Blagojevich ...

A lot of attention has been given to the corruption of Rod Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois. Quite frankly, it is unimportant and uninteresting. First, he is the governor of Illinois, meaning the state in which Chicago exists. That's just the way they do things there. It is the way they always have done things there. Is anyone actually surprised? He keeps saying he did not do anything wrong, he probably does not even realize he did, LOL. I mean, frankly, this is the same governor who refuses to live in Springfield, the capital of his state, and commutes from Chicago by helicopter. He asked for a bribe. Second, there is so much corruption in this country right now that a bribe is the least of its worries. I mean, voter fraud, press censorship, free speech violations, voter intimidation, people deliberately damaging the economy ... It does not even register on the same scale as these things. Quite frankly, the issues surrounding this senate seat make Blagojevich's actions pretty much irrelevant, too. People are calling for it to necessarily go to a black candidate, whether or not he is qualified, or for this, or for that, but nowhere does qualification for the job come into play. At the point where the most qualified candidate is not necessarily getting the job, why does it matter if the guy who gets it gets it because of his money or his race? Jesse Jackson's son won the bid, anyway, so everyone should be happy.

Is bribery and corruption something to laugh at? I guess not, but it is CHICAGO! and Chicago machine politics are seeping into the politics of the rest of the country. Bribery is the least of everybody's worries, or should be!

Being Conservative is like Driving a Stick Shift ...

Being Conservative is like driving a stick shift. For a little extra work and responsibility, you get higher gas milage, lower maintenance costs, higher dependability, and better horsepower. Plus, you get the skills you need to pretty much drive any car. Questions? :)

Atheism versus Antitheism ...

Atheist or Antitheist? What's the difference?

The prefix "a" means "a lack of" something.

The prefix "anti" means "actively against" something.

Similarly, the terms asocial and antisocial can be analyzed. "Asocial" means "a lack of sociability." Someone who is asocial is withdrawn from society. "Antisocial" means "actively against society." Someone who is antisocial works to disrupt society. Now do you know the difference? An atheist is someone who does not have a religion, who is not religious, who does not believe in God. An antitheist, well, that can be broken up two ways! On the one hand, it can mean someone who is actively against God. On the other hand, it can mean someone who is actively against theists, or people who believe in God. Either one works. Why does it matter? It matters because one is simply a belief, whereas the other encompasses a malicious view of certain segments of the population. Atheism is simply a belief. It is the belief that God does not exist. It is neither more nor less rational than being religious or believing that God does exist. As a "lack of" religion, it does not have holidays ("Holy Days"), churches, priests, pastors, or whatever. They also do not try to "convert" people, because that is a religious practice. Furthermore, an atheist should be no more offended at a Christian saying "Merry Christmas" (or a Jew saying "Happy Hannukah," etcetera) than a Frenchman or Briton is by an American saying "Happy Thanksgiving." They are not American, but the idea that there is a holiday in America which they do not celebrate does not offend them, because it does not go against any beliefs they actively hold. They let us celebrate it, they don't, that's that. It does not go against your beliefs, because you do not believe in a God. Why do you care if someone else believes in God? If you are an atheist, you do not! Now, this does not mean that, if someone tries to convert you, you cannot argue back. It does not mean that, in an intellectual conversation, you cannot voice your beliefs. No, all of that is included in atheism, because those are rights that go with any belief system. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no God. An antitheist is someone who wants other people to believe there is no God. This perplexes me. If you have no religion, why do you care if someone else does? If a religious person is trying to convert someone, theoretically they are simply trying to save their soul. They are trying to do you a favor. Obviously there are deviations from the norm, but this is the norm and should be treated as such. They are trying to give you something which means a lot to them. They are trying to give you religion, they are trying to help you get into Heaven. What are you trying to do if you are trying to pull someone out of religion? Does being religious hurt them? Are they going to go to hell if they do not stop believing in God? No. Obviously there are some people who abuse religion, so fight its abuses rather than its existence. People within religions fight its abuse, too. Trying to convert someone is different from having an intellectual argument with them. Going to religious gatherings and churches and trying to convince people who strongly believe in God not to believe in God is not really something which is worthwhile. It causes raised emotions. It does not provoke intelligent conversation. It is a meritless endeavor. (By the way, can you imagine the uproar if a Christian group went into the temple of another religion and tried to convert people?) Putting a sign which says that there is no God beside a Nativity Scene is also a meritless endeavor. These people say that they are offended by the Christian notion which says that people are imperfect from birth, and that they need a savior to rescue them. Why? Christian belief says that people are not to judge other people, so it does not affect them at all! I mean, do they really think they're perfect anyway? That's all that is saying. "No one is perfect." Wow, that is offensive. So who cares? It is not a personal insult. It is not something which singles out any member of the population. It is not something which alienates any segment of the population. So why do you care what someone else thinks? That is antitheism. Furthermore, antitheists have adopted practices similar to religious practices, which is kind of bizarre considering that they claim to have no religion. Apart from attempted conversions, now they want holidays! They want the ancient pagan holiday of the solstice as an atheist holiday. That makes no sense. First, a holiday is a "Holy Day," to commemorate something religious. It is meant to worship God and strengthen one's religious conviction. Second, the pagans were not atheists; they were polytheists. If you want to be a pagan, and celebrate the solstice, then be a pagan, call yourself a pagan, and call yourself a polytheist rather than an atheist, because that is what you are. The pagan holidays were religious ceremonies, too. Wanting an atheist holiday is like ... wow, you are going to have to give me a while on that one. Atheism is a belief, one which is respectable, and as rational as theism, though not more so. Antitheism has acquired a fanatic religious and malicious twist which removes all aspects of respectability from it. If Christians did some of the things the antitheists do, there would be an uproar. You always have to be respectful of other people's beliefs. Atheists are. Antitheists are not. Both types of people exist.

With that in mind, Merry Christmas and Happy Hannukah.

Government Accountability ...

So I was thinking about a political science class I had a couple of years ago, and a survey which was mentioned briefly during one lecture. There is an international organization out there designed to rate governments on their transparency versus corruption. I don't remember exactly where the US fell (it is 13 right now), but I do remember that Finland was rated to have the least corrupt government in the world. Here is the thing: It also had the most suspicious people in the world. The country with the population which had the lowest opinion of its government also had the least corrupt government. If you think about it, this makes sense. It is a cause and effect relationship. People rule the government in a democratic society, a point which I cannot raise enough. When people are so suspicious of the government that they look for everything it does wrong, that is the healthiest thing possible for a society. When people do that, the government cannot get away with corrupt or dishonest activities. There is a lesson in this. People trusted Obama all through his campaign, with everything he did not say, and every issue he did not address, they trusted him. I did not, but now that is of no significance. NOW, however, NOW they need to start questioning everything he does. Please question. People have already started to excuse Obama's mistakes, and he has not even gotten into office to make them yet! If he goes socialist, it's McCain's fault for calling him one, so the socialists will want that. If he goes radical democrat, it's congress' fault, because they will be pushing him and he might not be able to stand up to them. If Obama makes any mistakes, it is only because he was given the hardest job of being President of anyone since FDR! Obama wants to be a certain thing, but if he is not, it is not his fault! That is not the point, the point is what gets done. People need to elect the person who can help the country the most, not the person who they believe has the best intentions. But you elected him, now HOLD HIM RESPONSIBLE! I understand cutting a person a little bit of slack, "I understand why they made that mistake," but do not blame someone else for the President's mistake. We are taught not to do that for ourselves from such a young age, hold the president up to the same standard you were taught to hold yourself to. Never stop questioning. Never stop thinking of what your solution to problems would be, and questioning why the president's does not match that. You might decide that his solution is better. You might decide that he made a mistake. You must not simply believe that, because the president says it, it must be true. You must not simply believe that, if things go wrong, there was nothing the president could do about it. You must hold the president and the government accountable for their actions and the results of such actions. You must be ever critical, or the transperancy of this country's government is going to decrease tremendously, and once corruption enters, not only is it difficult to remove, but it makes everything else work less well. Even if Obama has good intentions, being critical is going to help. It will keep him trying his absolute hardest. It will give him ideas he never had before, and alert him to problems he may not have seen. Always hold the government accountable; it works for you, you do not work for it.

I am so Sick of People Saying ...

They were never proud of this country before. I have never heard a more ridiculous statement. I have never heard a statement which so blatantly dismissed the history and culture of an entire country. I have never heard a statement which so completely disregarded the ideas and values of an entire segment of the population (and if you think I mean racism, you are just stupid enough to be the one saying you had never been proud of your country before. If you think America was built on racism, discrimination, hate, etcetera, if you that that is what this country has stood for since its founding, then I URGE you to leave, because someone with such a low opinion of a place should never seek to reap the benefits of living there. Morals should guide everything we do, and if you have willingly participated in a society which is so morally bankrupt, in order to better yourself, then you are worse than the society is. Move to a country where that is not the case, if you can find one.) since I heard Obama's statements about "clinging to guns and religion," "uneducated, poor white people not wanting to vote for a black man," or how about Congressman Murtha's calling his constituents "racists," then "rednecks" and then getting reelected! (I swear if he had to appologize again, he would have said "I am sorry for my statements, but my constituents should understand that I do not mean this exclusively of them, but of all of small town America) Electing Murtha again was a terrible idea. The man has so little regard for his constituents that he cannot possibly have their best interests at heart. Obama has the same disregard for the American people. I wonder if people feel the need to prove themselves to people who do not care about them in order to show that they are good, or better. That is the stupidest idea I have ever heard. They will never respect you more for voting for them. They will never be thankful. They will just see you as weak, someone they can manipulate, someone they can use to achieve their own ends. That is exactly what Obama is doing with you, if you are someone who is only newly "proud of your country." Michelle Obama said this early on in the campaign, and she had to appologize for it. Barack Obama said it three days before election day, and people decided it was the thing to say, just like gucci sunglasses and uggs are the things to wear. Voting for your country because, if a certain person is elected, it will somehow prove that you are superior, in this case, that you are not racist, is, to date, the absolute worst reason I have ever heard for supporting a candidate. If you vote for Barack Obama, you get an "I am not racist!"' bumper sticker, along with a whole line of clothing and accessories. You excuse every immoral thing he has ever done, everything he has ever said, because he is black. You make excuses for things you would never do, yourselves (I hope ... ), and which you absolutely would not tolerate out of any other candidate, because he is an African American. Do you REALLY have to lower your standards that much to support a black man? That is the truly racist viewpoint. John McCain said he "truly began to know how much he loved America" when he was suffering at the hands of brutal interrogators in Vietnam. When he was tortured every day, he began to realize how much his country meant to him. Barack Obama and his wife began to "be proud of their country for the first time," when it awarded them the nomination for Democratic candidate, and, later, the presidency of the United States of America (however corruptly certain people had to act for each step to be achieved ... ). Somebody raised the question "how is that different?" Perhaps other people realized how stupid that was, and that is why I have never heard it answered, but this is why it is different. When John McCain said it, he was giving to America. When Barack Obama said it, America was giving to him. If you put it on a personal level, it is like if your friend said "This is the first time I have realized how much I appreciate you." when they have had to make some sacrifice for you, versus if they said it when you gave them a particularly nice birthday present. Would you be friends with the person in the latter situation? I have never heard a statement which so immediately removed any shadow or echo of respect I ever had from the person who uttered it.

An Excerpt from the Diary of Captain Wilm Hosenfeld ...

About August 21, 1942, Captain Wilm Hosenfeld, of the German army, stationed in Poland, wrote this in his diary.

After 21 August 1942, Lying is the worst of all evils. Everything else that is diabolical comes from it. And we have been lied to; public opinion is constantly deceived. Not a page of a newspaper is free of lies, whether it deals with political, economic, historical, social, or cultural affairs. Truth is under pressure everywhere; the facts are distorted, twisted and made into their opposite. Can this turn out well? No, things can't go on like this, for the sake of human nature and the free human spirit. The liars and those who distort the truth must perish and be deprived of their power to rule by force, and then there may be room for a freer, nobler kind of humanity again. Captain Wilm Hosenfeld.

Captain Hosenfeld saved multiple lives, and was an articulate, intelligent, religious and compassionate witness to two of the greatest atrocities of the twentieth century, indeed world history, himself falling victim to one of them. The first was the holocaust, perpetrated by people of his own country, and the second, the Soviet gulags. The more than half century separating the present day from the Great Depression and World War II have indicated to many people that nothing bad can really come of our choices, that, at worst, tragedies will be short term, easily contained, and without serious, long term consequences, either military or economic. No choices we make can have dire consequences in the long term. They can. We are not voting to give either Barack Obama or John McCain an honor like the Nobel Prize, simply acknowledging their accomplishments and then living our lives as we have been living them for the last few decades. November 4th is not the finish line, it is not even the starting line. For the next four to eight years, and beyond, you will have to live with the consequences of your actions, of your decisions. With a heavily Democratic Congress, and, soon, a Democratic Supreme Court Justice, Barack Obama will have more power than anyone has had in the history of this country. Do you really know enough, with enough certainty, to risk a Barack Obama presidency? People who have lived in the most terrible dictatorships the world has ever known did not know that people who are now the world's most infamous leaders would do what they did. In 1917, Russians did not expect the Bolsheviks to sieze such utter power and rule so brutally for so long. They thought the situation could not get worse than it already was. I even believe that Lenin had good intentions. In 1933, no one suspected that Hitler would attempt the largest scale genocide the world has ever known, or that his government would be one of the most brutally authoritarian in humanity's history. In 1951, millions and millions of people genuinely mourned the death of their beloved leader, Joseph Stalin. With the story changing, the mystery, the secrecy, the complete lack of public support, or even public appearances, from people from his past, including friends or family, the questionable ties, the questionable statements, the absence of a voting record, the inexperience, the promise by Joe Biden of an international crisis, the lack of understanding of foreign affairs, the treatment of Joe the Plumber, and every question which has been raised by people of the McCain and Hillary campaigns and ordinary citizens, which have not been answered but merely diverted by personal attacks, talking points and topic - changing, I do not ask you to conclude with absolute certainty that Barack Obama is a horrible person and will make a terrible president. I merely ask that, as you enter the voting booth on November 4th, before you pull the lever, you answer to yourself whether or not you are willing to deal with the risks of an Obama presidency.