Conservatives Are Not Crazy

Hiatus

2009-01-18T15:34:00.000-08:00

I hate to do this so soon, but it looks like I'm going to need to take an indefinite hiatus from this blogging. I'll leave all the previous posts up, but I need to focus on other matters for now.

I realized I'm trying to do too much at once, and it looks like there are plenty of other excellent conservative blogs out there fighting the good fight. I'll leave the blogosphere in their capable hands, while I focus on two main objectives: 1) getting my career in order and 2) learning as much as I can about American history.

Maybe after I'm far along on that second objective, I might return someday with a historical-themed conservative blog. We shall see.

For now, I'll leave you with these words of advice:

Learn as much as you can about history and learn from its mistakes.

Don't become a victim to your own emotions. Balance emotions with rationality.

Acquire your news from several different sources and form your own opinions.

Check out the blogs on my blogroll.

Realize there has never been a U.S. President who is all good or all bad.

Don't expect perfection from any human being.

Balance idealism with reality.

Watch out for peer pressure.

Read through the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence to see for yourself what the founders were all about.

Know that as long as you are an American citizen, it's up to you as to whether or not you succeed in your endeavors.

Just for fun...

2009-01-11T16:17:00.000-08:00

I've got an especially busy week of work ahead, so it'll be several days before I get a chance to do a substantial post.

In the meantime, please enjoy this:

Pure brilliance and awesomeness.

Follow-up to the Bush post

2009-01-06T17:11:00.000-08:00

For more information about President George W. Bush, please read: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/myths_and_facts_about_the_real.html

Here's an excerpt:

"Myth 1: The last eight years were awful for most Americans economically and President Bush's deregulatory policies caused the current financial crisis.
Reality: President Bush's time in office is ending as it began, with our economy under stress. The recession President Bush inherited as he entered office ran through the attacks of September 11, 2001, but during the recovery that followed, and due in no small part to the tax relief President Bush worked with Congress to provide, this country experienced its longest run of uninterrupted job growth - 52 straight months, with 8.3 million jobs created."

Thanks to http://www.paulibrahim.com/ for pointing out the article.

Sesame Street and Political Correctness

2009-01-04T17:23:00.000-08:00

I learned something today that saddened me. Apparently, some adults now feel that the earliest episodes of Sesame Street, from 1969 through the ‘70s, are inappropriate for children.

Google "Sesame Street inappropriate," and you’ll see what I’m talking about. The DVDs collecting the first several years warn parents that the content may not be suitable for today’s preschoolers.

Not only does Cookie Monster practice poor eating habits, but he has the nerve to smoke (and eat) a pipe during his "Monsterpiece Theatre" bit. Can’t have today’s kids watching that! Yet, I clearly remember being a young child watching Cookie Monster with his pipe, and to this day, I have never even touched a cigarette or pipe, much less smoked either. That’s because my parents and teachers made it clear that smoking was a bad idea. Cookie Monster didn’t really have much influence one way or the other over my decision never to smoke.

Yes, to this day, I do eat many cookies. I love chocolate chip cookies and always have, but that’s because they’re delicious, not because I saw Cookie Monster eating them.

Oscar is another offender. He’s a grouch who should have been treated for clinical depression, or so the politically-correct folks say. Looking back, I’d say he’s a great opportunity for teaching kids to deal and interact with difficult, cranky people. In literary terms, he serves the antagonist role. Through his exploits, kids can learn about conflict and resolving conflict. But we can’t have such characters today, says the PC crowd––No, we must shield our children from such horrors as Oscar the Grouch!

Ernie and Bert, apparently, lived in substandard housing conditions. I don’t recall ever noticing.

And there are other issues, probably more than I’m aware of.

I survived watching the 1980s Sesame Street, which included plenty of earlier material. I remember fondly Grover running back and forth shouting, "Near! Far! Near! Far!" And I remember Kermit’s reporting and that bit with the x-ray machine. And Ernie singing about his rubber duckie. And so on. It was all quite harmless.

Now, if Oscar or Cookie Monster were, say, decapitating their fellow muppets or bombing inhabited buildings, then that would be inappropriate for children. But being a grouch or eating too many cookies? Please. This notion that we can only expose children to situations and characters that are purely shiny, happy, and squeaky-clean...that’s not doing the children any favors. Because eventually, these children will grow up and will forced to live in reality, where the reality is that not everyone is perfectly nice and cuddly.

This is what truly bothers me––this all-or-nothing mentality, this elimination of any middle ground. The real world is not all black and white, and it’s not all shades of grey either. There’s black, grey, and white. Teaching kids to add = good. Teaching kids to kill = bad. A muppet smoking a pipe = who cares?

The people who say that old-school Sesame Street isn’t appropriate for children need to realize that Sesame Street is not a parent.

Civics lesson

2009-01-01T17:27:00.000-08:00

I found this excellent video at Moonbattery.com...

There is indeed a difference between a republic and a pure democracy. We're a constitutional republic, as we're governed by laws and not by any one group of people. Our system of checks and balances ensures that no one branch of government seizes control, while any citizens majority is checked by only having the authority to elect representatives.

Year-old Daily Kos quotes

2008-12-29T18:23:00.000-08:00

With an extra year's worth of hindsight, Right Wing News' 2007 list of the worst Daily Kos quotes appears even more ridiculous/frightening:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/12/the_2nd_annual_worst_quotes_fr.php

Did Bush declare martial law and I missed it? I guess I was busy working that day.

An observation...on hope

2008-12-29T17:37:00.000-08:00

To all those who credit Obama with instilling a renewed sense of hope within the American people, I present to you this quick observation, which I'm sure someone else must have made already. Even if that's case, it bears repeating:

The American people created that hope themselves. Obama merely presented the most readily available blank slate to paint that hope onto.

Just think about that for a little while.

For months, I wondered, about that "Yes we can" catchphrase. "Yes, we can...what exactly?" Now I realize that’s the point. It allows folks to fill in the blank with whatever they want, so they’re cheering on whatever they want to cheer on. From the marketing perspective, it was quite clever.

The Bush Post

2008-12-28T17:59:00.000-08:00

Here’s my general opinion of President George W. Bush:

Like him as a guy. Like him as Commander in Chief. Would love for him to keep his hands off the economy.

I’ll start with the criticisms and end with the positive.

First, Bush is not a true conservative. He’s some strange conservative/liberal hybrid. No true conservative would have increased the size of government like he has. He’s combined large tax cuts with large spending increases, and I simply don’t see how that can work. And it looks like it hasn’t. Lower taxes with a little more spending could work, but not at Bush’s scale.

In my opinion, the worst thing Bush has done is the bailouts. It’s a slap in the face to the free market and entrepreneurship. I was quite frustrated upon reading that he supported a bailout for the auto companies after Congress said no. Bailouts are a form of socialism. And I really don’t like socialism.

In economic terms, Bush is the second coming of Herbert Hoover, who made a mess by trying too hard to fix things. As I’m presently reading in Amity Shlaes’ book, The Forgotten Man, it wasn’t the stock market crash of 1929 that caused the Great Depression. The crash caused a short-term situation that likely would have rectified itself, had not Hoover intervened by imposing that pesky tariff, which got in the way of trade. Bush’s version of the tariff, essentially, is bailouts. Hoover was an engineer and used to being hands-on with solving problems. But with the economy, it’s better to let it play out on its own. (Side note: FDR essentially did larger, grander versions of Hoover’s intrusive policies, prolonging the depression, according to the book. And it’s looking like Obama will have large, grand intrusive measures as well. Heaven help us. This is why we need to learn our own history.)

Let’s move onto education. No Child Left Behind is a well intentioned idea, but it’s not for the federal government to decide what makes a local school successful. There certainly are problems to be addressed in many public schools, and I’ll dwell on that more in a future post, but let’s stick to NCLB for right now. In essence, it tells teachers precisely what they need to teach and places the emphasis on what facts and concepts must be memorized. Education should instill in children a lifelong love of learning, and to do so, it needs to teach them how to learn and why they should. Teaching to a test doesn’t cut it.

Those are my two biggest issues with Bush. I’ll move onto the positive.

Good for him for taking measures against abortion. Doctors should not be forced to participate in abortion procedures if they don’t believe it’s right. (And you’d think a "pro-choice" person would support that sort of thing, wouldn’t you?)

And now for something a bit more complicated to defend: Iraq.

It’s come to my attention that some people still believe that Bush lied. They believe he wanted to start a war in Iraq for shady, selfish purposes. Some people still say he killed soldiers with this lie. I’ll attempt to set the record straight.

Bush did not lie. He acted on faulty intelligence, which is nothing to be proud of, but the misinformation about the weapons of mass destruction was the fault of intelligence agencies, and it wasn’t exactly a far-fetched claim. And it didn’t lead us to accidentally attack an ally or a harmless neutral country. It was Saddam Hussein, for God’s sake––a threat the world is better off without. Was this the absolute best use of our military at that particular point in time? That’s debatable, but it was something that eventually needed to be done. It’s a worthy cause.

Here’s some reading: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687_pf.html, http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,7766785.story, and http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

The 9-11 Commission report is quite long, but even just skimming through some of it presents a portrait of the complicated, dangerous world in which Bush made his foreign policy decisions.

I’ve never experienced the reality of being responsible for the safety of this nation, so I can’t say what I would have done. You have to wonder, is it right to stand by and do nothing while a malevolent dictator slaughters his own people, or are we not responsible for such things? But I have to say, Iraq is much better off than it was before the war. The end result has been a free Iraq. It's not perfect, but it's free. Also see: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/12/george-w-bush-liberator-who-saved.html

Bush’s administration has kept this country safe from terrorist attacks for over seven years now, and it’s not like terrorists haven’t tried. Though we’ll never know for certain, I might just owe my life to his administration’s decisions, as might YOU reading this and many others. It’s a great injustice that so many insist on hating him and believing him to be some villain. He does not deserve hatred. Maybe not great admiration either, but he does deserve our respect.

Also, to those who say Bush "killed" our troops––Portraying the troops as unwitting child-victims of a lying president does their honor a great disservice. Those who died did so as heroes, removing a brutal dictator and making the world a better place. Their deaths were not in vain. They understood what they were fighting for, even if others don’t.

Plus, many troops trust and respect Bush, as evidenced by:

Ultimately, I side with them––especially over folks who insist on clinging to their hatred.

I respect George W. Bush. On the whole, I’d rate him as a mediocre president, as the bad has been very bad and the good and been very good. I don’t always agree with him, but I respect the man.

Oh, and the way he handled that shoe-throwing situation, dodging and laughing it off--Classic. My respect grew.

Prelude to a Bush post...

2008-12-22T18:41:00.000-08:00

I'm going to both defend and criticize George W. Bush in my next big post, but for now, I must simply share:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/22/bush-cheney-comforted-troops-privately/

And then here's an excellent post from another blog:

http://leaningstraightup.com/2008/12/22/note-to-liberals-do-you-want-to-know-why-i-respect-george-w-bush-read/

Bush does not deserve to be hated. He may not be a great president on the whole, but he is indeed a good man.

More on "global warming..."

2008-12-22T17:31:00.000-08:00

Today, the high temperature never quite got above freezing. It's now 27 degrees, and the low will be in the teens.

The record high in this area for Dec. 22 is 74 degrees, which was set in...wait for it...1923.

The level of warmth for this particular day has not been surpassed since 1923. That would be before my grandparents were born.

The record low for today was 19, by the way.

So again...weather fluctuates. It will continue to do so. Our activities may have a minor influence upon how it fluctuates, but at this point, Chicken Littles, the sky doesn't seem to be failling.

I somehow missed this when it came out, but apparently, 30,000 scientists--including the founder of the Weather Channel--want to sue Al Gore for fraud. Here's a link to a video: http://riseuprochester.org/2008/08/23/al-gore-sued-for-fraud-by-30000-scientists/

And I should point out...I did watch most of Al Gore's documentary. My little sister was forced to watch it by a professor for a course that had little or nothing to do with either the environment or politics. It was quite a funny documentary, actually, particularly with the large number of shots of Good Ol' Al cruising around the world in plane after plane and car after car, as he warns us all about how dangerous such activities are.

But credit where credit is due...I noticed one shot where he was clearly carpooling.

Global Temperature Fluctuation

2008-12-21T08:35:00.000-08:00

Here's how I know that global warming is either a complete hoax, or just greatly exaggerated:

I've lived in the same state since 1991. There are two different parts of that state I've lived in, and I'm currently back to where I was in '91.

It's December, and the thermometer outside my window says it's 38 degrees outside a little before noon. That's not warm. I've experienced both warmer and colder during this time of the year.

1991 is getting to be a little while ago, but it's not ancient history yet. I remember at that point in time, snow was uncommon here, except for maybe a dusting here and there, if even that. It seldom got cold enough. Later in the 1990s, we did get some significant snowfall, and no one around here seemed to know how to deal with it.

The slightest accumulation would result in school being cancelled. I forget what year it was exactly, sometime in the mid-90s still, but there was one day, after we missed something like two weeks because of snow, when school was cancelled for an additional day...a 60-degree day where there the last residual snow was melting off of people's lawns, but the roads themselves were perfectly clear and safe. That's how unprepared this locality was for snow. Having come from a more northern climate, my family thought it was ridiculous.

But this area did experience snow in the past...I learned that while researching something else in the local newspaper's archives. The 1950s saw some record or near-record lows and quite a bit of snow some years. But then there apparently was a break, but the cold weather and snow eventually returned.

And that mid-90s snow fall was not a random fluke. There were at least a couple other instances of significant snow fall and ice accumulation after that.

Then there were some mild years, and then some not-so-mild, and this year has been a mix of days with highs near 60 and many more days with highs in the 30s and 40s.

The point is, weather fluctuates. Some years are mild, while some are harsh. For my part, I prefer the more mild years.

But right now, it is 38 degrees--about average for my area for this time of the year, or maybe slightly below, based on my memory.

Given the choice between trusting Al Gore and trusting my own experiences, I'm going to side with my own experiences. If temperatures start rising consistently to the 70s and 80s during December, then I'll start to get concerned.

But then again, that would certainly feel a lot more comfortable than the 30s and 40s.

A defense of capitalism...

2008-12-21T08:32:00.000-08:00

Written by economist Peter Schiff, "Don't Blame Capitalism":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/15/AR2008101503166.html

"How Modern Liberals Think"

2008-12-19T14:52:00.001-08:00

Or...how some modern liberals don't.

This is interesting. Even if you don't agree with this guy 100 percent, it's a point of view at least worth considering. And it gives me another opportunity to demonstrate my recently learned skill of posting a YouTube video onto a blog...

Politicstv is the YouTube user who posted the video. The description given reads, "Monday, March 5, 2007 Featuring: Evan Sayet Writer, Lecturer and Pundit Hosted by: Becky Norton Dunlop Vice President, External Relations, The Heritage Foundation"

Faith, Lincoln, and Right & Wrong

2008-12-17T19:15:00.000-08:00

I’ll admit, I’m not a frequent church-goer and haven’t been since college. But I was raised Catholic and made my Confirmation in high school. I’m not a total stranger to religion...I’ve just been going on a quarterly basis as of late (which is twice as much as only going on Christmas and Easter.)

But I respect religion. I won’t go so far as to say any religion, because I don’t know them all, Any religion that preaches hatred, for example, is not something I’d respect. Religions like Christianity, which promote strong values––those I can respect.

It’s important to believe in something greater than yourself. It can be a benevolent God, the ideals of your country, or some other secular belief, something along the lines of "this is how we can be better." Even simply being opposed to murder, or feeling that people should strive to be as honest as possible––those are beliefs that transcend your own self.

What exactly would the total absence of any faith––religious or secular––look like?

Probably like an "anything goes" mentality. It would be tough to draw clear definitions of right and wrong. You wouldn’t be able to distinguish between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, for instance.

Without any faith, people are liable to become depressed from the apparent pointlessness and randomness of the world.

Here’s a quote from 31-year-old Abraham Lincoln: "I am now the most miserable man living. Whether I shall ever be better I can not tell; I awfully forebode I shall not; To remain as I am is impossible; I must die or be better."

(You can read all about Lincoln’s depression in Joshua Wolf Shenk’s book, Lincoln’s Melancholy.)

Lincoln was not a religious man. I don’t think he was an atheist, but he wasn’t a church-goer. I’m not suggesting the depression and lack of religious activity were directly related. Here’s what I am suggesting: To cope with this depression that he had, he committed himself to causes greater than himself and in doing so, found reasons to continue living. He contemplated suicide throughout his young adult life, but then eventually rose to the challenges of preserving the Union and ending slavery. He ultimately found missions to keep himself going, despite the crushing weight of his melancholy.

It doesn’t take deep historical analysis to realize Lincoln was NOT thinking, "Maybe the South has a fair point. Maybe we should be open-minded about the possibilities of the Confederacy. Let’s not pass any judgment on them and just let them do their thing. Who are we to judge them anyway?"

No, he decided that the United States of America must be preserved. He decided that was the right course of action.

I’ll reprint the Gettysburg Address here:

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Lincoln believed in something greater than himself, and with that belief, he led the Union to victory.

So here’s the bottom line, or bottom few lines:
It’s good to be open-minded, yes. Consider other viewpoints. But don’t be tripping over yourself and second-guessing yourself because you’re so desperate to appear open-minded, tolerant, and inclusive. After you consider other viewpoints, you must eventually make a decision––a judgment call––and draw a line between what’s right and what’s wrong. You’re allowed to change your mind later, based on new information, but there will come times when a stand must be taken.

Inevitably, your decisions and stands will come into conflicts with those of other individuals. In some cases, despite intelligent discussion, neither side will be able to persuade the other. What’s a person to do in such a case? Lead by example. Show that your way is the right way, if indeed you believe it to be so. Doing so does not require you to force your views down anyone’s throats. Differing opinions can often co-exist quite peacefully, like different forms of religious worship.

Really, unless you’re a vampire, coming into contact with a crucifix won’t hurt you. If you’re not of the religion, a crucifix should simply be a meaningless object to you, and so be it.

Other differences of opinions, like democracy vs. communism, are not so able to co-exist. So, if you’re a communist, realize that America is not a communist country and get out. Does this make me intolerant and close-minded? I’m not saying you can’t experiment with your communist country elsewhere; just keep your communism out of mine and don’t force it upon any other nation.

Don’t be wishy-washy. Decide right and wrong. Have faith in your decisions.

And since this post started out talking about religion, I’ll end it with a little bit of Christmas cheer. I did not create this video, just like I’m guessing the person who did create it did not create the song it features. Nevertheless, for your enjoyment:

A quartet of links...

2008-12-13T12:05:00.000-08:00

Here's some recommended reading from other blogs:

First, thoughts on one of Obama's potential appointments: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/12/crooked-carol-browner-obamas-ethically-challenged-energy-czar/

Next, thoughts on Colin Powell and conservatism: http://www.paulibrahim.com/blog/2008/12/13/why-is-colin-powell-still-in-the-gop.html

Then, a look at liberal thinking: http://isawtheright.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-does-left-care-more-for-criminal.html

Finally, Blago and Obama: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/7392

No President is America

2008-12-12T17:43:00.000-08:00

Since Nov. 4, quite a few people have proclaimed how proud they are of America for electing Obama. Some are even proud to be Americans for the first time in a while, or ever. (Example: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2132161/posts)

No one individual makes America. America is a set of ideals about how life should be. Being proud to be an American means you’re proud of living in a land where a person’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are guaranteed; where freedom of speech is guaranteed; where freedom of religion is guaranteed; where a right to fair trial is guaranteed; where you get to elect your government officials. And so on.

America is still America no matter who’s occupying the White House. If you don’t like the President, then just wait four or eight years and you’ll get to try out a new one. A Constitutional amendment guarantees that, too, and before that, Washington set the precedent (and only FDR broke it.)

And yes, our nation has made some questionable, or even downright bad decisions over the course of our relatively short history. Example: President John Adams should never have allowed the Alien and Sedition Acts. But does that one glaring mistake outweigh all the great things he did? No, it shows that he was as human as anyone else.

There’s a wider level to America’s mistakes. Slavery was an abomination, and segregation was a disgrace. We’ve done away with those and that’s great. But now abortion is legal. We’ll eventually come to our senses on that, only to stumble upon some other travesty.

Our country is run by people, and people are not perfect, so therefore, our country will make mistakes from time to time. That does not make this a bad country.

So don’t get hung up on past mistakes. Speak out against something that you feel is a current mistake––just do so civilly and like an adult.

America, in my opinion, is the greatest country in the world, because of its ideals, because of its Constitution and the rights it guarantees, and despite its mistakes of the past. A President Obama does not change America’s level of greatness one way or the other, and neither did a President Bush or a President Clinton.

If you don’t like America, you are free to leave to another country. Not everyone has that option.

These videos are great...

2008-12-06T14:06:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/user/machosauceproduction

This guy makes some excellent points. For further evidence that conservatives are not crazy, please watch these videos:

http://www.youtube.com/user/machosauceproduction

"Ask not..."

2008-12-04T19:11:00.000-08:00

I’m no fan of JFK...I haven’t yet studied him thoroughly enough to have a strong opinion one way or the other about him...but I do like one of his quotes:

"Ask not what your country can do for you––ask what you can do for your country."

And that's a great sentiment. But now I’m going to steal that format and plug in a couple of different words:

"Ask not what your government can do for you––ask what you can do for yourself."

That’s the conservative way. We certainly need a government, yes, but we also need self-sufficiency.

Example: Many of us are capable of saving for retirement on our own. After you pay your immediate bills, put some of the surplus aside in a CD or invest some other way of your choosing. Do we really need to turn a portion of our paychecks to the government now, so the government can return it to us decades later, at whichever point the government decides the time is right?

If social security was abolished, you could take the same amount of money you were contributing to it and invest it elsewhere. The choice would be yours, and you could decide for yourself when it’s time to reclaim that money. And as for now, you’d have exactly the same portion of your paycheck to spend today. Or, if you’re having an especially bad week, you could choose to forgo the savings and then make up for it a couple of weeks later when it suits you.

You could choose your own way. Of course, the problem now is, if social security was suddenly abolished, so many people aren’t in the habit of saving for the distant future. However, people are not, by nature, incapable of saving for retirement. Had the government not interfered in this matter in the first place, more people would have developed this habit of planning ahead.

One way to transition out of this social security dependency would be to first make the program voluntary. If you don’t want to worry about saving money, then fine––take a gamble and place the responsibility for your future with the government. But if you do want to assume full responsibility for your own future, then you should be allowed to take on that responsibility.

It takes a great deal of maturity for a person to be able to distinguish between "being helpful" and "interfering to the point where you’re just getting in the way."

It’s a distinction the government needs to learn.

Homework -- History & Economics

2008-11-29T08:56:00.000-08:00

Didn't you always hate having homework in school? You spend seven or so hours in the classroom, and then you go home and keep working when all you really wanted to do was have fun.

Here's the adult version of homework: Keeping up with what's going on in the world. It's not fun. It certainly doesn't bring any extra enjoyment into my life, but that doesn't make it any less important. Ignorance might be bliss for the short-term, but you can't hide from reality forever. What the government does or doesn't do matters, whether you're paying attention or not.

There's a bit of homework we should all be doing, and the subjects are history and economics. With all this talk of "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression," we ought to study up on that Great Depression.

In the schools I went to, we spent forever on the Civil War and then breezed through the 20th century, so I have plenty of catching up to do myself. I had recently started reading a biography on Eisenhower, but I may need to put that on hold and take a close look at another president: FDR.

Many people take for granted the idea that Franklin D. Roosevelt saved America from the Great Depression. Except now some people claim that his big government policies may have actually prolonged it.

Read this, please: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122792327402265913.html

And here's a less formal take on the issue: http://theblacksphere.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-creator-of-25m-jobs.html

I'm in no position to say that these people are right or wrong. But they raise valid points, and they're worth looking into.

Before we start hoping that Obama is the next FDR, let's make sure we know full well precisely what FDR did--what worked and what didn't.

Cliche` time! "Those who don't remember history are destined to repeat it."

Rebuild the Party

2008-11-28T08:03:00.000-08:00

http://www.rebuildtheparty.com/

This is precisely what being a conservative is all about--taking responsibility for ourselves and working hard for a better future. Don't just assume that other people are going to carry the load--you need to do your part as well.

I still don't like the current two-party system, but as of now, it's the only system in place with which to work, so we need to make the most of it. That means we need to work toward rebuilding the Republican Party into something that we can once again be proud to be a part of.

I encourage all conservatives to check it out: http://www.rebuildtheparty.com/

I applaud the people who got this started. You can read a Washington Post article about the effort at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/24/AR2008112403004.html

Peer Pressure & Cognitive Dissonance

2008-11-22T19:50:00.000-08:00

If you want to be perceived as intelligent, educated, creative, open-minded, sensible, nice, compassionate, and socially acceptable, then you have to be liberal. Or so the media–and many others–will try to convince you.

And most people want to be all of those things, of course. So what’s an impressionable young mind to do?

It doesn’t help that the word "conservative" carries less than the most enticing connotations to the typical 20-something-year-old. Who wants to be a boring old conservative, after all? Doesn’t "liberal" sound so much cooler?

You don’t see colleges selling conservative arts educations, now do you?

And just what is the media telling folks? Here are a couple of examples:

First, supposedly scientific evidence that conservatives are less creative than liberals at http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200811/are-conservatives-less-creative-liberals-0

(That article irritated me. Its main flaw: Creativity takes many forms. A plumber who develops a new method of solving a plumbing problem is a creative individual, even if he never writes a song or paints a picture. But in any case, creativity is independent of ideology.)

And if you watch the one news channel that happens to lean to the right? Seems you’re an ignorant victim of fear-mongering. The horrors of Fox News are explained at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/11/AR2008111102257.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

(Yes, Fox News does appear to be a bit biased, but no more or less so than any other news station. Their sin is merely being biased in the other direction, and that dissent is unacceptable.)

Now let’s talk about cognitive dissonance. You can read about it here: http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm

This is a psychology term we should all be familiar with, so we can reduce its influence on our lives.

If you want to be a cool liberal, but it doesn’t feel quite right, then your brain will provide you with all sorts of justifications so that you can feel more comfortable professing liberal views. Same goes for someone who wants to be a morally upright conservative while not initially agreeing with all conservative views.

Plus, if you choose to align yourself with any political party because its agrees with you on your most important issues, you’ll start to find that some of the other parts of the platform will make more sense after you’ve given them just a little thought––that is, giving it a little thought while you want to be able to identify yourself as a member of this party. It keeps everything tidier.

Beware of peer pressure, and beware of cognitive dissonance.

Oh, look, I’ve just become a fear-monger!

E-mail

2008-11-18T18:35:00.000-08:00

I've set up an e-mail address specifically for this blog. If you'd like to contact me, you are encouraged to do so at:

ConservativesAreNotCrazy@gmail.com

Trees

2008-11-18T18:24:00.000-08:00

There’s this large, open plot of dirt. Nothing but soil there. It’s large, but empty.

So a person comes by carrying a handful of tree seeds and proceeds to plant each seed in that dirt. It rains, and water travels down through the rich soil and trickles into the seeds, nourishing them and bringing them to live.

Of course, we don’t see the trees at this point. They haven’t yet sprouted up through the top of the soil.

Another person comes by and decides this plot of dirt would make a great site for...let’s say...a parking lot. Or a lone house in the middle of nowhere. Or maybe the person wants to drill for oil there.

Whatever the specific case, this person is going to deny the world those trees that are already developing, though we never got to see them develop.

Does that seem right to you? If you’re an environmental activist, probably not.

Of course, sometimes there’s a reason to cut down trees, though it’s always regrettable. Most likely, you wouldn’t have your home otherwise. However, that’s plant life.

Let’s talk about human life.

After over a million years of repeated perfect timing, one specific sperm meets one specific egg, sparking the creation of a new human life––the only one precisely like it that the world will ever know.

Sperm and egg separately are much like a plant seed sitting on the kitchen counter, far removed from the all-important combination of water and soil. In this case, you do not have life.

But starting at the moment of conception, a human baby and only a human baby will develop––unless external forces intrude upon that development.

It’s not a moral opinion that life begins at conception. It’s scientific fact.

And to those who argue that pro-life people are trying to legislate morality...Well, aren’t laws against murder a form of moral legislation? What about laws against perjury? Even affirmative action and minimum wage laws have tried to tell private employers how to conduct their private businesses and reduced their capacities for choice, but whether you agree or disagree with those laws, they were created with the intent of protecting people.

Why don’t babies deserve the full protection of the law? Even if they’re still at the embryo or fetus stage, they’re still alive. Maybe they can’t yet live independently, but neither can a baby who has just made it to the other side of the birth canal.

I pride myself on being able to at least understand where all sides are coming from on nearly any given issue. This is the one issue where I fail in that regard.

So here’s my challenge: Give me at least one solid reason (other than rape or health complications to the mother) why an abortion should be allowed.

And then I’ll shoot it down and explain why that still doesn’t justify terminating a human life.

A pair of links...

2008-11-16T10:35:00.000-08:00

Here are links to two articles that provide some interesting thoughts:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122670755063129989.html

And...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/130054.html

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

2008-11-13T18:30:00.000-08:00

Liberals pride themselves on new ideas, and many remain under the impression that conservatives would be overjoyed if society remained in a state of suspended animation for all of eternity, always resembling the good ol’ days forever and ever.

Not so. Maybe a small minority, sure, but not all conservatives and certainly not me.

New ideas are great. All ideas deserve a good, hard look. But that doesn’t mean they all need to be implemented.

Conservatives aren’t against change or progress. We’re for smart change and smart progress. You don’t do either just for the sake of doing something different. Doing something different does not, by nature, equal doing something good. Sometimes it does, sure, but not always.

There’s another side of the issue. Just because an idea is old, that doesn’t mean it’s bad.

Some innovative men tossed around a wealth of fresh ideas in 1776. Does this mean I want American society to resemble 1776? Certainly not. No, no, no. Please, no.

But we can apply some 1776 ideas to 2008.

Let’s look at Thomas Jefferson’s immortal Declaration of Independence statement, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Anyone have any objections to all people being guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I think we can agree that’s an old idea worth keeping around. But let’s not stop there. Let’s revisit this idea––go back to the basics. There are three unalienable rights there, so let’s take them one at a time.

Life. Everyone has a right to life. The moment you acquire life (meaning, the moment you’re conceived,) you are entitled to keep that life for as long as is possible. No one can take that from you.

Of course, this brings me to one of my few liberal spots, as I say that, yes, even criminals have a right to life. But I can at least see how someone can argue that convicted murderers have forfeited that right. I don’t get the "well, they won’t know what they’re missing" argument for babies.

Abortion and the death penalty both infringe upon this right. Everyone gets to live. Seems straightforward enough, and it is.

Liberty. This is more complex, the most complex of the three, as one person’s liberty can’t be at the expense of another’s.

In simplest terms, it’s freedom. No one should be telling us how to live our lives (no government-mandated community service, for example.) In order for this right to work, though, we can’t be selfish. A society full of people out for themselves and only themselves won’t work (so take the initiative to do your part to better your community and look out for others.)

So while we have the right to live our lives as we see fit, we have to prove that we can handle that responsibility. And that means taking responsibility for ourselves.

Then there’s that third one.

The pursuit of happiness. I get the impression some people gloss over the "pursuit of," and their eyes dart straight over to "happiness."

No, we are not entitled to happiness. We have to earn happiness. We have to work for it.

Our right is to be free to pursue that happiness. It’s up to us as individuals to make it happen, but no one can stop us from reaching for that goal. We should be free from discrimination, tyranny, and oppression so that we can engage in that pursuit.

I suspect the "over-tax the rich and redistribute to the poor" mentality comes from people believing we have a right to happiness, same as we have the right to life or liberty.

Happiness we need to work toward.

Think about it. Won’t you be happier in your happiness if you know that you put forth the effort and the drive and worked hard to get yourself to that point?––that you earned it, fair and square? And compare that to if you’re just living off other people’s money.

And even if you acquire money, there’s still much more to be done to become and stay happy.

But so long as you’re in America, no one can keep you from trying––that is, no one except yourself.

So, yes, some old ideas remain valid over 200 years later. I’m not saying all, but there are some. Let’s not be in such a rush to dispense with anything simply because it’s not new. Some ideas deserve their longevity.

Interesting...

2008-11-10T20:27:00.000-08:00

This is an interesting column I came across:

http://www.northstarwriters.com/pi139.htm

It speaks for itself.

Community Service

2008-11-09T16:21:00.000-08:00

Here’s my first policy criticism of the upcoming Obama Administration.

Let’s look at Change.gov, the nonprofit Web site for the Office of the President-Elect. (I didn’t realize that was an actual office.)

On the homepage, there’s a tab labeled "America Serves."

When you click on it, you get this:

"The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start."

These are all noble ideas, certainly. At first glance, how can anyone object? But let’s think about this.

Why should it be the government’s responsibility to promote community service among youths? I always thought parents were responsible for that. Parents are also responsible for instilling a work ethic in their kids.

If I’m reading this correctly, it sounds like college kids will essentially get $4,000 for 100 hours of work. That’s a $40/hour job. That’s not community service. You don’t do community service for the monetary benefits. A county Parks & Rec employee who mows the grass at a high school is performing a needed service to the community, yes, but we don’t think of that as "community service" because he’s getting paid. I’ve always understood "community service" to be either volunteer work or something that criminals are forced to do as part of their rehabilitation as they pay their debt back to society.

I’m not opposed to a program that helps kids get through college. That’s a form of "spreading the wealth" I can get behind, because it’s money given specifically for educational purposes so that later in life, that individual will be less dependent on handouts.

But let’s call this what it is. This idea is the government hiring students for work, and the students are compensated with college tuition money. (And what’s $4,000 multiplied by the total number of American college students? Where would that come from? And wait––a $,4000 tax credit? What college student even pays $4,000 in taxes? Or does the tax credit come later in life? Maybe I’m missing something.)

My bigger objection here is at the grade school level. The wording sounds like students might be required to do community service eventually. I’ve seen other articles online stating that the wording originally read "required" on the Change.gov site, but then it was changed. I didn’t see it with my own eyes, so I don’t know.

But "setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year" sounded to me like an eventual mandate––maybe years down the line, but eventually.

I can see some potential benefits to this: kids will have less time to do drugs, some will develop an increased work ethic, and some may get interested in a new, important cause.

But again, parents are supposed to accomplish all of that. That’s my problem with this. The government does not need to encourage laziness among parents. Let parents be parents.

And one more thing...If college students are getting some form of payment for this, then might that lead to the mentality of "Okay, maybe I’ll do some more community service, but if I do, what’s in it for me? What will I get this time?"

And that’s not what community service is all about. We should do community service because we want to better our community. That’s the payment––an improved community.

This "America Serves" program, if it ever happens, has the potential to turn into something worthwhile, but I'd encourage a lot more refining before it's enacted.

We Should Be Better Than This...

2008-11-09T13:13:00.000-08:00

And here’s the only other Facebook note I posted (10-29-08), a non-partisan "can’t we all just get along" sort of message:

I stumbled across this YouTube video, and it highlights a growing concern of mine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI

The video is basically about McCain supporters being jeered/booed/harrassed/flicked-off/cursed-out/mocked, etc. by liberals in New York.

The whole scene, on both sides, is shameful. Concerning the ones doing the mocking--I've seen 5-year-olds conduct themselves with greater maturity. Concerning the offended conservatives who made the video--they're also fanning the flames of this growing rift between the people of these two ideologies.

We should be able to tolerate differing viewpoints. Right, left, or somewhere in the middle, we're all people, and we're entitled to our opinions and deserve respect.

Citizens on both sides are acting in what they believe to be the best interest of their country. That's the bottom line.

By all means, disagree and debate passionately, but do so like civilized human beings. Don't insult, blame, or demonize private citizens for the sins of politicians, and don't generalize people into these broad categories. Being Republican does not automatically mean you want to live in 1950 forever. Being a Democrat does not automatically mean you hate America. Both parties support valid opinions, and we've had poor leaders on both sides of the fence. They can't both be right, true, but the odds of either one being 100 percent right are slim.

That video is an example of hatred, pure and simple, from liberals to conservatives and conservatives back to liberals. This is like some twisted version of religious persecution.

Let's cool down and act like adults.

And yes, I know there are many people who behave themselves and are not guilty of this. But even if it's a very small percentage of the population who are getting rowdy and angry, we need to address the problem before it escalates. We, each of us, one at time, need to take responsibility for ourselves and resist any temptation toward this kind of behavior.

Remember that old classroom rule that nearly every teacher had, respect your classmates? The concept still applies later in life, and it applies even to people you'll never meet. And when you generally bash liberals or conservatives, you're bashing a lot of damn fine Americans.

My Political Philosophy: All About The Individual

2008-11-09T13:10:00.000-08:00

I originally wrote this as a Facebook note shortly before the election (10-26-08). I know the election’s over, but it pretty well outlines my views, so here it is:

I felt compelled to get all this down. People often express support for political parties and candidates with explaining the why.

Here’s my general political philosophy, followed by some election commentary. This is all my opinion, not fact. I understand the distinction. But as my opinion, I believe it wholeheartedly, though I can still appreciate and respect divergent viewpoints.

So to begin, I’m opposed to political parties. Having our federal and state governments divided into Democrats vs. Republicans creates problems. It creates a good vs. evil mentality, with each side figuring that it’s so obviously the good side and how can anyone be so stupid as to think otherwise?

It becomes counter-productive as each side tries to block the accomplishments of the other side, while often refusing to work together on finding solutions to common problems. Plus, it reduces individuality among public officials, as everyone is encouraged to stick to the party line.

I find it highly improbable that anyone could truly, wholeheartedly agree 100 percent with either party platform. I certainly don’t.

George Washington himself, in his farewell address, warned the country not to become divided into political parties. While the man has otherwise become a national deity, that very wise bit of advice went ignored.

In the past, I considered myself Republican. I haven’t cared much for the direction the party has moved in under Bush. I liked the party for promoting a smaller, less intrusive government, but that’s not what has happened (see No Child Left Behind, the Bailout, and the Iraq War as a few examples.) But this doesn’t mean I suddenly agree with Democrats. The Libertarian party seems to match my beliefs most closely (still not 100 percent) but more as an ideal to aspire toward, not something that would be viable in its pure form if we suddenly switched to that way of government overnight.

So what do I believe in? I believe in the potential of the individual.

We’re all capable of establishing goals and working to meet them. We can all be anything we want to be. It’s simply a matter of learning how and believing in ourselves. Granted, not everyone is born into the same level of opportunities.

The best way to get everyone toward a more equal starting point is through education. There are some fine public school systems out there, and they’re in good shape because the individuals working in them–and the parents they work for–have made them that way. There’s probably not a perfect school system out there, but there are good ones.

There are also some terrible ones. A terrible school system will not be helped simply by having the government throw money its way. A better solution–but certainly not the only one–is for private organizations like Teach for America to come in and lend a hand. (TFA, incidentally, began with an individual who had a goal. http://www.teachforamerica.org/about/our_history.htm)

Upon receiving a quality K-12 education, in many cases, we have no one to blame but ourselves should we fail. Yes, there are some extraordinary circumstances outside of our control that will force us to stumble, such as a destructive hurricane. In such a case, it is the responsibility of the government to help us get back on our feet, but of course, the government can’t do everything for anyone. And sometimes we’ll make bad decisions, and that’s where family and friends come in.

There’s an old saying that goes, "If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you teach a man how to fish, he eats for life."

I agree. Handouts and freebies make the givers feel good about themselves, but they’re only a short-term solution for the recipient. I’m not saying there should never be such handouts, but they need to be combined with education, or else the underlying problem will persist.

So I’m not a fan of excessive government intrusion into private life. I like to think it shouldn’t be needed, which is idealistic, yes, but that’s a point we should be working toward. We manage our own lives and get along with each other and help each other out, and the government exists to provide extra security, as well as the infrastructure, like roads and water and so forth.

I like the idea of lower taxes, not simply for selfish reasons, but so I can decide how to use my own money, which I earned. I don’t care for the "steal from the rich and give to the poor" mentality. If the rich person is, in fact, corrupt and acquired the wealth through illegal means, then yes, the government should step in.

But if a man or woman works really hard, legally and ethically, and through his/her own grit and determination manages to become a millionaire? The person earned it. S/he should still pay a percentage of taxes like everyone else––and that percentage of course will be a larger sum than most––but he shouldn’t be excessively taxed to the point in which he wonders why s/he even put forth the effort in the first place, if the government was just going to take so much of it anyway. In that case, the person could have worked a little less hard and kept more of his/her own money.

Lower taxes, then, is one motivation to work harder. In an ideal world, once a person earns a fortune, that person would voluntarily choose to donate his or her excess funds toward charitable causes––and not just handouts, but the implementation of educational programs.

Yes, in the real world, there are many greedy people. One way to stave off such greediness is through character education––schools and parents teaching children how to be respectful toward others and less self-involved.

It all goes back to parents teaching their kids to be the best that they can be. "Best" may be subjective, but there are some basic principles most people can agree on: treat others with kindness, accept responsibility for your actions and decisions, be there for your friends and family who need you, etc.

Speaking of accepting responsibility for your actions and decisions...(and here’s where I’m going to annoy, possibly anger some people)...

Okay, first off, on the subject of abortion, I may not be a woman, but I am still a potential father. Someday, it might be my child a woman wants to abort. Don’t tell me my opinion doesn’t matter here.

An embryo is to a baby as a baby is to you or me. Life begins once sperm meets egg. If you’ve successfully blocked that from occurring, you have not created life. But if you haven’t blocked it––even if you’ve taken every precaution––you’ve still created life and you’re responsible for that life...the man and woman both. You chose to have sex, knowing full well the potential consequences that could arise, and you knew that one potential consequence is a baby human being––not a parasitic infection, but a human baby. If you truly feel you’re not in a position to raise a child, you can choose adoption. That’s what I don’t get about the "pro-choice" argument. Choices are made by consenting adults. Sex is the choice. That’s choosing what to do with your own body. But the developing baby gets no choice whatsoever. The developing baby, then, is denied "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but the birth of a baby does not deny those rights to the parents.

(The only possible exceptions to be considered here should be instances of rape or health problems for the mother.)

Gay marriage, I have no problem with whatsoever, so long as churches aren’t forced to provide it if they don’t believe in it. But otherwise, I say that’s covered under "freedom of religion," technically. Unlike abortion, gay marriage harms no one.

I don’t care much for the death penalty either. Anyone can be rehabilitated, and many can be put to some sort of useful work even while in prison.

But yes, the potential of the individual––that’s what I put my stock in. We all have the capacity for great inner strength. We choose whether or not we apply it.

In the current election, I see so many people flocking to Obama, looking to him to lead the way and change the world. It doesn’t matter that they know so little about him, other than what he himself wrote in his memoirs, but they’re so desperately looking for a visionary leader.

I say, lead yourselves. We all should be our own leaders. We should look to our own inner strength and be the best people we can be. We create our own hopes and dreams. Three entities should inspire us: family, friends, and our own selves. We should focus on building up our own lives while looking out for the people we care about.

We should not become wards of the government. Concepts like wealth redistribution are well-intentioned and look nice on paper and may even sound nice in a college classroom when uttered by an eloquent liberal professor, but the result is less industrious and more dependent people. The only freedom that enables is the freedom to forever remain an adolescent, and that’s not for me. That’s merely existing comfortably, not living.

Neither man running for president is a saint. I recently read one anti-Obama book and one anti-McCain book, and this is in addition to paying attention to other news sources. They both have had ties to corrupt individuals, though Obama’s are a bit scarier (and not irrelevant, just not the most relevant issue.) Obama has often stayed vague so that people can impose whatever meaning they’d like onto his words (a human Rorschach test, someone called him) while McCain’s an Olympic-caliber flip-flopper. Either Obama’s at the absolute furthest left edge of American liberalism, or he’s been voting blindly along his party line, without imagination or leadership. McCain’s...well, sometime’s he’s all the way to the right, sometimes in the middle––depends on whatever suits him better at the moment.

It truly is debatable which man will do less damage to the country. Neither will bring about a utopia, that’s for certain. But it’s a gamble either way. I’m taking that gamble on McCain. His views may shift more often than I’d like, but they tend to hang out somewhere in the vicinity of mine––certainly much closer than Obama’s, even accounting for the flip-flopping. Obama’s an equally legitimate selection, so long as you realize he’s no messiah and that he and the Democrat-controlled Congress will push the country closer toward true Socialism must faster than a McCain administration would. Obama is simply an ultra-liberal politician, but with slick and shiny speeches.

And yes, Bush has also brought the country closer to Socialism, and I don’t like that. It’s the exact opposite of the Libertarian ideal I’d like for us to strive for. But again, the progression in the Socialist direction would be faster under Obama. We’re not yet at a point of no return.
Another thought...With all this hope that Obama’s mustered up, with all the intense enthusiasm of his supporters, if he becomes President and is anything less than wonderful, the resulting disillusionment will be more harmful to the country than nearly any poor policy decision either man might make. It would be The Great Clinical Depression. To be fair, the same could occur if he loses, thereby causing people to feel we’ve been denied a great leader or something like that.

Also, McCain is no more George Bush than Obama is a pure Communist. Just because Bush has been a poor executive doesn’t mean McCain will be. They may share similar views, but I at least trust that McCain will be better at enacting his policies and responding to situations that arise.

Whatever the outcome of the election, it will not be a sad day for America. What will be sad, in my opinion, is if America ever does transition into a purely Socialist country, making it more difficult for strong-willed, hard-working individuals to accomplish their hopes and dreams.

The Rules of the Blog

2008-11-09T13:07:00.000-08:00

Hi there. This is a blog meant to promote and explain conservative ideals while challenging the beliefs of liberals.

Of course, this all comes from my personal opinions and my own particular level of conservatism. The next post will outline many of my general beliefs, and future posts will elaborate on specific topics.

As for who I am, I am a 25-year-old American citizen named Dan. I’d like to give you my full name, but I don’t want this to interfere with my job, so I’ll play it safe for now.

I graduated from a high school full of mostly conservatives, and I graduated from a college full of mostly liberals. I’ve got friends on both sides of the aisle, and I think no less of anyone for holding liberal views. I simply disagree with most of those views.

The recent presidential election has reinforced my conservatism, and I’m not going to forget about it until the next one.

In my experiences, many liberals don’t seem to understand conservatives. I remember in college when I revealed my true political nature to classmates, I was met with a response along these lines: "WHAT?!?!?!? How can that be? But I like you––you can’t be a Republican! How–how is this possible?"

I hope this blog will explain how it’s possible for a reasonable person to hold conservative political values. It will also help me reinforce and refine my own beliefs, while giving others another way of looking at various issues.

Whatever political views we choose, we all need to arrive there through careful thought and consideration. We can’t just watch The Daily Show and let Jon Stewart do our thinking for us. The same applies for much of the mainstream media. Balance out CNN with Fox News, and vice versa. We should all consider various opposing viewpoints, obtain information through a variety of sources, and form our own conclusions.

Yeah, it takes time, and we all have busy lives. But it’s our responsibility as citizens to stay as informed as possible, so we need to make time for such activity.
And let me make this clear: This is NOT a liberal-bashing blog, and it is NOT an Obama-bashing blog.

I voted for McCain, yes, but I accept the outcome of the election, and I will hope for the best. I sincerely believe that President-elect Obama is a good man who will do his best. He deserves our respect, and he has mine.

However, I expect there will be many times in which I feel the need to question or criticize specific policies and decisions. But I will never insult him personally. I feel we don’t know enough about him to know how well he’ll do. My personal opinion is that we just repeated history, 1976 to be specific. But whether he’s the next Lincoln or the next Carter is anybody’s guess at this point. I hope he lives up to his supporters’ expectations. I don’t need to say "I told you so" at the expense of the country.

So I’ll repeat: I respect President-elect Obama and am hoping for the best. I didn’t vote for him, but he still will be my President. Of course, it’s my right to question or criticize governmental policy and actions, and I will use that right when I feel it’s necessary.

Regarding liberal viewpoints in general, I’ll be critical of those views and I may even speculate as to how some people form those views, but again, I think no less of any person for being a liberal.

I hope this blog over time gives people things to think about. Feel free to tell me if you disagree. Challenge my opinions as I hope to challenge yours. But let’s all be respectful toward each other. Any hateful comments will be deleted.

As for frequency of posts, I’ll strive for a once-a-week minimum, and when I can do more, I will.

Thanks for reading.