Kim Jong Il: May He Rest in Peace... or something like that

Great news about Kim Jong-il or, as Rush Limbaugh says, Kim Jong Dead (He may not have been the first one to come up with that; that’s just where I heard it first). I’ve been reading some of the comments from online news stories about his death, and a significant number of people out there seem to think the people are being held at gunpoint to mourn like this and that the American media isn’t telling the full story of how evil a dictator Kim Jong Il was. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not a big fan of the mainstream American media. And I wouldn’t put it past the North Korean government to hold people at gunpoint to do anything (Win the World Cup and every sport in the Olympics or else, for example). At the same time, however, I think it’s important to remember how brainwashed most if not all these people are.

Nobody the rest of the free world over doubts what a brutal dictator this man was. They know he did anything he could to hang on to his power, even when that meant letting his people starve to death. But his power lust also made him brainwash his people. He kept his hermit kingdom so apart from the rest of the world and told his people so many lies that many North Koreans didn’t and still don’t know how crappy their lot in life was. It seems very plausible to me that at some point a captor like him doesn’t need to hold a gun to his victims’ heads to make them weep and wail and gush out tears. If people have been held back from the truth their entire lives and all they know is a lie, they will react accordingly. In March of 2003, fourteen year-old Elizabeth Smart was miraculously found in Sandy, Utah, after being held in captivity for nine months. She still remembered her own name, but also appeared genuinely concerned for her captors, Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee. If she can be brainwashed enough to believe these two people love her, imagine what an entire regime is capable of.

I personally believe the North Korean people can be unbrainwashed, just as Elizabeth Smart was, even though it won’t be easy. I wish there was an easy answer. It’s hard for South Korea to aggressively deal with the North when, among other factors, China and North Korea have such a cozy relationship and when the South Koreans themselves do so much business with China. I hope that the communist regime will buckle under its own weight. I hope we as a country have the resolve to help this regime fall, just as Reagan did to and for the Soviet Union.

I had the amazing opportunity to live in South Korea for two years while serving a religious mission for my church. I even got the chance to tour the DMZ while I was there. The South Korean people are forever grateful to American and allied forces for freeing them from the grasp of the communist North back in the 1950’s. I only wish their family members in the North enjoyed those same blessings of capitalism and democracy. My heart goes out to the North Korean people who have never known real freedom; many of them likely do not even know they have family members in the South. I pray that with stronger international resolve, a financial debt paid off to China (a debt that never should have existed in the first place), and an American president that on the international stage projects strength rather than weakness, that day of liberty for the North Korean people isn’t far off.

Welfare Policy & Thoughts on the GOP Race

I just finished a great book called The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky. Very good read. Olasky goes into how the thinking and policies regarding welfare have really gone down throughout history, ever since the turn of the twentieth century. The book was very eye-opening. Back in the day, churches and charities used to make a strong distinction between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. The societies would show tough love in requiring people to perform work tests by chopping wood or sewing before volunteers would give applicants any food or clothing; if necessary, aid societies would require applicants to change their behavior, to stop drinking or living promiscuously for example. There was more shame and stigma attached to receiving welfare. Even under FDR’s New Deal, people still had to apply for welfare. Somewhere during the 1960’s, like a lot of other aspects of American culture, the country took a wrong turn. Advocates began pushing for and the citizenry started accepting the idea that welfare was a right. There is so much welfare fraud and abuse in this country; it’s absolutely shameless. It’s gotten so bad that people are skeptical of almost any efforts to help the homeless, whether those efforts are legitimate or not.

While in Washington, I also finished a book by Mona Charen; it was called Do Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help and the Rest of Us. It touched on a lot of the same ideas as The Tragedy of American Compassion. Both these books, as well as my own observation, tell me one very huge contradiction that liberals don’t want to accept. They repeatedly reject the notion of personal responsibility. It’s societies fault if a criminal steals or shoots up a shopping mall. They want to look at “outside reasons” for why someone committed a crime. I, for one, think maybe the Left needs a taste of their own medicine. Next time I hear a more left-leaning person (maybe a college professor who still hangs onto all the stupid baloney from the 60’s) suggest we should evaluate the societal reasons somebody might commit a horrendous crime, I’d like to say, “I agree. Why don’t we start by looking at all the idiotic ideas you and your hippy friends pushed during the 60’s—ideas that have undermined the family unit, and increased poverty, crime, hunger, and dependency on government, ideas that hurt people’s sense of personal responsibility, as well as their pride and self-respect?”

Too many people, even well-meaning Christian Conservatives think that extending mercy and compassion means giving money without any strings attached. However, our human nature is such that the compassionate welfare policy is to attach some strings. People are motivated by incentives, and there’s nothing wrong with that as long as they use those incentives to do good. It’s naïve and uncompassionate to let people drift into idleness and dependency, and thereby lose their self-respect, by not expecting that welfare recipients give something, no matter how small, for what they receive.

The GOP presidential debate sure is heating up. There are only two and a half weeks to go before the Iowa Caucuses. Last night was the last GOP Presidential Debate before the voting begins. It’s been an interesting primary season thus far. Those of us not ready to accept Romney as the “chosen” nominee have been going through the other candidates until their campaigns either run out of steam or are derailed altogether. First it was Michelle Bachman, then Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and now Newt Gingrich. Of everyone that’s already had a turn, only Michelle Bachman (in my mind) has any shot at possibly returning. And that’s not just because out of a rotation cycyle it would be her “turn” again. I like Michelle Bachman; she’s a very committed conservative. I get frustrated trying to defend something stupid she says sometimes. But she really is smart (you kindof’ have to be to be a tax attorney); her gaffes have never been major policy ones in my mind. One of the main reasons her campaign died was because Rick Perry entered the race. Mom and Dad are still holding out for her. Maybe I am too. Apparently she did really well in the debate last night (I would have watched if we had Cable). Practically speaking though, I don’t know if she has a chance now. Bachman has been putting all her energy and resources into Iowa, and the Des Moines Register just endorsed Romney tonight.

Nikki Haley, governor of South Carolina (a crucial early voting state) endorsed Romney yesterday. I like Nikki Haley, I think she’s a committed conservative, and I don’t really blame her for endorsing Romney, especially since he helped her campaign for governor. Out of Romney and Gingrich, I’m definitely leaning towards Romney. Gingrich is a very smart man, and it would be fun to watch him in an intellectual smack-down with Obama; out of all the candidates, he’s the best at explaining conservatism. At the same time, though, he has suffered from political ADHD, supporting liberal causes on occasion. He’s done a lot of good for the country, but he can also be kindof’ a hothead at times. Romney, even for his imperfections, is a good man and seems to be a more stable person and candidate. He has had a successful career in the private sector, turning lemons into lemonade. I definitely don’t want to be like some of my conservative friends who avoid the thought of Romney at all cost. As much as we conservatives would all love to resurrect Ronald Reagan from his California grave, it’s simply not possible. He’s not running this time. We have to work with what we have. Mitt Romney has become kindof’ a polarizing political figure, especially on the Right. Sometimes I feel like I don’t fit into either camp of Romney-lovers or Romney-haters. And as much as I, like many conservatives, like Ron Paul’s economic views, he is dangerously naïve on foreign policy.

On the local level, Jim Matheson just announced he’ll run in the new “donut hole” 4th district that was recently created. It’s the only district that doesn’t border another state, and it’s now our district here in Kearns. They split up his more Democratic and left-leaning support base here in Utah. I don’t know why he’s running here. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Matheson has five percent less support in this district than he does in the new 2nd District. Carl Wimmer, running in the 4th District, accused Matheson of carpet bagging. He has to be careful, especially considering that Jason Chaffetz on our side doesn’t live in his (3rd) district either. We’ll see what happens here in Utah. Hopefully we can get rid of Matheson and gain two more Conservative Republican seats. I think it’s time for Hatch to go too. He’s only conservative when it’s convenient for him.

Helping Individuals = Having Faith in Them

Going off my last post, here’s some more food for thought: For as much as care and compassion for the individual are what drive some people to enthusiastically support the progressive ideology, it’s shocking to realize how much liberalism doesn’t suggest the importance of government having faith in people. Let me explain:

As is generally the norm in academia, the vast majority of my teachers and professors growing up were fairly liberal in their political opinions. Whenever it came time to learn about the nineteenth century and the Industrial Revolution in both Victorian Era-Britian and the post-Civil War United States, my teachers and professors have suggested that the assembly lines and horrible working conditions they feel defined that era are still a major problem today, that capitalism has “done this to people.” In short, they believe the industrial world and capitalism in general have alienated people from their work and turned them into robots. They believe the lower classes were and still are enslaved by capitalism.

Maybe there’s some truth to what they have to say about that era. Honestly, even as conservative as I am, I can’t watch movies like “Newsies” or Elizabeth Gaskill’s “North and South” without feeling some compassion for the working classes of Industrial nations during this period. Maybe there’s something to be said for the horrible working conditions and for the incredibly large gap between the lifestyles of the oil, banking, and railroad tycoons of that era. Maybe, my political opinions would have been different had I lived then. Maybe things like minimum wage laws and FDR’s New Deal, which were intended to fill in the “holes of capitalism” and were once a necessity, have simply been taken too far and the pendulum has swung the other way.

Even if history is as horrible as they report it to be, however, I at least have to conclude that history (at least in this context) is a pendulum that has swung the other way. Why? Because believing that people today need to be empowered as individuals does not hold water with contemporary liberal rhetoric, which suggests people cannot be trusted as individuals. I can think of three policy-areas that support this:

1) Gun Control—When I discuss my support for the Second Amendment with my left-leaning friends, they can’t seem to fathom the idea of an adult carrying a concealed weapon around, for the purpose of self-defense, especially in a public place like a school or a restaurant. They object to the idea of teachers and administrators carrying guns (even if they hold the necessary concealed carry permit), saying that if a teacher ever lost his or her temper in class, they would pull out the gun and shoot a student. What my friends don’t understand is that responsible adults with concealed weapons and the legal permits to carry them are just that: responsible. After going through all the safety training to learn how to shoot a gun and the necessary background checks, they’re not going to suddenly blow a gasket and forfeit their ability to defend themselves. They’re not going to use a gun in public, unless they honestly feel they’re life is at stake. But my liberal friends would rather put an unreasonable amount of a pressure on the police force to be at every crime scene than show a little faith in ordinary people; time and time again, the latter has proved far more effective. As the saying goes, “when seconds count, the police are minutes away.”

2) Education—My liberal friends continue to be shocked when I tell them we need market-based solutions, such as vouchers, in order to improve education in this country. They say that education is too important a priority to leave to the unstable forces of capitalism. The way my friends and many other liberals care about educating kids and preparing them for the future is admirable; their logic, however, is flawed. Essentially, they believe that if we keep dumping more and more money into public education, eventually kids will be educated. In other words, they would rather have faith in the collective system of government than in individual people—in more teachers to get their act together because they know they’ll be held accountable for their performance and the performance of their students; in parents to make responsible choices as to how their kids will be educated; and in kids to learn effectively when pushed to work harder and rewarded for their efforts.

3) Economic Prosperity—Finally, as I’ve asserted before, many of my friends are adamant that the poor in this country need the security blanket of welfare and other social programs. Just like their position on education, they believe that food and shelter are too important to leave to the forces of capitalism. I would argue that freedom and prosperity, and the food and shelter that come along with them, are too important to leave to the overreaching hand of government bureaucracy that more often than not does not help people in the end and that creates a culture of dependency.

The motives of my left-leaning friends in all of these positions are admirable. In a spiritual and moral sense, I wish I were more like them. However, if these liberals really wanted to “empower” and “free” ordinary people, they would realize that government needs to get out of the way. The verb empower suggests giving power to others. Yet that is the last thing that many liberal policies end up doing, regardless of whether hording power for themselves and creating a “nanny-state” of government is the goal that most liberals have in mind. And trust me, I’m inclined to give most of them the benefit of the doubt here.

Stranger than "Atlas Shrugged"

Ever see that movie “Stranger than Fiction”? The main character (played by Will Ferrell) is going along living his life when all the sudden he hears a women’s voice narrating everything he does. He later finds out that he’s actually a character in the book she’s writing. Well, I may not be hearing voices or anything, but it sure feels like I’m in a book sometimes, especially as a conservative. The country, the world, the economy, etc. are all starting to look like the world of Ayn Rand’s "Atlas Shrugged." And it’s not just because the economy is going under and jobs are disappearing, but it’s because liberal elitists in this country are pushing more than ever the idea that self-interest and selfishness are the same thing. And sadly, many of my friends are accepting this.

Sitting around with some of my co-workers (who also happen to be young college students) a few months ago, we were talking about this very subject. They were railing on capitalism and saying that greed and selfishness had caused it, as if it were a plague. They were saying how evil capitalism was, and I interrupted one of my friends to point out that in virtually everything she had already done that day she had interacted with and benefitted from capitalism—from the clothes and shoes she was wearing and the books she was studying to the building she was sitting in. I couldn’t believe what she said next: “Well that’s the crappy (she actually said something else, but I won’t repeat it here) part about it; you can’t get away from it.” I was stunned. Most of my liberal friends get pretty mad when I insinuate that they are anti-capitalism. Usually, they’ll say something like, “I just think humanity and compassion needs to be a bigger part of the conversation when it comes to social policy.” They’ll usually back down and refrain from admitting they are against capitalism, whether they are or not. I guess I at least have to respect my friend’s honesty here. It’s just sad to watch so many people accept this.

Contrary to what they may think, Self-Interest is actually a good and righteous thing. It is a good and righteous idea that people are and should be responsible for their own physical survival and improvement. Individual people know what is best for them in all aspects of life. Sure, freedom and responsibility come with challenges, some of them very difficult. But, the principle of doing what is best for yourself and consequently of knowing that you have a significant amount of control over your life is empowering, in the long run. It’s not something you should have to apologize for.

I should never have to apologize for paying for and enjoying a sandwich from subway or loving the feel of newly purchased shoes or enjoying riding around in a new car. All by themselves, these are good things that far from being condemned (simply because some people don’t accept the responsibility that comes with freedom and choose to either pay for things they can’t afford or make materialism too high of a priority) should actually be celebrated on their own merits. We should celebrate the fact that as Americans we do have control over our lives and destinies.

Again, self-interest is not selfishness. In fact, people generally categorized as selfish in our culture, who in this context are absorbed in immediate material gratification and who sometimes ditch their faith or families for worldly pursuits, are not doing what’s in their own self-interest.

I have no moral qualms over condemning material excess or suggesting that people have a duty to help the poor monetarily. My faith and even my, contrary to popular belief, political ideology support this. So, why won’t more of my friends stand up for the principle of self-interest? It’s a principle that they utilize on daily basis and, more than they probably want to admit, actually enjoy the freedom to do so. The fact that anybody should even have to explain such basic economics, such basic principles that our country was built on and that have made America and the rest of the world great since then is pretty sad. It does indeed make our current world stranger than the fictional world of Atlas Shrugged. It’s stranger because we’re actually seeing these ideas played out in our own non-fictional world today.

The Liberal Media: Overprotecting Obama

So Obama botched the whole toasting-the-queen thing in London this week. It’s not exactly breaking news, and it’s ultimately very unimportant to policy-making. But the reaction to his gaffe by liberals in the American media is more proof of their ongoing love-affair with our sitting president.

In case you haven’t heard, President Obama was in the middle of giving a toast to the queen when the Royal Band started playing “God Save the Queen.” He had asked everyone to rise (According to the “English rules”, that means it’s time for the national anthem.), and British Royal protocol says to wait until after the national anthem has finished playing before toasting. Despite the fact that the music had started playing, Obama continued with his prepared speech and then raised his glass to give a toast to the queen. Embarrassingly enough, however, he was the only one with his glass in the air. Everyone else, including the Queen who was sitting next to him, was still standing at attention for the National Anthem. When Obama realized his mistake, he set his glass down and awkwardly listened to the rest of the song. Finally, when the anthem was over, everyone raised their glasses in a toast to the Queen.

It’s been interesting to watch how everyone in the media decided to cover this. They’re saying the band misinterpreted the cue from President Obama. They’re suggesting the band should have waited till after Obama was finished speaking before they played the national anthem. Many of them criticized the queen for not helping Obama out, for not lifting her glass so he didn’t look stupid for being the only one in the room with his glass in the air.

Let me make this clear. I am criticizing the media here, not Obama. In all reality, could this have happened to anyone? Sure. Is a gaffe like this important to national or international relations? Probably not. Do I hope my fellow conservatives don’t take advantage of this opportunity to make a mockery of our president by lowering themselves to the level of the liberal media every time something like this ever came close to happening to Bush? Absolutely.

It’s the media that doesn’t make sense here. If Obama really is the amazing president they believe him to be, why should they have to make excuses for him? Shouldn’t he be able to dust himself off on his own every time something like this happens? If he’s so amazing, shouldn’t he be able to whip out a good joke and laugh at himself like Reagan would have done? According to their own larger-than-life view of him, he should be able to handle it. He’s a big boy. He can take care of himself. He’s more than a big boy. He’s the president of the free world, the president who has the power to usher in hope and change. Why should the queen or the people of England (who were simply following custom and tradition) have to help him out?
You’d think, right? The problem is that Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Chris Matthews, etc. all invested everything into Barrack Obama. They raised him up and supported him and helped him get elected by not only voting for him but by ignoring any and all stories that suggested he was anything less than the greatest president this country would ever see.

The liberal media’s relationship to Barrack Obama reminds me of parents who refuse to believe there is anything wrong with their kid. Whether it’s poor grades, disruptive behavior, bullying, etc., some parents get defensive when a teacher, coach, church leader, or someone else tells them their kid has problems that need to be addressed. The parents don’t want to believe the truth, because it hurts. They’d rather have the short-term satisfaction of ignoring a problem than enjoy the long-term fruits of being humble enough to listen to constructive criticism that others lend them.

There’s nothing inherently bad about a kid acting up in class at school, just as there’s nothing inherently bad about Obama toasting the queen too early. Mistakes are part of life. But if you ignore your own or those of someone you love, you’re not doing anyone a favor. If the media really had Obama’s long-term interest as a president in mind, they would report the objective truth about these gaffes he seems to find himself in. Their “mother hen” status is really starting to show through. It’s showing through them, and it’s showing through Obama’s followers, from academia to Hollywood. They’re all beginning to realize (as they look at the economy, the war on terror, immigration, his handling of natural disasters, etc.) that he’s not the superhero they thought he would be. And they’re scared of what it means for them and their careers.

Obama’s Birth Certificate: Old News, Timeless Lesson

Tonight, I want to address the controversy and conspiracy theories surrounding Barrack Obama’s birth certificate. I realize this may be old hat for many people. Once again, I am writing about an issue long after it may have already died (or at least after it has been buried temporarily). Seriously, though, I think we conservatives can take a few lessons from this issue.

First of all, one of the biggest problems with modern-day politics in general is that people of all viewpoints accept the logical fallacy that they need to believe every bad rumor or theory about a politician with whom they disagree on policy. They think anything less than doing so equals disloyalty to their respective movement or party. However, to a certain extent, believing that represents a degree of disloyalty to such a party or movement. Let me explain:

Several weeks ago, a woman called Rush Limbaugh’s show to chide him for not putting more pressure on Obama and left-leaning media to release his birth certificate. This was right around the time that more people, led by Donald Trump, were pressuring Obama to release his birth certificate. And, as we all know, the Whitehouse did release a more detailed version of Obama’s birth certificate than the one the Obama than they had before.

Anyway, this woman was irate with Limbaugh (given his influence on the media and national politics) for not demanding that Obama release his birth certificate. Mr. Limbaugh then did this woman a huge favor in how he defended himself. He told her that she was living in a fantasy world to think that simply removing a bad president from office was going to solve the country’s problems.

I will be honest here. I can relate to this woman’s frustration. During the 90’s, when we conservatives mistakenly thought we’d seen the worst U.S. president ever (in the form of William Jefferson Clinton), I remember thinking how convenient it would be if he just magically disappeared. But now that I’ve stepped back and looked at everything, I realize that such a wish is just that: a wish. It’s not reality.

The sitting president of the United States may have a lot of power but at the end of the day, his election simply reflects the sentiment of the country at the time he was elected. And the sentiment of the country is formed by the thoughts, emotions, and the logical and sometimes not so logical conclusions of its people. The president is just one person. And when it comes to American politics, somebody always steps up to the plate to take advantage of the sentiment of the country. At the end of 2008, America was disillusioned by the War in Iraq, worried about the economy, and the liberal media had convinced them that they needed a president from the opposite party. The mood of the country was such that if Obama had not become president, Hillary Clinton would have. If not her, someone else. If not that someone else, then another someone else, and so on and so forth.

The birthers, to put it bluntly, need to wake up and start talking about the actual issues if they want to save this country from its Constitutional demise. Don’t get me wrong. I would not be the least bit surprised, given the way the liberal media covered Barrack Obama’s campaign in 2008 and the way they’ve tried to protect him and his bad policies since then, if there are a lot of skeletons in Obama’s closet that simply sound like conspiracy theories right now.

However, if these birthers really want to change the long-term future of the country, if they want conservatism to win, they will stop putting all their energy into finding short-term solutions, if you can even call them that. They will stop putting all their eggs into one basket. They will stop banking all their energy and hope on what is simply, excuse the pun, a “Trump” card for saving America.

If the birthers want long-term conservative victory in this country, they need to join ranks with fellow conservatives by arguing about the merits of their policy-oriented ideas. They need to engage in a war of ideas and principles, rather than wasting much needed energy on political strategies that may or may not work and will do little, if not nothing, to help solve this country’s problems.

GOP in 2012: Not Enough Just to Win

This might seem like old hat to some of you, but I want to address something that occurred to me tonight while discussing politics with friends. It’s not the biggest thing in the news right now, but a lot of us Republicans are curious to see the GOP frontrunners for 2012 make their formal announcements. I still don’t know who I would support; they all seem to have their strengths and weaknesses. However, I do want to attack a premise that, contrary to popular belief, I think is actually hurting the GOP, and the conservative movement in general.

A lot of the more recent buzz about potential candidates was generated by the speeches of potential candidates at C-PAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference held in Washington, D.C. every February. People like Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, and even Donald Trump were all testing the waters. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels created some buzz with his speech. I listened to his speech, and liked most of what he said. Something he said, though, bothered me then and still does now.
He said something to the effect that, “To win in 2012, we’re going to need people who never tune in to Talk Radio.” At first, I didn’t think much of it; it seemed like a practical thing to say. This is a common belief that you have to be able to appeal to the moderates in the middle in order to win an election.

Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I was bothered by this part of his speech, especially that verb need. Let me make one thing clear: Mitch Daniels seems like an awesome governor. I’m very happy that the people of Indiana have somebody with the guts to tackle their state’s budget, like he has. So, I can’t judge what he intended to say. I can only judge his speech by what he did say.

People forget history, and sadly too many of those people are conservatives and Republicans. They forget that Conservatism works. It provides jobs at full employment (Most, if not all of the current recession we find ourselves in came from liberal, big government policies. Sadly, some of them were pushed and passed by none other than President George W. Bush—a good, principled, classy, and gracious man who still took a less than conservative approach when tackling a lot of domestic issues.), it keeps America safe from enemies abroad, and it allows Americans the freedom to live their lives in peace. And people respond well to conservatism. Reagan’s landslide elections in the 80’s, the rapid emergence of the Tea Party, and the 2010 Midterm Elections are just some examples of how well people respond. But, too many Republican leaders forget this. They either forget that it worked in the 80’s, or else they lack the confidence in its ability to work in modern-day politics.

Therefore, if Conservatism works, why should candidates have to shy away from talking or being less than conservative? A typical response to this might be, “they can’t shut off the moderates.” Well, if that is really the concern of Romney, Daniels, Gingrich, and others, why don’t they simply take the approach of Ronald Reagan-the man they’re obviously trying to emulate?

See, Reagan was a smart man. He understood how unreasonable it was to expect every member of his party to be homogenous, robot, Conservatives, who don’t think, act, and live for themselves? (Honestly, I think that is a common and at times even warranted criticism of Rush, Sean, Glenn, Laura, and others. If any Republican is less than completely conservative, he or she is branded by these talking heads as a traitor to Conservatism, as someone who cannot be trusted.) Reagan knew, as anyone knows that we are a diverse country with diverse ideas and diverse life experiences. He understood that people’s philosophical and political views are usually a reflection of that.

But, Reagan also knew that Conservatism works. And he didn’t apologize or back down from his confidence in it. So, to keep the middle and flank of the party with him, he did something that no Republican before or since him, to their own detriment, has tried. He issued his “Big Tent” Invitation to anyone who wanted to be with him and the Party. He, in effect, said to all of America: “We’re going to move this country back to the principles it was founded on. And you’re all welcome to join us, whether you agree with fifty, eighty, or one hundred percent of our agenda.”

If the potential candidates, both those in the limelight as well as those who still have yet to come out of the woodwork, would realize that they can be conservative and still win elections, they could win in 2012, and they could ultimately change the direction of the country for the better, as long as they stay conservative while in office. If we want to end the recession, stop the tsunami of wasteful spending domestically, win the war on terror, and restore the American Spirit (Sounds like Reagan’s goals, huh?), we need to remember that Conservatism works, and people respond to it positively—both on the campaign trail and afterward. It’s not enough to just switch the control of our federal government from Democrat to Republican hands. It’s not enough to push even harder on the car breaks of our economy sliding quickly downhill, and thereby simply postpone the inevitable crash at the bottom. We have to shut the ignition off completely before we can turn the car around and start driving back up the road. Conservative solutions work. They are what Americans have always needed, and they are what they need now. Somehow, each of the GOP candidates need to get that through his or head; and they need to get it through their heads even before they make any kind of formal announcements.

Self-made Haves freely giving to the Have-Nots...You better believe it means something!

I was at work a while back when, during the course of a political discussion, I remarked that people don’t realize how much money wealthy and successful Americans give to charity. The responses of my significantly liberal co-workers went something like this: “So? They can afford it! That doesn’t mean anything!”

If I were better at responding under pressure, I would have said the following: Yes, it does mean something. It very much means something, especially when it’s coming from their own pockets. Many CEO’s and affluent conservatives in this country quietly donate much of their income to charities and humanitarian organizations. They do it, because they believe in the freedom to be able to give it. They do it, because they believe God (not Government) is the one who will and should hold them accountable if they fail to “clothe the naked, feed the hungry, help the sick and afflicted.” They believe they have a duty to feed the hungry, on top of the jobs they already create for them. They do it to show thanks to God, and demonstrate that it is He (not government) who has blessed them, and that all they have belongs to him, not to the government. Their wealth is His to give, and His to take away. When it comes to “helping” the poor, their Judeo-Christian beliefs is a much more powerful moral compass than any Washington-based threat that says they’ll be stripped of everything if they fail to fund welfare and entitlement programs to help the economically disadvantaged.

Yes, it does mean something when our president and many of our elected officials do not live this way themselves. They do not use their own money to help the homeless and the hungry. They do not donate anywhere near as much of their own income as rags-to-riches Christian-living Americans. They want us to pay for it, legally. They want to take our money and give it to those who do not have it. Their version of compassion involves stealing money from the haves and giving it to the have-nots. They got to the top through government programs, not through American hard work and ingenuity. If the poor cannot have a beautiful house, the rich should not be able to either. The “compassion” that many liberal politicians say motivates them in public service is really a mask for the shallow and hollow jealousy that actually drives them. Instead, they use our money to go on extravagant vacations to reward themselves for how hard they are working for us.

To my friends at work, I say: you better believe it means something that self-made Americans freely give to the have-nots. The freedom to give to those in need and the freely given gift itself represent all that is good and right about America. It means more than just anything or something. It means everything. And the fact that fewer in my generation understand how much it means scares me. It scares me bad.

The Media, The NAACP, and liberal logic... if you can call it that -Part 2

Okay, this one’s coming on the tails of an issue that’s on the back burner for now, but I want to go ahead and say it, since it comes up constantly anyway. The leaders of the NAACP have a choice when it comes to how they view the world. They could rejoice in the freedom and opportunity they won from the Civil Rights Movement. They could use the opportunities that they, their parents, and their grandparents earned from protesting and marching with Martin Luther King and other great leaders to actually promote and build up America. They could use their freedom to promote the American ideals that gave them and their families the courage to fight for their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness during the 50’s and 60’s. They could use their freedom to go after the American Dream, and encourage others to do the same. They could use their freedom to defend America at home and abroad. Instead of using their freedom to promote freedom, however, they use their ancestry and the few bad experiences of other Black Americans today to promote a kind of 21st Century slavery. Every time they accuse the Tea Party or Fox News or Talk Radio of being in line with this dark and shameful part of American History, they are saying, “we’re not gonna’ let you use your freedom of speech to criticize President Obama and our party until we’ve milked this victimhood status for all its worth. We’re not gonna’ get even with your ancestors through you. We’re gonna’ completely discredit you while we harm this country with irreversible policies and an irreversible form of big government that will make your ancestors wish they had stayed in Europe and never discovered America.” Regardless of their intentions, that’s the very message their words send.

Think about it for a minute. We all hate racism, and want to clamp down on it. Why do we hate it so much? Because it represents the darkest and worst that is in us as human beings. To harm someone, either physically or verbally, based on physical appearance is inexcusable. The very idea should, and for many of us does, make us wish we could rewind the tape (or DVD in today’s case) of history to start things all over again.

The NAACP uses this national shame that we all share to distract us from the destructive agenda of the president they support. Of course, the liberals in the media are not any better; they look at the Civil War and the Jim Crow laws and segregation and they too use these things to push Obama’s agenda. Rather than wipe their foreheads with relief and say, ”Phew…I’m glad we [America] learned from that,” they jump at the opportunity to shut down and discredit anyone who is critical of Obama’s policies. It’s one thing to disagree with someone; it’s something else entirely to completely discredit that person because you disagree with them.

Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech still echoes very powerfully through the corridors of history. Yet, contrary to popular belief, it seems to resonate more with today’s conservatives than it does with today’s liberals. When Martin Luther King says, “I Have a Dream”, today’s Conservatives say, “so do we. Let’s take our country back.” Yet, when today’s liberals hear the same words, they silently but powerfully say, “Sorry Dr. King. You may have a dream, but we have an axe to grind.”

The Media, The NAACP, and liberal logic... if you can call it that -Part 1

Okay, I know this is getting old fast, but I cannot let this whole thing with the NAACP and the Tea Party become history without giving my own two cents on it. As we all know, these Tea Parties attract a number of right-wing wacko’s. I’ve never personally seen any racism at these rallies, but I have seen people there with extreme ideas and suggestions such as petitioning to impeach the president or ascertain the validity of his birth certificate. I don’t align myself with either of these suggestions and find them to be a distraction from an open and candid discussion of Obama’s policies.

And yes, as we have all seen on TV, some tea party-goers have thrown out racist remarks at some of these rallies, such as those hurled at Representatives John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver during the last major Health Care Protest on March 21st of this year.

Yet, based on a few sporadic instances, the left-leaning media and institutions like the NAACP have undergone an outrageous attempt to paint the entire Tea Party movement as racist. The thing that I can’t get over is how they keep going back and forth. First of all, the liberals do the same thing they acuse us conservatives of doing: they paint our entire movement with a broad brush that’s based off the bad experiences of a few people. Yet, whenever anyone tries to call them out on it, these liberals back down and say, “we’re not saying the entire movement is racist. We’re just trying to make Conservatives and Republicans more aware of the racist elements within their own party.” Then these liberals continue to make comments that suggest that they do, in fact, believe the Tea Party to be racist. They make comments without any kind of concession, without acknowledging how few and sporadic these instances really are. And, the back and forth continues.

Whenever liberals say that they don’t believe the racist elements within the Tea Party represent the entire movement, I say bull crap! You should either have the guts to say what you really think, or else don’t bring up the issue in the first place! If they didn’t really believe that we’re racist, why do they keep talking about it? Why do they continue to say that the Tea Party is not all racist while insinuating that the bigots within it represent all members of it? The answer is fairly simple: those who consciously put forward these kind of stories and try to make them bigger than they really are are simply interested in using race for their own benefit. They are bending over backwards to victimize themselves, and they are doing it to promote their own political agenda. Nobody is proud of America’s past regarding slavery and discrimination towards people of color. Yet, that is still no excuse for these people to turn the tables on America and use a dark part of our history to accuse today’s conservatives of racism.

Arizona Shrugged, Part 2

Two Weeks Later…

So, let me go into the second part of what I was going to say two weeks ago. When the story of Pierce’s letter was brand new, I was going to say that it wouldn’t surprise me if the liberals in the media try to twist this story and make it sound like Arizona is doing something unjust and un-American. Now, the story has obviously died down quite a bit. It seems like Arizona and L.A. are kindof’ at a standstill on this. I don’t know if L.A. really has implemented their threatened boycott.

From what I’ve heard, the media hasn’t done much commenting on this story (Maybe the liberals in the media are too embarrassed to see the irony behind this whole tension between the two states–I don’t know). Yet, it would be completely in line with their childish mentality of making choices without accepting the consequences. Too many liberals in this country make decisions without thinking of the consequences. When the consequences bite them in the back, they have a temper tantrum and try to make someone else look like the bad guy. It’s the same thing with abortion. They call it “a women’s right to choose.” (Note: When I say abortion, I am not referring to the small minority of cases where women become pregnant from rape or incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. I feel like my views on when abortion should be allowed legally are in line with the position of the LDS Church. In this case, I’m talking about the women who abort their babies because they are simply unwilling to accept the consequences of sex. Of course, it takes two to tango and it’s a shame that there’s no physical consequence for the male who impregnates the girl. But, of course, there’s not really much that can be done about that given the nature of everything.)

The simple truth is that you can’t make choices without accepting the consequences and that’s what’s going on here with everyone trying to boycott Arizona. I’ve heard there’s a buy-cott going on out there of people buying things that are only made in Arizona, or going there on vacation. Maybe I’ll do both this year. Who knows?

Arizona Shrugged, Part 1

The more I hear about this Arizona immigration law, the more I realize that Arizona had every right to pass this law. It’s too bad the federal government wasn’t doing their job in the first place but, at the end of the day, Arizona had not only a right but also an obligation to protect her citizens.

I can understand people’s anger over this law. Personally, I think a lot of Americans don’t want to deal with the facts when it comes to immigration. They don’t want to be the country that deports these illegal aliens. They don’t want to belong to a country that separates these families. They want to welcome everybody. At some level, I don’t blame them for being worried about families breaking apart. It shows how truly compassionate and caring we are as a country.

But Arizona had to protect her citizens. They had to do something before the violence got out of control. The federal government should have been the ones to strengthen our southern borders. But they didn’t, so the Arizona state government did what they could within their limited power as a state government over an issue of national security. Like I said, I understand people’s anger over this law. However, their anger is misguided. The people of Los Angeles and every other city that has threatened to boycott Arizona should be angry with the federal government of the United States, not the state government of Arizona. If there’s any truth to the liberal claim that this law will lead to racial profiling, then maybe liberal outrage is justified. But even in that case, their outrage should be aimed at those in the federal government who failed to do their job in the first place and, consequently, pushed the Arizona government into passing this law.

Another thing- I’m tired of hearing all this talk about how, “Well Bush didn’t do anything to protect our borders either.” I have a news flash for liberals who keep saying that: We (Conservatives) know that; we’re just as ticked off at the Bush administration and every other previous administration who failed to secure the borders as we are at the Obama Administration for perpetuating that failure. Bush’s failure in this arena doesn’t make it okay for Obama to fail on this too.

Arizona is in a really tough spot right now. If they wait for the federal government to strengthen the borders, they could see more of their citizens killed. But if they do what’s in the best interest of their state, they have to deal with punk mayors like Antonio Villaraigosa, of Los Angeles, who have threatened to boycott Arizona over their new law.

Yesterday, Arizona Corporation Comission member Gary Pierce released a letter to the mayor of Los Angeles telling Mayor Villaraigosa that he would be glad to relieve his city from continuing to receive 25% of their electricity from Arizona. http://www.cc.state.az.us/commissioners/Pierce/Documents/5-18-10.pdf I think Arizona should go ahead and pull the plug. I’ll explain why tomorrow (meaning the next time I write on this blog).

Conservatism is Compassionate

I recently heard someone defend his belief in compassionate conservatism, the same idea introduced (to a significant extent later practiced) by George W. Bush when he first ran for president back in 2000. I think I have a vague idea of what this term is supposed to mean (i.e. helping the poor and need). Regardless of that, however, I see some very negative consequences of its usage. The problem with this term is very simple: it implies that Conservatism is not compassionate by itself. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.

Before I continue, however, I think it’s important to remember how we Americans–myself included– often define conservatism. It’s composed of some very basic principles. As Conservatives, we believe the power of the government should be limited. We believe in a free market over which the government should have very little, if any, control. We believe in upholding the traditional family, and celebrating our Judeo-Christian heritage. We believe our elected officials should strictly follow the Constitution. Of course the list goes on, but these are some of the basics. I’ve heard many conservatives say that conservative principles are simply the founding principles of the country.

As a side note, I think the free market system of allowing people to pursue their dreams without a lot of government intrusion is already compassionate. I could say the same for upholding the traditional family by recognizing kids’ need for a female mother and a male father. However, I don’t think that’s the kind of compassion that many liberal Democrats, and even many moderate Republicans, think we conservatives lack. They want to see us give to the homeless and needy. They think they see a huge contradiction between the firm way we defend Christianity and the level to which we oppose this country’s welfare system, for example. Yet, both liberals and conservatives will be surprised to find the founding principles that we conservatives embrace are just as compassionate as those specifically mentioned in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Long before Britain decided to exercise greater control over her American colonies, Americans had already founded those principles that they later incorporated into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Ever since the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620 and the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay ten years later, Americans had been slowly but surely practicing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. They had also been practicing representative government on a local level. In addition to all these, they had also been practicing compassion. A long American tradition, compassion goes back to the ‘City on the Hill’ idea set forth by John Winthrop. He, very explicitly, stated the following:

“wee must be willing to abridge our selves of our superfluities, for the supply of others necessities, wee must uphold a familiar Commerce together in all meekenes, gentlenes, patience and liberallity, wee must delight in eache other, make others Condicions our owne rejoyce together, mourne together, labour, and suffer together, allwayes haveing before our eyes our Commission and Community in the worke, our Community as members of the same body, soe shall wee keepe the unitie of the spirit in the bond of peace, the Lord will be our God and delight to dwell among us, as his owne people.

While the progressives in this country believe everyone is entitled to some kind of government-backed security blanket though welfare, social security, health care, etc, Conservatives have a little bit more faith in each other. When the economy goes south temporarily, we conservatives turn to our churches and local charities for help. Those of us lucky enough to ride out the storm make donations through those same churches and local charities. Where liberals are willing to sacrifice the entire American experiment of freedom from tyrannical government during times of economic distress, Conservatives remember that allowing ourselves to become more dependent on the government diminishes our freedom, which, in turn, provides us with fewer resources to help the poor and the needy through the most effective means possible. When bad times come, as they always do, liberals (out of fear) begin believing that the American experiment of free market economics has failed and that government should step up to the plate. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that they themselves should be consistently choosing to step up to the plate because choosing to help others in economic distress is a significant part of our national identity. I’ll touch on more of this later, but the key difference between the two mindsets is in choosing.

Freedom Breeds Confidence

For those of you that did not hear, I have a shocking news story that could only happen in California. However, I still would not have believed it unless I had heard it for myself:

Daniel Galli and his four friends were wearing Patriotic T-shirts to school as they do on a frequent basis. They were sitting at Lunch when the vice principal approached them and asked them to turn their shirts inside-out, because it was Cinco de Mayo and the vice principal said that their shirts were insensitive to Mexican Americans. He said this was supposed to be their holiday. When the boys refused, they were sent to the principal’s office. The principal then threatened to suspend them if they didn’t comply. So, the five of them returned home and changed their clothing. When interviewed by the News Media, one Mexican American girl said, “I think they [the boys] should just apologize… We don’t deserve to get disrespected like that. We wouldn’t do that on the Fourth of July.” (http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html)

When I was watching this story online yesterday, I wanted to walk right through my laptop and scream at this girl: “You airhead! What kind of logic do you call what you just said? These boys (who largely represent Conservative America, in my opinion) wouldn’t care if you did wear a Mexican shirt on the Fourth of July.” I wanted to tell her that we conservatives are not self-conscious like she is. We are not self-conscious as she insinuates we would or should be. This girl’s family likely came to America, the land of opportunity, to seek a better life. They came to a land that is the land of opportunity because it’s based on certain principles. One of those principles, among so many others listed in the Constitution, is freedom of expression.
The principal, vice principal, this girl, and many like them don’t seem to understand the way our patriotism and our pride in this country give us the self-confidence to recognize other people’s rights. At Utah’s annual Veteran’s Day Conference every November, anti-war protestors stand outside and shout offensive and ‘insensitive’ things at the men and women who have and are putting their lives on the line so these protestors can stand outside and be jerks. When they do this, the veterans and those of us with family members and friends who have served, or are serving, in the military have the self-confidence to ignore the protestors and recognize their right to protest. We have the self-confidence to realize that what other people think of us does not determine our happiness.
Yet, when four boys want to exercise their Constitutional right to, in a sense, say how grateful they are for that Constitutional Right, the school administrators and this girl start whining like spoiled bratty little kids and saying that they don’t like American shirts on their holiday, and that these boys should have to give in to their temper tantrums. These people don’t value freedom. They don’t value it because they’ve already surrendered their freedom to other people to determine how happy they are.

A Few More Words on Immigration

A couple more things: I am tired of people on the Left suggesting that those of us on the Right, especially the people of Arizona, are racist for supporting this recent law. I will acknowledge that it does seem like there is more racism towards Latinos in this country relative to other ethnic groups. To put it bluntly, it is relatively safer, politically, to stereotype them than it is to stereotype Blacks or Muslims, for instance. At the end of the day, though, the people of Border States like Arizona and Texas need to act if the federal government is unwilling to do so.

At the same time, though, our motive (as Conservatives) for solving this problem should not be political, even though that is much easier said than done. Every so often, I hear someone suggest that one of the reasons the GOP should oppose amnesty is that the overwhelming majority of Latino’s in this country vote for the Democratic Party. I have no doubt that the liberals in this country try to pander to Latino’s as they do with many other ethnic groups and minorities. I believe many of these liberals want minorities dependent on the federal government. Yet, by suggesting that we want an immigration crackdown in order to curtail the power of the Democratic Party, we are only lowering ourselves to their level. It also gives the Democrats more ammunition to play the race card against us.

If we, as Conservatives, are so concerned about the Democrats hijacking of the Latino Vote, the Black Vote, the Asian Vote, etc, we should convince the Republican Party to adopt the Big Tent Philosophy that Ronald Reagan did in the 1980’s when he welcomed all into the Grand Old Party. Rather than lowering ourselves to the Democrats’ level, the Republican Party should make a more solid effort to remind all Americans (while not singling out any one group, obviously) that they are more conservative than they are prone to, or often led to, believe. I believe many of them would see the light if we showed them how their lifestyles -- of working hard, going to church, and loving their families – are more Conservative than they are liberal. But we can't just passively think they'll one day wise up if we don't actively help them understand the Truth.

Humility: An Important Ingredient to a Person’s Intelligence

Let me preface that what I am about to say is based on nothing but pure speculation. However, let me also say that I think it falls completely in line with LDS Theology, even though I am obviously not some kind of spokesperson for the LDS Faith.
From my reading of The Book of Mormon, it seems like The Book of Heleman and the first part of The Third Book of Nephi seem to focus on the pride theme more than any other section. Recently I was reading in Heleman, Chapter 12, where Mormon gives his famous treatise on Pride. After stating that men are “quick to do iniquity” and “slow to remember the Lord their God”, Mormon compares men to the natural elements of wind, water, earth, etc. and says that these elements are far more obedient than man is (Hel 12:4-5). He then says something that, at first glance, looks like an aside to what he is really talking about. In Heleman 12: 15, he states the following:

And thus, according to his word the aearth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the bsun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.

I stopped after reading this verse, because I had so many questions going through my head: Why is Mormon going off on astronomy? Was a geocentric view that the earth was the center of the Universe common on the ancient American continent? (It was certainly common for a lengthy period in Europe, given the way philosophers, astronomers, the clergy and many others persecuted Galileo for asserting a Hellenistic view of the Universe.) It then hit me that maybe Mormon was ahead of his time. Maybe he was an incredible scholar in addition to being the Lord’s prophet. It was not that I have ever doubted his intelligence or anything, but the thought just had not occurred to me before. Now that it has, it makes perfect sense. If The Modern-Day Leadership of the Church is composed of men who have been doctors, lawyers, professors, scientists, etc. then why not the same thing in the ancient world?
Finally, maybe it’s not a coincidence that Mormon’s intelligence comes through in a chapter on Pride. I think there’s a very general but still common misconception out there that people who believe in God or belong to organized religion stifle their minds by worshipping a Being more intelligent than themselves and by humbling themselves before him. Yet, it is just the opposite. When men follow God and humbly keep his commandments, their ability to think, analyze, synthesize, and create are enhanced. Whether or not Mormon had this intent in mind when he wrote this chapter, it still serves as a good example of how people’s minds expand when they humbly and consistently recognize the source of all Light and Truth.

Some thoughts on the Immigration Thing

Okay, so as long as everybody has something to say about this new immigration law in Arizona, I thought I would add my two cents to the conversation. Now, on most issues, I feel like I fall right in line behind most conservatives in this country. However, I am more in the middle on this one. I think that, on immigration, both parties and both major ideologies in this country are talking past each other on this problem and nobody is really finding the underlying cause of it. The Left is so passionate about being compassionate that many of them want to do all they can to help the immigrants that they are not thinking about how to help them in an orderly and logical manner. The Right, however, does not do too much better; they think that all it boils down to is a question of amnesty. Before we get to a solution, however, I think it is important to acknowledge a few facts:
1) These immigrants are breaking the law by coming here illegally.
2) These immigrants are breaking a serious law by coming here illegally, one that has significant economic and national security implications attached to it (This is especially true given the violence in Arizona that partially contributed to this law in the first place).
However, considering that…
1) These immigrants are breaking a law that we (The United States) haven’t done a very good job of enforcing, (i.e. Our border security is awful, and we’ve been granting amnesty since the Reagan years)
AND
2) Many of these immigrants are fleeing dangerous drug war-torn Mexico
AND
3) We are all immigrants. This is the greatest, freest country God ever gave to man, and we have an invitation to the rest of the world on our Statue of Liberty that says, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free.”
Considering these things, we should not deport these people. Yes, they are violating the Rule of Law by coming here illegally, but we (the U.S.A.) hasn’t exactly been following the Rule of Law ourselves in granting them amnesty over and over and over again and, consequently, encouraging more to come here over and over and over again.
The vast major of these illegal immigrants are not bad people. Who can blame them for wanting to seek a better life? At the same time, though, who can blame the people of Arizona for trying to protect the interests of their state? The United States government has a problem on its hands and they need to do something about it quickly.
Here are a few ideas:
1) Primarily, we need to strengthen our borders. Especially given the drug war going on in Mexico that could potentially leak over, we have every right to protect ourselves from its effects.
The rest of these items are not in any specific order, but here we go anyway:
2) We should stop giving these immigrants benefits. Unless they are paying taxes like the rest of us, we should stop giving them driver’s licenses, housing, health care, etc. I know that a lot of them already work for low wages doing the crappy jobs that no one else wants, but it still does not make it right that we should let them freeload off us. I hope that by doing this, we can give them some measure of accountability for mooching off the rest of us.
3) We need to make English the official language of the United States. Unless these people learn to speak English, they will continue to be crippled and dependent on the government for everything.
4) We need to make it easier for people to come to this country legally, so that more immigrants will want to come here the right way. The fact that the process is as ridiculously complex as it is now, combined with all the free stuff these people get as illegal immigrants, gives them a greater incentive to come here the wrong way.
5) Maybe instead of amnesty or deportation, we could find some kind of happy medium where children are not separated from their parents, but they are still held legally accountable for breaking the law and for living off the rest of us.
I’ll try to go more into this later, but there’s something to chew on for now. Of course it would also help if we could do more to help Mexico fight the drug cartels.

Dittohead Diplomacy

Tonight, I would like to direct my attention to all you Conservatives out there. I would like to introduce you to two brothers: Fred and George. Yes, I am copying J.K. Rowling, but this is only for the purpose of protecting the identity of my American friends. Please understand that they are only names I have chosen to copy; I am not attacking or even describing the Weasley Family (fictional though they may be, I know there are many out there who are very passionate about them) in any way, shape, or form. Well, I guess there is one exception. In honor of Fred Weasley, who recently gave his life in the Battle of Hogwarts, I will use him as the model we should all follow.
Fred and George both grew up (not playing Quidditch in their English backyard) but listening to Rush Limbaugh while riding in the car with their parents in Utah. Fred and George both liked him equally, but they let him influence them in different ways. George loved Limbaugh, and believed very strongly in Conservative principles; he would do anything to defend his country. He was an inspiration to all who knew him. The problem, however, was that George tried too hard to follow Rush Limbaugh’s example in how he debated with both his liberal acquintainces as well as anyone who disagreed with him even a little. While he inspired many with his love of America, he frequently offended others with his passionate and undiplomatic tone. His friends who only disagreed with him on one or two issues were frustrated with George. In their minds, he was the stereotypical model of the Extreme Right-Wing American: someone who loves America, but is too passionately patriotic for their own good.
Fred, on the other hand, knew how to be friends with those who held differing viewpoints while still keeping his political and moral principles. When Fred graduated from college, he got a good job as an engineer. He was a busy man, but still managed to make time for politics; he was very politically active, and he loved listening to Rush Limbaugh on his way to and from work. One day, while talking with some friends, the subject of daycare came up. One of Fred’s female friends, frustrated by the prospect of finding a good day care center for her small children, expressed her wish that the law require businesses to provide daycare for their employees. Fred, very casually, pointed out the fallacies in that solution. One of them, for example, was the high cost to businesses of providing such a facility. At the end of their discussion, this friend was much more aware and even somewhat persuaded by Fred’s ideas. This woman was lucky that George was not in the room; he might have humiliated her and her naïve ideas.
Anyway, you get the idea. Again, please understand that I am a conservative, and that I am just as frustrated by what is happening to this country right now as anyone else on the Right. However, my friends on the Right who do not know how to have a conversation with anyone who disagrees with them just a little also equally frustrate me. Diplomacy does not necessarily equal compromise. I understand the frustration of the Conservatives in this country at the current administration. Nevertheless, if you want to do something about it, learn how to have a conversation with people who disagree with you. I have always been, and still am, a major supporter of Rush Limbaugh and Conservative Talk Radio. Without Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and others, I do not know how any average American would be able to sift through the liberally biased news sources of ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and others to find the truth. But I recently discovered that I, personally, was a lot like George. I only listened to Rush Limbaugh, and I only recycled his opinions while debating with others. It was getting in the way of effectively arguing and persuading others to my way of thinking, not to mention developing my own opinions. There’s nothing wrong with being a dittohead; I don’t apologize for it, and I don’t expect anyone else to either. However, it is counterproductive if it gets in the way of diplomacy. Contrary to popular perception, you can and should be a dittohead and a diplomat at the same time.

The Catharsis of Halloween

Before I make the argument I am about to make, let me make one thing clear: I love Christmas. It is by far my favorite holiday for so many reasons. As a society, however, I think we've become too emotionally invested in this one Holiday. The problem, in my opinion, comes from the fact that we don't know how to properly celebrate the holidays leading up to it, not to mention other holidays throughout the year. And since it is October, I think I'll discuss this idea in reference to Halloween specifically.
First, a little background. I stopped the whole trick-or-treating thing when I was like twelve. After that, my Halloween tradition varied between watching some stupid show on TV and doing my homework. Somehow, in the back of my mind, I knew I was missing out on something fun, but ignored it and decided to just get myself pumped up for Thanksgiving and Christmas instead. Looking back now, I realize how unhealthy that has been.
I'm going to use myself as a case study here, so hopefully I'm not the only one out there who experiences this. But, I get so excited for Christmas, that's hard to not get overwhelmed and immersed by all the commercialism of it that I forget the true meaning of Christmas, meaning the birth and life of Jesus Christ. Psychologically, I get so excited for it that I create unrealistic expectations for myself during the Holiday Season. If I have an argument with another member of my family near the Holidays, I tend to be too hard on myself afterward and think that there's something wrong with me for being less than perfectly happy during "The Most Wonderful Time of the Year." The reality of the situation, however, is that both of us are experiencing high levels of stress due to the "hustle and bustle" of the season.
Some years, I've been so excited for Christmas that I start listening to Christmas music even before Halloween. By the time Christmas actually gets here, I'm so tired of the sights and sounds that I don't enjoy the holiday and it's hardere to be uplifted by the true meaning of Christmas. But, when Christmas is over, all I have is an unrealistic memory of how perfect Christmas was. That's when the Post-Christmas Depression really kicks in.
So, getting excited for the Christmas season too much and too early is just bad all the way around. Why do I do this, you ask. Like other unhealthy behavior, it's easy to stay in our habits rather than change and improve. I would argue that, like me, celebrating Christmas is second nature to most Americans who do, in fact, celebrate it. We know that we'll wake up to presents on Christmas morning, we'll go to the store, we'll trim the tree, etc. It's almost expected of us; it may even seem un-American if someone doesn't have a Christmas tree.
It's a different story with Halloween, however. Other than maybe accompanying your son, daughter, brother, or sister on their trick-or-treat route, there's no real expectation for actually celebrating the holiday as you get older. You have to go out of your way to arrange a party, buy a costume, go to a haunted house, etc. But, because it's not socially expected of us, many of us don't worry about celebrating a holiday like Halloween.
The thing that more Americans need to realize is how cathartic a holiday like Halloween actually is. By Cathartic, I am comparing the psychological effect of Halloween to Aristotle's view on Greek Tragedy. According to Aristotle, the audience viewing a tragedy like Oedipus is purged of the emotions of fear and pity by vicariously experiencing them through someone else.
In recent years, I've tried to celebrate Halloween more through going to parties, corn mazes, haunted houses, watching scary movies, etc. I've found that I'm able to stay more focused on the spiritual aspects of Christmas because I've already gotten a lot of the fun out of my system. I'm cleansed of the subconcious temptation to get too immersed in the commercialism of Christmas because I was already immersed in the commercialism of Halloween (as a Christian, that's the side that I should stay on, since the religious aspects of Halloween are Satanic) and I'm thus ready to be spiritually uplifted by Christmas. I'm also better able to be realistic about the commercial side of Christmas, and I can enjoy it in a way that is psychologically healthier.
So, if you're like me and you want to enjoy Christmas in a more healthy, realistic, and spiritual way, try celebrating the holidays in between first.

If Freedom is Not Free, Why Should Health Care Be?

Last Tuesday, another girl and I debated two guys from the College Democrats over Health Care. The Democrat moderator asked me if Health Care was a privelege or a right. I've been thinking about his question on and off all week. It's a touchy subject, no doubt, and it's not an easy one to answer. But, maybe I can put things in context here.
A couple of weeks ago, at work, I was having a conversation with my supervisor (who is heavily involved in Army ROTC) and another supervisor from Taiwan. She expressed her doubts regarding the legitimacy of war. My supervisor reiterated a phrase that we hear often: "Freedom is not Free." I reminded her that America wouldn't be such a great place for her to come to live and study if it weren't for the men and women in the armed forces who defend what this country stands for.
Of course, I had heard this phrase many times previously. Usually, when I think of this phrase, I think of the men and women who have died in defense of this country. Never until now, however, did I think of it in relation to domestic issues like Health Care.
First of all, I think there's a reason that among our inalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence, Life is the first one mentioned. I don't think that's a coincidence. It's the duty of the government to ensure that we're protected from enemies, both foreign and domestic. Of course, the first of these enemies should be those who threaten our immediate safety, like murderers and terrorists. I think both Democrats and Republicans should agree that America's greatest enemies are those whose intentions are to take away our lives.
During times of peace and prosperity, it seems that freedom and our American way of life are, in fact, free. It's during these times that we think we're lucky, and we're grateful to a government that is successfully averting the naiton from armed conflict. Every so often, however, there comes a time when war is inevitable, and men have to die in order for the government to keep its pact of protection with the American people.
So, I ask this question of my liberal friends: If freedom (in the sense of our immediate protection), is not free, what makes you think Health Care should be? Somebody will have to pay for this Health Care plan that President Obama and the Democrats are proposing. While the vast majority of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum (myself included) agree that our Health Care system needs to be reformed, it should not be reformed at the expense of the more pressing need of national defense. If we cut our defense spending to help pay for things like Health Care, we'll be in greater danger and we might not get a better health care system anyway. Since the government's number one priority should be our immediate safety, then we (as individuals) should do what we can to work for a better health care system through market-based solutions. I don't understand why that's such a shock for so many liberals. We, as a nation, have a proven track record of fulfilling a countless number of needs and wants through our free market economy.
So, I ask again, if freedom is not free, why should health care be? Why should you or anyone in this country get a free trip to the doctor when soldiers are dying over in the middle east?