majority of the Swiss telling the world that Switzerland is Switzerland, and they will determine the character of their country. It’s that same majority telling the Muslim minority in their country that they are welcome to practice their faith, but that they reside in Switzerland, not Saudi Arabia, and that the Swiss intend to uphold that distinction. It is a decision to preserve the cultural integrity of their nation, not just to deny Muslims their right to worship (which the vote has nothing to do with).
The political left hates this. To them, the idea that the Swiss are defending their culture and the character of their nation is bigotry, intolerance, racist, and any number of buzz words used by that crowd. The left loves to boast of the “tolerance” and good-heartedness of the Swiss people, and how much this vote has destroyed that image. Politicians are rushing to overturn the vote in some phony, cockamamie “human rights” court. “The multicultural nature of our country is what makes it great!” claim these people. How ridiculous.
Supporters of the vote rightly claim that Muslim-dominated countries are extremely intolerant of other religions and cultures, and that the Swiss are trying to prevent what will be an increasingly anti-Swiss attitude among a potentially growing Muslim population there. Opponents argue that to sink to the intolerant level of those Muslim countries is merely answering barbarism with more barbarism. Once again, the opponents of the vote are right, but for the wrong reasons.
Switzerland has had the good fortune of having a relatively tame, quiet Muslim community. There have been no terrorist attacks, no Muslims calling for the murder of a Swiss popular figure, and no burning of the white-crossed Swiss flag. People are now concerned that these acts of terrorism will now come since this vote has been passed. What the opponents of the vote basically are saying is that they are terrified of Muslims, and that Europeans should do every possible thing in their power to avoid offending them. It’s as if the teachers on a school playground told the other kids to do whatever the school bully says, because he will beat up all the kids if they don’t and the teacher is powerless to do anything about it. That argument, simply put, is absolute 100% concentrated cowardice.
France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Germany. What do all these countries have in common?
Did you guess it?? If you guessed “a burgeoning Muslim population that is increasingly self-isolated, violent, anti-Western, and politically powerful, which is also set to overtake the native European population by sheer numbers in the near future,” you’re right!
Not so long ago, the populations of the aforementioned countries began opening immigration to all corners of the globe. After World War Two, any ethnic or cultural homogeny was indefensible as a good thing, for such a thing was too reminiscent of Nazism. For years after the last shot of the Second World War was fired, Western Europe remained ethnically and culturally homogenous, with a few exceptions. Europeans hailed the new age of peace and cooperation after two horrible intercontinental wars.
Now, in 2009, the multicultural experiment for which no one voted is failing. The French, British, Dutch, and most other Europeans thought that it didn’t matter whether or not their countries’ populations were made up of boring old white Europeans, Africans, Arabs, or Asians; their country would still be theirs, still be recognizable, still be consistent in terms of values and culture. Anyone who still claims this is dangerously delusional. From “no-go areas” for police in London and Paris, terrorist attacks, assassinations of public figures, anti-Western rhetoric, and honor killings, the wave of immigration from the Third World has had zero benefits for any of these European countries. “Diversity” (meaning fewer people of European descent, as it is used these days) is not a strength; quite the contrary, the evidence actually supports the opposite.
And all of these horrible, negative effects did not come about because these European countries held a vote like the recent Swiss referendum. They came about because the culture of Islam is one of conquest and domination. The political left will blame the inherent racism and discrimination by the native European population for a sense of isolation and alienation among non-Europeans. That argument is a tired one, and operates under the false premise that foreigners shouldn’t feel like foreigners in a foreign land. Fewer and fewer people are drinking the Guilt Kool-Aid anymore.
Are there tolerant, friendly, peaceful Muslims? Absolutely. Without question. But as we’ve seen in the past decade in Europe and around the world, these examples are the exceptions, not the rule. Even if these good examples were the rule, I ask this: if the few exceptions to this peaceful model of Islam kill a few dozen non-Muslims in their own country, is the diversity still worth it? How about a few hundred? How about three thousand? Is diversity still our greatest strength then? How many people have to die in the name of Allah before diversity is no longer a strength to its champions, but a weakness?
I think the Swiss people have seen the devolution of European society in certain urban areas of the rest of Europe due to mass immigration, and I think they know on an instinctive level that what they see is not what they want Switzerland to become. So, yes, the vote is symbolic, but on a much deeper, more cultural level.
And who can fault them at this point?
“Islamophobia”…that’s a good made-up word. Champions of multiculturalism use this pejorative term to describe Europeans’ defense of themselves and their culture from the growing dominance of Islam literally in their backyards. The political left blames the recent Swiss vote on “fear,” just like when they use the terms “xenophobia” and “homophobia.” They like to accuse the opponents of “diversity” of cowardice and of acting out of fear, because it implies irrational thought. But to me, “Islamophobia” doesn’t describe an inherent wariness of radical Islam. Rather, the term describes the people who are terrified of offending Muslims in any way, for any reason, under any pretense, even if it leads to cultural suicide. The real Islamophobes are those who allow radical Muslims to do any damn thing they please in Europe and the United States without resistance for fear of violence and “unrest in the Muslim community.”
And under the leadership of such Islamophobes, radical Islam has permanent footholds in Europe. The deaths will not stop, nor will the terrorism in the name of Allah, nor will the growing parallel Muslim communities within urban Europe. Native Europeans’ birth rates are falling (or stable at almost zero), and in addition to a steady flow of Third World immigrants, those immigrants also have much bigger families and higher birth rates. The Europeans are being beaten in their home turf, and there could come a day where Islam will officially dominate the continent without the need for a jihad. Just read the statements of various Muslim imams both in Europe and around the world. The recent Swiss referendum was just a seed of cultural reawakening in Europe, a growing awareness of the dangers of unfettered immigration for the capitalist purposes of a cheap work force.
Let the seed grow, lest Europe be lost.
December 1, 2009
October 27, 2009
Why We Don't Need Further Interdiction in Colombia
The governments of the United States and Colombia are in the process of concluding a deal which would allow the United States to expand its military and law enforcement presence in that country for the stated purposes of security and drug law enforcement. The Colombians especially want more security from the drug cartels and insurgents, and the Americans want the stem the flow of illicit drugs from Colombia into the United States. A quick look at the United States’ “War on Drugs” and its effects would very easily demonstrate that this latest move is detrimental to both goals and will in essence be yet another costly failure in American policy.
At a basic level of analysis, the American “War on Drugs” has failed. Its initial intention was to stop the proliferation of illegal substances within the United States in large part by operations of interdiction with the coerced cooperation of countries of interest, most of which are located in Latin America. However, like the prohibition of alcohol in the 1930’s, the War on Drugs has failed to stop the flow of ANY drug into and/or within the United States. As the militarization of drug enforcement intensified, the drug cartels, gangs, and so-called “narco-terrorists” increased their fighting capabilities, too. These manufacturers and distributors of illegal drugs have enormous amounts of resources, especially in the black market. Restrictions on the trafficking of firearms and munitions have no effect on those gangs’ ability to acquire guns and ammunition. So, in essence, as the drug enforcement teams’ guns got bigger, so did the guns of the people they were fighting.
The result of greater interdiction is the exact opposite of the intention: the destabilization of entire regions due to the growing strength and influence of drug cartels in Latin America. Places like Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, and Mexico have been plagued by increasingly-violent cartels that have no qualms about killing politicians, police officers, and members of the military to achieve their goals. Again, the result of greater interdiction by the American Drug Enforcement Administration in foreign countries in order to enforce American drug laws in those countries is the destabilization of those countries.
And now the US government is pressuring Colombia to allow greater interdiction capabilities in order to increase stability in that country. Really? Can they possibly be serious? What previous indications convince the proponents of such action that this will work?
The fact of the matter is that it will not work. Ever. Greater interdiction efforts in Colombia by the United States will further destabilize that country, which is arguably one of the last staunch supporters of the United States in that region. The Latin American people are not stupid, and they see the results of American drug enforcement as described above. The recent upswing in anti-American sentiment is not a coincidence. Radical anti-American communist leaders like Hugo Chavez are empowered by American efforts in that region because American interference in Latin American domestic affairs harms Latin Americans. The carrot of economic assistance that is usually dangled in front of the leaders of those nations is no longer enticing as Latin American countries continue to dissolve into violent chaos.
The prohibition of drugs in the United States is ludicrous because it does not have the intended effect of reducing violent crime. The architects of the War on Drugs assumed that a reduction in supply would dry up demand for the drug as prices rose. This would be true if the illegal drug trade worked anything like the regular free market. Alcohol prohibition gave rise to Al Capone and other violent violators of that prohibition, and people still produced, trafficked, and consumed alcohol in the United States. Similarly, drug prohibition has led to an increase in violent crime as people are driven to kill, either to support their addictive habits or to secure the “turf” of a certain drug cartel.
Whether or not drugs are good or bad is unfortunately not relevant. Prohibition does not work, pure and simple. To support it is therefore nonsensical. There are other, more effective ways to combat drug abuse which prohibition measures ignore and (ironically) prohibit through their nature. The clear solution to both the problems in Latin America and in the United States is to end this prohibition on drugs. Legalizing marijuana, as a first example, would make the illegal marijuana market dry up due to lack of demand (or the illegal growers and distributors would legitimize their business, which would add tax revenue to the United States’ coffers).
Insanity is often defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. More interdiction in Colombia is a pretty good example.
At a basic level of analysis, the American “War on Drugs” has failed. Its initial intention was to stop the proliferation of illegal substances within the United States in large part by operations of interdiction with the coerced cooperation of countries of interest, most of which are located in Latin America. However, like the prohibition of alcohol in the 1930’s, the War on Drugs has failed to stop the flow of ANY drug into and/or within the United States. As the militarization of drug enforcement intensified, the drug cartels, gangs, and so-called “narco-terrorists” increased their fighting capabilities, too. These manufacturers and distributors of illegal drugs have enormous amounts of resources, especially in the black market. Restrictions on the trafficking of firearms and munitions have no effect on those gangs’ ability to acquire guns and ammunition. So, in essence, as the drug enforcement teams’ guns got bigger, so did the guns of the people they were fighting.
The result of greater interdiction is the exact opposite of the intention: the destabilization of entire regions due to the growing strength and influence of drug cartels in Latin America. Places like Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, and Mexico have been plagued by increasingly-violent cartels that have no qualms about killing politicians, police officers, and members of the military to achieve their goals. Again, the result of greater interdiction by the American Drug Enforcement Administration in foreign countries in order to enforce American drug laws in those countries is the destabilization of those countries.
And now the US government is pressuring Colombia to allow greater interdiction capabilities in order to increase stability in that country. Really? Can they possibly be serious? What previous indications convince the proponents of such action that this will work?
The fact of the matter is that it will not work. Ever. Greater interdiction efforts in Colombia by the United States will further destabilize that country, which is arguably one of the last staunch supporters of the United States in that region. The Latin American people are not stupid, and they see the results of American drug enforcement as described above. The recent upswing in anti-American sentiment is not a coincidence. Radical anti-American communist leaders like Hugo Chavez are empowered by American efforts in that region because American interference in Latin American domestic affairs harms Latin Americans. The carrot of economic assistance that is usually dangled in front of the leaders of those nations is no longer enticing as Latin American countries continue to dissolve into violent chaos.
The prohibition of drugs in the United States is ludicrous because it does not have the intended effect of reducing violent crime. The architects of the War on Drugs assumed that a reduction in supply would dry up demand for the drug as prices rose. This would be true if the illegal drug trade worked anything like the regular free market. Alcohol prohibition gave rise to Al Capone and other violent violators of that prohibition, and people still produced, trafficked, and consumed alcohol in the United States. Similarly, drug prohibition has led to an increase in violent crime as people are driven to kill, either to support their addictive habits or to secure the “turf” of a certain drug cartel.
Whether or not drugs are good or bad is unfortunately not relevant. Prohibition does not work, pure and simple. To support it is therefore nonsensical. There are other, more effective ways to combat drug abuse which prohibition measures ignore and (ironically) prohibit through their nature. The clear solution to both the problems in Latin America and in the United States is to end this prohibition on drugs. Legalizing marijuana, as a first example, would make the illegal marijuana market dry up due to lack of demand (or the illegal growers and distributors would legitimize their business, which would add tax revenue to the United States’ coffers).
Insanity is often defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. More interdiction in Colombia is a pretty good example.
July 8, 2009
Michael Jackson and the Collapse of America
For those of you who haven't heard: Michael Jackson, King of Pop, has died.
Also, for those of you who haven't heard: I envy you.
You know, before he died, I really had no real beef with Jacko. Despite the scandals, he made some good tunes, and this is coming from me, someone who hates many forms of pop culture. Strangely enough, though, the King of Pop could always get my head bobbing to the beat. The guy could dance, too, for sure. No one denies that.
Michael Jackson also donated a lot of money to humanitarian causes. No one will deny that such generosity is a good thing.
So far, we can establish that MJ is 1) a hugely successful entertainer, and 2) generously donates money to humanitarian causes, which many successful celebrities do. Okay.
Now we come to the whole child-molestation-thing. The allegations that weren't settled out-of-court for millions of dollars were not proven to be true. Fervent MJ fans (especially the ones who like to put his image as their Facebook profile now that he's dead) emphasize and harp on this.
However, even if we assume that Michael Jackson in no way, shape, or form molested or harassed any boys, his behavior certainly requires some explanation and raises some doubt.
Jacko spent a huge portion of his fortune on Neverland Ranch, which was part home, part amusement park, and part petting zoo, apparently. He considered himself (or at least likened himself to) Peter Pan, and, to top it off, invited loads of kids and allowed them to sleep over at his "Ranch", even sharing his bed and room with them. Even the most ardent MJ apologizer has a hard time defending that kind of ludicrous behavior. The guy liked little boys and liked to be around little boys, seemingly more than he liked being around women and friends his age. That's an uncomfortable fact no matter what the verdict of the trials was.
Some people might claim that these behaviors merely describe how much Michael Jackson loves children in general, and how he's a "kid at heart". If that were true, then that love and that heart condition clearly don't translate too well into the parenting factor. Ranging from keeping his kids' faces covered in veils when they were out in public all the way to dangling his infant child from a balcony window for all to see, Jackson's parenting tendencies weren't quite up to par with his "love for children".
And finally we come to the ever-changing appearance of Michael Jackson. For the sake of avoiding all the "YOU HAVE NO PROOF" screechers out there, I'll assume that Michael Jackson legitimately did have universal vitiligo and lupus. Fine; even if there’s no proof of those illnesses, either. Let's say that he bleached his skin in order to get an even pigment all around so the vitiligo didn't look quite so unsightly. Fine; I'd say that plan backfired pretty hard, but fine. The guy still molded and sculpted his face until it was nearly beyond recognition. If he had gotten all that plastic surgery at once, even his biggest fans wouldn't have recognized him. Only the fact that the surgeries were spread out and that the change was gradual allowed MJ's transformation to be monitored so that he was still marginally recognizable. Jacko clearly molded his features to match his newly-whitened skin, and did so to the point of absurdity and even grotesque self-parody. If his sister Janet had bleached her skin too, the two would look like clones (except for the boobs, of course, but who knows? Jacko could have been planning on adding those, too). Thus was MJ’s transformation from a young black man to an androgynous white man.
Apparently he transformed his genetic makeup, too, because his black genes and a white woman’s genes mixed to create some very white children. Three times. Genetic anomalies? I think not, ladies and gentleman. Michael didn’t have enough European blood in him (or enough bleach and vitiligo) to make three very European-looking children. I won’t speculate as to how exactly this happened, but clearly something’s wrong with the recipe here, if you know what I mean.
And so, on June 25th, 2009, Michael Jackson died in circumstances that are now being investigated by our tax-funded Drug Enforcement Administration. I’m so glad that a portion of my work effort is going to find out how Jacko died. Oh wait.
Jacko’s death has induced a sort of worldwide media solar eclipse at a time of very important and significant events both around the world and in the United States. I wish I was exaggerating when I say that the world is treating MJ’s death as the second death of Jesus Christ himself. Every major news outlet is on full Michael-Jackson-mode; it’s Defcon One for the media; it’s all Michael, all the time. Celebrities, news anchors, journalists, politicians, and world leaders are sparing no expense to shower the late entertainer with unending praise and laudation. It is now July 7th (12 days later), and the media frenzy has culminated in a public memorial service, complete with the whole gamut of public figures mentioned above. An article published on the news site of Yahoo said today that “the world paused to remember Jackson”. I want to take this opportunity to demonstrate why this seemingly-harmless six-word statement sums up how truly ridiculous our society is becoming.
Ask anyone in China, Honduras, Afghanistan, or Iraq if their world paused to remember Michael Jackson. Ask someone in either of the Koreas or in Pakistan if their worlds stopped to remember MJ. Ask the recent multiple victims of the serial murderers in South Carolina and Pennsylvania and their loved ones if their worlds stopped to remember Jacko. I think the answers you will get will be a resounding “NO”.
If you’re asking yourself right now what happened in any of the aforementioned areas or what is happening there now, then you are part of the regressed society of which I speak.
I think the world (and by “world” I mean the world which did NOT “stop to remember Michael Jackson”) proved very effectively the absurd, hyperbolic nature of the recent Michael Jackson phenomenon. There are literally millions of people who will claim that Jacko “changed their lives”. I hate to ask what these people’s lives were like before they discovered the entertainer’s music; they must have been pretty empty and superficial. Music can be a very powerful medium of expression, but can any of us honestly say that one artist’s music changed our lives? Or did the condition of our lives previously lead us to explore and discover music that we enjoy? Some people actually broke down in a blubbering mess on camera, gnashing their teeth and tearing their clothes because the King of Pop died. Really? Did your life really revolve around Michael Jackson so much that it now has THAT much less meaning than before?
Before anyone throws a fit: I’m obviously not talking about Michael Jackson’s loved ones; they obviously have good cause to mourn the loss of their friend and family member.
The most vocal Michael Jackson supporters will go to great lengths to emphasize his innocence in the molestation trials and to excuse his strange, inexplicable, and at times inexcusable behaviors. From what I can tell, these seem to be the same exact people that were so quick to condemn and damn the priests who molested children (or who were accused of molesting without conviction). Many of these people were clearly ones who most likely called for the imprisonment and castigation of these priests, no matter if they were convicted or acquitted in the same manner as MJ. Some of these people probably even used these sad examples of priesthood to condemn Christianity and religion as a whole.
For the record, I too condemned the priests convicted of molestation. I support very harsh punishments for child molesters, no matter what their profession. The difference is that I apply my scruples and morals to everyone, and you zealous apologizers of Michael Jackson are damnable hypocrites. If a priest had a home with carnival rides, petting zoos, and other attractions clearly intended to entertain children, would you let your child serve as an altar boy for that priest? No, you say? Why not? For that matter, would you let your kid or grandchild go to Neverland Ranch to sleep over, even if you excuse Jacko’s behavior? Would you vote for a politician with all those playthings and toys at his house, a politician who also let kids sleep over his house, even in his bed? I’d bet dollars to donuts to diamond-encrusted white gloves that you sure as hell would not.
At MJ’s memorial service, Reverend Al Sharpton told Jackson’s kids that “there was nothing strange about [their] daddy”. I want to know exactly which distant planet this man lives on. Michael Jackson embodied the term “strange”, no matter what “strange” things he went through. I can name a lot of people who went through worse things than Jacko did, and yet exhibited none of the questionable behaviors as MJ did.
Michael Jackson lived both an exciting and a sad life that seemed to come to a short end. His musical accomplishments should be remembered; his humanitarian efforts should be commended. But the man was not a deity, nor a hero, no matter what his fans say. He was the King of Pop, and that is all. But the ridiculous reaction of so many people and the major media shows how threadbare and superficial our society is becoming. Robert McNamara passed away the other day, too; he was the Secretary of Defense during much of the Vietnam War, and affected many people’s lives much more than Jackson ever did, but how much did you hear about that in the news? Agree with McNamara’s actions or not, he was much more significant in American and world history than an entertainer, and yet his passing was completely overshadowed by the ongoing Michael-Jackson-fest. How did this happen?
It happened because people in the media decide what’s important for Americans to know and what is not; it happened because many Americans couldn’t tell you who Robert McNamara was, or what he did, but ALL of those people could tell you who Michael Jackson was, name their five favorite MJ songs, sing them word-for-word, and could even dance a passable moonwalk.
And people wonder why the United States has been on the decline in the past half century; people wonder why that decline has accelerated to a full-speed collapse under George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama. Maybe we need to start teaching our most honest politicians to breakdance and write hit songs to institute real, positive change in our country.
December 19, 2008
Why The Second Amendment Matters
I remember when Washington D.C.’s handgun ban was challenged in the Supreme Court. I celebrated the Court’s decision not because I wanted to carry a handgun in Washington D.C., but because of the implications for my Second Amendment rights, and for the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. I find it ironic that the nation’s capital, where countless patriots had fought for our rights and given us the freedoms we enjoy, is one of the most extreme examples of gun control in the country. Despite this, the violent crime in DC is one of the highest in the country.
The sad fact is that gun control will work TO AN EXTENT in a small place like Washington DC where there is high concentration of criminal elements. It is also a fact, however, that a complete ban on the private, personal ownership of guns will never eliminate violent gun crime. Anyone who claims otherwise needs to only look at places like the United Kingdom and Australia, in which private gun ownership is almost completely banned. Violent crime remains.
Since gun control legislation happens at both a federal and state level, it affects both areas which are plagued with crime and areas with no crime at all. In my home state of Maryland, for example, it is nonsensical to introduce gun legislation that affects both crime-ridden Baltimore City and northern rural/suburban Baltimore County. The gun control laws may make it moderately difficult for a thug in the city to legally acquire a firearm, but it also makes it difficult for the law-abiding hunter to do the same. Gun control legislation is always defended by claims that it is “for the greater good,” meaning that law-abiding citizens must forfeit their rights in order to reap the benefits of a safer society. This is the most fallacious argument in defense of gun control that I have heard. Any fool can realize that gun control only disarms the law-abiding citizen; if a criminal, actual or aspiring, wants a gun, he will find a way to get one, legally or otherwise. Gun control actually makes it more of a hassle to acquire a firearm than purchasing one illegally on the black market, in most cases. Why would a criminal wait for days of background checks to buy a gun which would be registered with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, and then use that gun in a violent crime?
Unfortunately, some criminals do just that. The South Korean maniac who shot more than thirty students at Virginia Tech purchased his guns legally. Of course, he had no intention or chance of surviving his rampage, so the legalities of his actions were irrelevant to him. Gun control wouldn’t have stopped him from massacring his fellow college students; it may have just impeded him. Of course, if Virginia Tech hadn’t had a complete ban of firearms on campus, specifically in regards to legal concealed carry, a brave student could have ended his rampage prematurely with a few well-placed shots.
People lament about the death of our nation’s students, and then support legislation that bans those students’ means to protect themselves. Such logic is so unbelievably flawed that it makes you wonder why these people are even allowed to vote.
Another purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the people’s right to rise up against their government if it becomes tyrannical; it is their last defense of freedom and liberty. This is the reason that our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment into the Constitution. This is often derided by gun control advocates, who call the defenders of such a notion lunatic conspiracy theorists. Of course, those same advocates are actively pursuing legislation that will allow the government to take away the American citizens’ last defense against tyranny and despotism from that same government. Again, this logic boggles the mind; it is only defensible with the most extreme self-delusion and abandonment of good sense.
Many people in this country are actively working to destroy everything that our founding fathers cherished and fought for. The Second Amendment is the very last defense against such people; it is the last utility that patriotic Americans have to defend their freedom, liberty, and way of life, in addition to themselves, their property, and the well-being of their loved ones. Any encroachment on our Second Amendment rights must be challenged ferociously, because any ban or restriction on one type of firearm is a precursor to further gun control. Give gun control legislators an inch, and they’ll take a mile. Where will they draw the line? The answer is that they won’t draw a line; they’ll erase the Second Amendment altogether if given the chance.
As Charlie Daniels once sang: “They want to take my guns away, and that would be just fine; if you take them away from the criminals first, I’d gladly give you mine!” While I don’t think Mr. Daniels would give up his guns in any case, his logic in this lyric is solid. I know that I won’t be giving up my Second Amendment rights, come Hell or high water. Imagine an army of citizens with this resolve! The gun control nuts and the government would certainly have their dirty hands full.
The sad fact is that gun control will work TO AN EXTENT in a small place like Washington DC where there is high concentration of criminal elements. It is also a fact, however, that a complete ban on the private, personal ownership of guns will never eliminate violent gun crime. Anyone who claims otherwise needs to only look at places like the United Kingdom and Australia, in which private gun ownership is almost completely banned. Violent crime remains.
Since gun control legislation happens at both a federal and state level, it affects both areas which are plagued with crime and areas with no crime at all. In my home state of Maryland, for example, it is nonsensical to introduce gun legislation that affects both crime-ridden Baltimore City and northern rural/suburban Baltimore County. The gun control laws may make it moderately difficult for a thug in the city to legally acquire a firearm, but it also makes it difficult for the law-abiding hunter to do the same. Gun control legislation is always defended by claims that it is “for the greater good,” meaning that law-abiding citizens must forfeit their rights in order to reap the benefits of a safer society. This is the most fallacious argument in defense of gun control that I have heard. Any fool can realize that gun control only disarms the law-abiding citizen; if a criminal, actual or aspiring, wants a gun, he will find a way to get one, legally or otherwise. Gun control actually makes it more of a hassle to acquire a firearm than purchasing one illegally on the black market, in most cases. Why would a criminal wait for days of background checks to buy a gun which would be registered with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, and then use that gun in a violent crime?
Unfortunately, some criminals do just that. The South Korean maniac who shot more than thirty students at Virginia Tech purchased his guns legally. Of course, he had no intention or chance of surviving his rampage, so the legalities of his actions were irrelevant to him. Gun control wouldn’t have stopped him from massacring his fellow college students; it may have just impeded him. Of course, if Virginia Tech hadn’t had a complete ban of firearms on campus, specifically in regards to legal concealed carry, a brave student could have ended his rampage prematurely with a few well-placed shots.
People lament about the death of our nation’s students, and then support legislation that bans those students’ means to protect themselves. Such logic is so unbelievably flawed that it makes you wonder why these people are even allowed to vote.
Another purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the people’s right to rise up against their government if it becomes tyrannical; it is their last defense of freedom and liberty. This is the reason that our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment into the Constitution. This is often derided by gun control advocates, who call the defenders of such a notion lunatic conspiracy theorists. Of course, those same advocates are actively pursuing legislation that will allow the government to take away the American citizens’ last defense against tyranny and despotism from that same government. Again, this logic boggles the mind; it is only defensible with the most extreme self-delusion and abandonment of good sense.
Many people in this country are actively working to destroy everything that our founding fathers cherished and fought for. The Second Amendment is the very last defense against such people; it is the last utility that patriotic Americans have to defend their freedom, liberty, and way of life, in addition to themselves, their property, and the well-being of their loved ones. Any encroachment on our Second Amendment rights must be challenged ferociously, because any ban or restriction on one type of firearm is a precursor to further gun control. Give gun control legislators an inch, and they’ll take a mile. Where will they draw the line? The answer is that they won’t draw a line; they’ll erase the Second Amendment altogether if given the chance.
As Charlie Daniels once sang: “They want to take my guns away, and that would be just fine; if you take them away from the criminals first, I’d gladly give you mine!” While I don’t think Mr. Daniels would give up his guns in any case, his logic in this lyric is solid. I know that I won’t be giving up my Second Amendment rights, come Hell or high water. Imagine an army of citizens with this resolve! The gun control nuts and the government would certainly have their dirty hands full.
December 10, 2008
The Case for the Legalization of Marijuana
My support for the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana perplexes a lot of people. Those who know that I'm conservative see this position as a glaring spot of Liberalism among my usually-spotless collection of conservative political positions. I counter such claims with the argument that the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana is no longer a conservative or Liberal issue, but rather an issue of common sense.
Many conservatives resist any attempt at decriminalizing marijuana because they automatically associate it with delinquency, crime, laziness, and moral corruption. They aren't too far off-base in those associations. I have several colleagues and acquaintances which match this description and who smoke marijuana. However, to claim a causal relationship between such lifestyles and the consumption of marijuana is fallacious. Why, you may ask? Because for every person I could name who smokes marijuana and matches the aforementioned descriptions, I could also name a person I know who smokes marijuana and is intelligent, morally sound, and hard-working. And, as with most groups of people, there is a middle ground into which many people I know fall.
First, the basics. The designation of marijuana as a Schedule One drug (high possibility of abuse with no known acceptable medical use) while alcohol remains 100% legal is confounding, to say the least. For one thing, it is nearly impossible to overdose on marijuana; a person will simply fall asleep before even approaching a lethal intake of marijuana. Deaths from alcohol poisoning, however, are much more common.
Furthermore, all the theories which claim that marijuana use leads to harder drugs, complete lack of motivation, total apathy, social delinquency, etcetera, are fallacious. Marijuana affects every single person in a different way, just as any drug does. A person who consumes marijuana and who then becomes a jobless bum hooked on all sorts of other drugs leads us to believe that marijuana was the cause of his downfall. If marijuana was the cause of his downfall, though, the millions upon millions of other marijuana users in the developed world would also be in his position. Reality clearly demonstrates otherwise. The useless, jobless, pot-smoking bum can blame marijuana all he wants, but it's certain that it was his personality and mental outlook that doomed him, and not a plant.
Marijuana needs to be treated just like any other mind-altering substance, including tobacco and alcohol. Such things must be consumed with personal and social responsibility. The legalization or decriminalization of marijuana does not automatically imply the right to endanger others or one's self while under the influence, just as the legal drinking status of a 21-year-old does not allow him to endanger himself or others while drunk. As with the other mind-altering drugs, there will be those who would abuse the right to consume marijuana. Those people are the outliers, though; it is highly probable that legalization or decriminalization would reduce risky behaviors while consuming marijuana. As gun control measures and the alcohol Prohibition of the 1930's show, prohibition measures, especially on a plant that grows naturally as a weed, are doomed to fail, and foster even more irresponsible behavior than the law was intended to prevent.
The so-called War on Drugs is costing taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars to arrest pot smokers, and yet the availability of the drug (especially here in a school/college setting) is incredible. It is also estimated that the legalization of marijuana would pump an additional $6.7 billion into the United States economy, in addition to freeing up several billion dollars more that would no longer have to be used by law enforcement agencies to track, arrest, and prosecute marijuana users (stats from Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Mirons report, funded by the pro-repeal Criminal Justice Policy Foundation). For those conservatives still looking for a reason to legalize the plant, remember that marijuana trafficking from Mexico into the United States is an incredibly lucrative illicit trade, and that the legalization of marijuana in the United States would effectively kill any demand for Mexican pot. The Mexican drug dealers would lose a huge source of their revenue from such legalization in the US.
In short, the associations of marijuana with social delinquency and the breakdown of moral fiber, as well as other assumed dangers of the consumption of the plant, are largely unfounded. The breakdown of moral fiber comes from a person's lack of moral backbone, not from a plant. Social delinquency comes from the same thing in addition to lack of maturity and/or a poor upbringing. Therefore, conservatives should find no objective fault in the consumption of marijuana.
If anyone has any other questions about marijuana or its use, feel free to get in touch with me.
Many conservatives resist any attempt at decriminalizing marijuana because they automatically associate it with delinquency, crime, laziness, and moral corruption. They aren't too far off-base in those associations. I have several colleagues and acquaintances which match this description and who smoke marijuana. However, to claim a causal relationship between such lifestyles and the consumption of marijuana is fallacious. Why, you may ask? Because for every person I could name who smokes marijuana and matches the aforementioned descriptions, I could also name a person I know who smokes marijuana and is intelligent, morally sound, and hard-working. And, as with most groups of people, there is a middle ground into which many people I know fall.
First, the basics. The designation of marijuana as a Schedule One drug (high possibility of abuse with no known acceptable medical use) while alcohol remains 100% legal is confounding, to say the least. For one thing, it is nearly impossible to overdose on marijuana; a person will simply fall asleep before even approaching a lethal intake of marijuana. Deaths from alcohol poisoning, however, are much more common.
Furthermore, all the theories which claim that marijuana use leads to harder drugs, complete lack of motivation, total apathy, social delinquency, etcetera, are fallacious. Marijuana affects every single person in a different way, just as any drug does. A person who consumes marijuana and who then becomes a jobless bum hooked on all sorts of other drugs leads us to believe that marijuana was the cause of his downfall. If marijuana was the cause of his downfall, though, the millions upon millions of other marijuana users in the developed world would also be in his position. Reality clearly demonstrates otherwise. The useless, jobless, pot-smoking bum can blame marijuana all he wants, but it's certain that it was his personality and mental outlook that doomed him, and not a plant.
Marijuana needs to be treated just like any other mind-altering substance, including tobacco and alcohol. Such things must be consumed with personal and social responsibility. The legalization or decriminalization of marijuana does not automatically imply the right to endanger others or one's self while under the influence, just as the legal drinking status of a 21-year-old does not allow him to endanger himself or others while drunk. As with the other mind-altering drugs, there will be those who would abuse the right to consume marijuana. Those people are the outliers, though; it is highly probable that legalization or decriminalization would reduce risky behaviors while consuming marijuana. As gun control measures and the alcohol Prohibition of the 1930's show, prohibition measures, especially on a plant that grows naturally as a weed, are doomed to fail, and foster even more irresponsible behavior than the law was intended to prevent.
The so-called War on Drugs is costing taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars to arrest pot smokers, and yet the availability of the drug (especially here in a school/college setting) is incredible. It is also estimated that the legalization of marijuana would pump an additional $6.7 billion into the United States economy, in addition to freeing up several billion dollars more that would no longer have to be used by law enforcement agencies to track, arrest, and prosecute marijuana users (stats from Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Mirons report, funded by the pro-repeal Criminal Justice Policy Foundation). For those conservatives still looking for a reason to legalize the plant, remember that marijuana trafficking from Mexico into the United States is an incredibly lucrative illicit trade, and that the legalization of marijuana in the United States would effectively kill any demand for Mexican pot. The Mexican drug dealers would lose a huge source of their revenue from such legalization in the US.
In short, the associations of marijuana with social delinquency and the breakdown of moral fiber, as well as other assumed dangers of the consumption of the plant, are largely unfounded. The breakdown of moral fiber comes from a person's lack of moral backbone, not from a plant. Social delinquency comes from the same thing in addition to lack of maturity and/or a poor upbringing. Therefore, conservatives should find no objective fault in the consumption of marijuana.
If anyone has any other questions about marijuana or its use, feel free to get in touch with me.
December 9, 2008
The Dangers of Social Relativism
Sorry for the delay in posts! College is keeping me mighty busy these days.
I've noticed quite a disturbing trend among some of my fellow college students. While waiting outside one day for my 3:35 class to begin, I overheard a conversation between some students in a different class who were also outside. One of the students, a girl probably a year or two older than I (and possibly a teacher's assistant), was engaging the others in a frank discussion about sexuality and gender. Eavesdropping on others' conversations is not a hobby of mine, but considering this conversation was happening near my usual Monday/Wednesday-between-classes-cigarette-break-spot, I perked up an ear and listened.
The girl began to explain to her small audience about how gender and sexuality are socially constructed, and have very little meaning beyond what "society" gives them. The essence of her claims was that gender roles are something created by the society we live in, and in the same hand, sexuality (be it hetero, bi, or homo) is also socially constructed. According to her argument, the act of coitus has little to nothing to do with procreation, and the commonly-held belief that sex is for procreation is (surprise!) created by society.
I listened with growing alarm at her claims and arguments. Her audience of three attempted to offer timid challenges to her claims, for even their college-level Liberalism was mildly disturbed by such radical claims. Gender, sex, and sexuality aren't real? They're constructed by the society we live in, which we, as Liberals, hate? Oh my!
The conversation ended within ten minutes, and I was left dumbfounded. It was the first time I had heard the social constructivist position given in full on a position. It wasn't my first encounter with social constructivism and social relativism; such viewpoints are rampant on college campuses, where nihilism is an actual sustainable lifestyle. But this was the first time I had listened to a social relativist explain in person their position on an issue, and it sounded like nothing short of insanity.
Had I more time, I would have turned around and immediately engaged in the conversation, even though I knew none of the people in the small group and was not in the class. Alas, I had to go to my next political science class, and duty to studies overrode my desire to destroy terrible claims.
Why is this girl's position so dangerous, you ask? Don't her claims have an instance of truth?
The short answer is that, yes, they do have an instance of truth. We as a society do, both subconsciously and consciously, define what it is to be a man or woman, and what it is to be heterosexual and homosexual.
The longer answer is more complex. The truths of this girl's position are completely overwhelmed and overshadowed by the enormous falsehoods therein and by the borderline-sociopathic attempts at morally justifying such a position.
Firstly, it is clear that biology (specifically genetics) affects human physical and mental characteristics such as race, appearance, gender, and, to a certain degree, sexuality. Social relativists such as the girl I overheard claim that these things are constructed by society, which deems certain variations of these human characteristics to be desirable. Western society, for example, assigns gender roles, defines race and sexuality, and assigns the variations in each category different value judgments. Until recent history, Western society defined heterosexuality as preferable to homosexuality for reasons varying from religious conviction to the assurance of a healthy family unit complete with children, which is necessary if a society is to survive. Men were expected to act a certain way, which included working (supporting the family financially) and being the head of the household. Women were also expected to act a certain way, which included raising the children and maintaining the health of the family.
In the last century, these things began to change. Women began to seek a change to their roles in society, specifically regarding their civil rights and their equality in the occupational world. Western society has shown that no ill effects come from women having equal rights as men; no family (or society) has disintegrated because the woman in the household also has a job, so long as the woman still fulfills her duties as a mother and wife. Men also began to broaden their horizons, albeit not to the extent of the women. Men started choosing to be the one who stays home while the mother works. This also is completely fine, so long as the man in the house fulfills his duties as a father and husband.
People like the girl I overheard, however, seek to change even that. To those people, the very concepts of motherhood and being a wife are socially constructed in order to prop up the paternalistic, chauvinist Western society, just as race is socially constructed to prop up the racist, discriminatory Western society. Such views are common among modern-day Liberals; any success demonstrated by Western society was made at the expense of minorities, and therefore cannot be considered true progress or success. In order to make up for such "oppression" and "discrimination", the social relativist seeks to dismantle and destroy every aspect of Western society that categorizes people, regardless of how tightly they are sewn into everything we as Westerners know and love.
Men should not have to act like men because such assumptions lead to the oppression and ostracism of feminine and/or gay men; the same (but reverse) goes for women. Men and women should be allowed and encouraged to not only adopt the other gender's mannerisms, but also to adopt the other gender's genitalia and other physical characteristics, if they have such desires. Race is based on hardly any physical scientific basis, but is rather constructed by society, and therefore should be ignored from all discussion in order to avoid the oppression or ostracism of the minority races.
Arguments such as these are the basis for the complete destruction of everything upon which our society still precariously stands. The basic, banal truths remain that society IN PART defines these things, but they are defined as such because of the natural manifestation of such things! History has clearly shown that the gender roles, preferred sexualities, and self-identification with regards to race are beneficial to society as a whole. Did Western society become the most successful society on earth by treating these basic traits of humanity as relative and unimportant? Of course not.
This is not to say that discrimination based on these categories is acceptable. No one should be denied opportunities simply on the basis of such categories, although this has happened in the past in Western society. The social relativist, however, seeks to completely destroy these natural foundations of our society in order to make up for such past discrimination and in order to prevent future discrimination. The social relativist is basically a hardcore Liberal whose main goal is to make every single person in the world equal to everyone else, regardless of what they destroy in the process. In order to do this, they must deconstruct everything upon which our society is based in order to make way for the new Utopian society in which race, gender, sexuality, and life choices are all equal, accepted, and successful.
Any sane, rational person must see the folly in such thinking. If the past several millenia have shown anything, it is that humans are inherently not equal, and that any attempt to make them such will only result in the complete self-destruction of a culture and nation (worse-case scenario) or a great averaging of everyone, leading to a bland, cultureless nation of average, adequate people (best-case scenario). In the Liberals' great quest for the Sacred Cows of Diversity and Equality, they will actively destroy one (Diversity) to attempt in vain to gain the other (Equality).
The social relativist opinion held by most Liberals can result in nothing less than failure, and is therefore completely indefensible. I wish I took that girl's class so I could tear her arguments apart limb from rotten limb.
I've noticed quite a disturbing trend among some of my fellow college students. While waiting outside one day for my 3:35 class to begin, I overheard a conversation between some students in a different class who were also outside. One of the students, a girl probably a year or two older than I (and possibly a teacher's assistant), was engaging the others in a frank discussion about sexuality and gender. Eavesdropping on others' conversations is not a hobby of mine, but considering this conversation was happening near my usual Monday/Wednesday-between-classes-cigarette-break-spot, I perked up an ear and listened.
The girl began to explain to her small audience about how gender and sexuality are socially constructed, and have very little meaning beyond what "society" gives them. The essence of her claims was that gender roles are something created by the society we live in, and in the same hand, sexuality (be it hetero, bi, or homo) is also socially constructed. According to her argument, the act of coitus has little to nothing to do with procreation, and the commonly-held belief that sex is for procreation is (surprise!) created by society.
I listened with growing alarm at her claims and arguments. Her audience of three attempted to offer timid challenges to her claims, for even their college-level Liberalism was mildly disturbed by such radical claims. Gender, sex, and sexuality aren't real? They're constructed by the society we live in, which we, as Liberals, hate? Oh my!
The conversation ended within ten minutes, and I was left dumbfounded. It was the first time I had heard the social constructivist position given in full on a position. It wasn't my first encounter with social constructivism and social relativism; such viewpoints are rampant on college campuses, where nihilism is an actual sustainable lifestyle. But this was the first time I had listened to a social relativist explain in person their position on an issue, and it sounded like nothing short of insanity.
Had I more time, I would have turned around and immediately engaged in the conversation, even though I knew none of the people in the small group and was not in the class. Alas, I had to go to my next political science class, and duty to studies overrode my desire to destroy terrible claims.
Why is this girl's position so dangerous, you ask? Don't her claims have an instance of truth?
The short answer is that, yes, they do have an instance of truth. We as a society do, both subconsciously and consciously, define what it is to be a man or woman, and what it is to be heterosexual and homosexual.
The longer answer is more complex. The truths of this girl's position are completely overwhelmed and overshadowed by the enormous falsehoods therein and by the borderline-sociopathic attempts at morally justifying such a position.
Firstly, it is clear that biology (specifically genetics) affects human physical and mental characteristics such as race, appearance, gender, and, to a certain degree, sexuality. Social relativists such as the girl I overheard claim that these things are constructed by society, which deems certain variations of these human characteristics to be desirable. Western society, for example, assigns gender roles, defines race and sexuality, and assigns the variations in each category different value judgments. Until recent history, Western society defined heterosexuality as preferable to homosexuality for reasons varying from religious conviction to the assurance of a healthy family unit complete with children, which is necessary if a society is to survive. Men were expected to act a certain way, which included working (supporting the family financially) and being the head of the household. Women were also expected to act a certain way, which included raising the children and maintaining the health of the family.
In the last century, these things began to change. Women began to seek a change to their roles in society, specifically regarding their civil rights and their equality in the occupational world. Western society has shown that no ill effects come from women having equal rights as men; no family (or society) has disintegrated because the woman in the household also has a job, so long as the woman still fulfills her duties as a mother and wife. Men also began to broaden their horizons, albeit not to the extent of the women. Men started choosing to be the one who stays home while the mother works. This also is completely fine, so long as the man in the house fulfills his duties as a father and husband.
People like the girl I overheard, however, seek to change even that. To those people, the very concepts of motherhood and being a wife are socially constructed in order to prop up the paternalistic, chauvinist Western society, just as race is socially constructed to prop up the racist, discriminatory Western society. Such views are common among modern-day Liberals; any success demonstrated by Western society was made at the expense of minorities, and therefore cannot be considered true progress or success. In order to make up for such "oppression" and "discrimination", the social relativist seeks to dismantle and destroy every aspect of Western society that categorizes people, regardless of how tightly they are sewn into everything we as Westerners know and love.
Men should not have to act like men because such assumptions lead to the oppression and ostracism of feminine and/or gay men; the same (but reverse) goes for women. Men and women should be allowed and encouraged to not only adopt the other gender's mannerisms, but also to adopt the other gender's genitalia and other physical characteristics, if they have such desires. Race is based on hardly any physical scientific basis, but is rather constructed by society, and therefore should be ignored from all discussion in order to avoid the oppression or ostracism of the minority races.
Arguments such as these are the basis for the complete destruction of everything upon which our society still precariously stands. The basic, banal truths remain that society IN PART defines these things, but they are defined as such because of the natural manifestation of such things! History has clearly shown that the gender roles, preferred sexualities, and self-identification with regards to race are beneficial to society as a whole. Did Western society become the most successful society on earth by treating these basic traits of humanity as relative and unimportant? Of course not.
This is not to say that discrimination based on these categories is acceptable. No one should be denied opportunities simply on the basis of such categories, although this has happened in the past in Western society. The social relativist, however, seeks to completely destroy these natural foundations of our society in order to make up for such past discrimination and in order to prevent future discrimination. The social relativist is basically a hardcore Liberal whose main goal is to make every single person in the world equal to everyone else, regardless of what they destroy in the process. In order to do this, they must deconstruct everything upon which our society is based in order to make way for the new Utopian society in which race, gender, sexuality, and life choices are all equal, accepted, and successful.
Any sane, rational person must see the folly in such thinking. If the past several millenia have shown anything, it is that humans are inherently not equal, and that any attempt to make them such will only result in the complete self-destruction of a culture and nation (worse-case scenario) or a great averaging of everyone, leading to a bland, cultureless nation of average, adequate people (best-case scenario). In the Liberals' great quest for the Sacred Cows of Diversity and Equality, they will actively destroy one (Diversity) to attempt in vain to gain the other (Equality).
The social relativist opinion held by most Liberals can result in nothing less than failure, and is therefore completely indefensible. I wish I took that girl's class so I could tear her arguments apart limb from rotten limb.
November 4, 2008
The Obama Circus
Well, I voted today! For Chuck Baldwin, of course. I was juggling back and forth between Baldwin and McCain. "How on earth can you juggle two candidates who differ so much?" you ask.
A simple truth is that every vote for Chuck Baldwin takes away a vote from John McCain. While it does not "give a vote" to Barack Obama, like one person I know claims, it does give Obama a greater chance of winning the state.
I voted for neither major candidate because neither candidate represented my views on the issues. This is how democracy should work, and it's very sad that I even considered voting for one of them merely because one was the "lesser of two evils."
I've heard a quote, though, that more accurately describes it: it's not a vote between the lesser of two evils, but rather a vote for the evil of two lessers. I like that.
I consider myself a rather principled person, and every day I become less ashamed to voice my opinions associated with those principles. I learn more every day about how to argue, debate, and talk to people who disagree with me, especially liberals and leftists. I'll address that more in a future, upcoming post.
But, anyway, after I voted today (which took about 15-20 minutes, by the way), I grabbed a free coffee at Starbucks (which they gave to you if you voted), walked to a popular place on campus, and watched the Obama circus. I thought I hadn't seen as many Obama stickers in my life before today; the sheer volume of Obama litter that I saw today made my head spin. The Obama stickers, pins, posters, flags, doorknob hangers, flyers, patches, hats, shirts, sweatshirts, wristbands, hats, and banners spawned like rabbits, with the core of the circus at this central point on the University of Miami campus. I was wearing my "Ron Paul 2008" T-shirt with a little "I Voted Today!" sticker, graciously supplied to me by Miami-Dade County. I got dirty looks; not just because of my blasphemous shirt, but also because I refused every piece of Obama garbage that was pushed into my face. I stood amongst the throng of Obama sheep, stubborn as an ox, even when one of the Obama-paraphernalia-pushers walked up to me and said to me:
"That Ron Paul shirt is just...like..."
That's all she said. I stared at her for awhile, waiting for the completion of a full sentence that was never to come. I finally broke the moronic silence by saying "Oh yeah? I figured I'd try to balance all this out at least a little bit." She walked away after scoffing. It was priceless.
One of the Sex and the City girls was there supporting Obama (Cynthia something?). While it was cool to see an actual celebrity up close, I stopped short of hugging her and getting a picture with her for fear that she'd put a hit out on me or something for my lack of support for her show, her movie, and/or her presidential candidate of choice. You never know with these well-off elitist Obama worshippers.
After my coffee (and after the circus died down a bit), I returned to my room to buckle down and begin the two weeks of ass-busting that's ahead of me. More posts to come soon, though, especially after the election results are in.
A simple truth is that every vote for Chuck Baldwin takes away a vote from John McCain. While it does not "give a vote" to Barack Obama, like one person I know claims, it does give Obama a greater chance of winning the state.
I voted for neither major candidate because neither candidate represented my views on the issues. This is how democracy should work, and it's very sad that I even considered voting for one of them merely because one was the "lesser of two evils."
I've heard a quote, though, that more accurately describes it: it's not a vote between the lesser of two evils, but rather a vote for the evil of two lessers. I like that.
I consider myself a rather principled person, and every day I become less ashamed to voice my opinions associated with those principles. I learn more every day about how to argue, debate, and talk to people who disagree with me, especially liberals and leftists. I'll address that more in a future, upcoming post.
But, anyway, after I voted today (which took about 15-20 minutes, by the way), I grabbed a free coffee at Starbucks (which they gave to you if you voted), walked to a popular place on campus, and watched the Obama circus. I thought I hadn't seen as many Obama stickers in my life before today; the sheer volume of Obama litter that I saw today made my head spin. The Obama stickers, pins, posters, flags, doorknob hangers, flyers, patches, hats, shirts, sweatshirts, wristbands, hats, and banners spawned like rabbits, with the core of the circus at this central point on the University of Miami campus. I was wearing my "Ron Paul 2008" T-shirt with a little "I Voted Today!" sticker, graciously supplied to me by Miami-Dade County. I got dirty looks; not just because of my blasphemous shirt, but also because I refused every piece of Obama garbage that was pushed into my face. I stood amongst the throng of Obama sheep, stubborn as an ox, even when one of the Obama-paraphernalia-pushers walked up to me and said to me:
"That Ron Paul shirt is just...like..."
That's all she said. I stared at her for awhile, waiting for the completion of a full sentence that was never to come. I finally broke the moronic silence by saying "Oh yeah? I figured I'd try to balance all this out at least a little bit." She walked away after scoffing. It was priceless.
One of the Sex and the City girls was there supporting Obama (Cynthia something?). While it was cool to see an actual celebrity up close, I stopped short of hugging her and getting a picture with her for fear that she'd put a hit out on me or something for my lack of support for her show, her movie, and/or her presidential candidate of choice. You never know with these well-off elitist Obama worshippers.
After my coffee (and after the circus died down a bit), I returned to my room to buckle down and begin the two weeks of ass-busting that's ahead of me. More posts to come soon, though, especially after the election results are in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
