Let me start by saying that I am a Catholic. I have been to mass, I have seen fathers speak of the word. I like my current father who really knows how to drive the word home. I have never been to a church though where my father/pastor or what have you screamed about snuffing out a shop owner.
Your lost? No this isn't Reverend Wright, this is Obama's other spiritual advisor. His name is Michael Pflegar, Father Michael Pflegar. He is a Catholic minister in Chicago as well. The first question I have isn't even what does this say about Obama but what happened to Christianity? Are these churches this crazy or are mine just that backward? Where is the peace? Is this how we teach the message of Christ? Was my memo lost in the mail? Darn those postmen. If this is what the church has to say to people today then it is no wonder there is a problem with recruiting.
There are too many of these priests for this to be some isolated incident. This is a problem that needs solving. Granted, Reverend Wright is not Catholic but he is still christian. This is a problem for every sect of Christianity. But hey, maybe I am just backward, one of the slow guys who fail to keep up with the world. If this is true then I am happy to be so.
Moving on to Obama. I did not judge as harshly for his first advisor as most did. Then again his ideology already was too much for me to stomach. Now we have two of his advisers giving very similar speeches in two different churches. Perhaps he met one through the other, in fact i think that was the case, but what about his wife's comments? His voting record? What about the plethora of topics I am not allowed to bring up lest I be called a heathen? If this were just one thing I would ignore it gladly and stick to the issues (I know he would fail on them all anyway), but puzzle pieces add to build a picture.
A while ago I worked at a different job and this job happened to have several pot heads. I didn't know at the time but the place was known for this. Despite who I was with, most of the customers I served could tell after talking with me that I was not a stoner. I would here comments like "What are you doing here?" So yes you can be judged unfairly just by who your with. This rule though applies only for so long. If these same customers saw me with a joint in my hand, a herby smell or a bong in hand then there would have been no confusion. Reverend Wright, had he been alone, would have been just an association, but with Pflegar, his wife and the new pastor of Trinity there is little doubt of the kind of picture we have here.
I already disagreed with his ideas on several levels. All that he adds here just gives us the why behind the what. For those of you democrats who are not sure still who to vote, just remember the why tells you more about a man's beliefs then his eloquent speeches will.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The Troop Support Fallacy
I have numerous friends and not all of them conservative like me. This is natural and I obviously don't mind differing opinions. One thing I hear often is a general lack of support for the war. Of course most conservatives always ask "don't you support the troops?". This response from conservatives has become so common that it is now made fun of in the media. I usually ask the question "Why not?" instead as I get more descriptive answers. Undoubtedly I will hear the anger that we shouldn't be in Iraq, that the war is over oil, Halibertan, Bush is evil. You would figure I would learn right? Well, eventually I did.
This all stems from a fallacious division between supporting the war and supporting the troops. Most people I talk to have been convinced that somehow, perhaps through magic, that this is a possible point of view. Well while I was at my new job picking up garbage I thought a bit and figured out not just that this is wrong, but why this is wrong.
The very first thing that must be realized is that to say this war is over oil and wrong for some reason is to say that our foe is innocent. By this I mean that we have no right being there and no right to use force to impose anything upon them. Basically the war is unjustified. If our troops are there killing these obviously innocent people then they are murderers. Ya that's right, murderers. To claim that the war is unjustified and that those we are fighting are innocent somehow then that means anyone who kills them are murderers. So short of supporting murderers you cannot support the troops without supporting the war.
"But they are forced!!" No they aren't. Despite the rumors of a draft coming there is no mandate to serve. Furthermore the men and women who are there often go back for several tours. "But they are payed money and are government officials." Guess what, hitmen are payed and you will find them all in prison. In the 1700's many countries used to employ privateers to rob our enemies. They all end up in prison or worse. There is no argument to deflect this one problem.
This argument applies no matter the reason for this war or its current state. No matter how this is spun the war MUST be supported to support the troops. Now with most people I have no doubt they were unaware of this fallacy; they are forgiven. The people in congress and the media are a different matter. In case you have forgotten these are the same people who just a few years before I was born were found spitting on troops and cursing them. You honestly believe they have seen the error of their ways? Sure they have. The error they have seen is that you have to hide how you truly feel. If a congressman is found to even mention a negative view of troops then he would be castrated on the spot.
Just remember, it is the same as calling our troops murderers when you claim the war is for oil. If you want to say the war could have been done better then fine, but to yell about blood oil and evils for money then you have called out every active duty officer in Iraq. There is no division between the two.
This all stems from a fallacious division between supporting the war and supporting the troops. Most people I talk to have been convinced that somehow, perhaps through magic, that this is a possible point of view. Well while I was at my new job picking up garbage I thought a bit and figured out not just that this is wrong, but why this is wrong.
The very first thing that must be realized is that to say this war is over oil and wrong for some reason is to say that our foe is innocent. By this I mean that we have no right being there and no right to use force to impose anything upon them. Basically the war is unjustified. If our troops are there killing these obviously innocent people then they are murderers. Ya that's right, murderers. To claim that the war is unjustified and that those we are fighting are innocent somehow then that means anyone who kills them are murderers. So short of supporting murderers you cannot support the troops without supporting the war.
"But they are forced!!" No they aren't. Despite the rumors of a draft coming there is no mandate to serve. Furthermore the men and women who are there often go back for several tours. "But they are payed money and are government officials." Guess what, hitmen are payed and you will find them all in prison. In the 1700's many countries used to employ privateers to rob our enemies. They all end up in prison or worse. There is no argument to deflect this one problem.
This argument applies no matter the reason for this war or its current state. No matter how this is spun the war MUST be supported to support the troops. Now with most people I have no doubt they were unaware of this fallacy; they are forgiven. The people in congress and the media are a different matter. In case you have forgotten these are the same people who just a few years before I was born were found spitting on troops and cursing them. You honestly believe they have seen the error of their ways? Sure they have. The error they have seen is that you have to hide how you truly feel. If a congressman is found to even mention a negative view of troops then he would be castrated on the spot.
Just remember, it is the same as calling our troops murderers when you claim the war is for oil. If you want to say the war could have been done better then fine, but to yell about blood oil and evils for money then you have called out every active duty officer in Iraq. There is no division between the two.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
The Marriage Problem
Raise your hand if you know about the California ruling regarding gay marriage. If your reading this you probably already know but it is possible that you don't. Basically the people of California voted to make same sex marriage unrecognised in the state of California. then in a typical move of supreme court judges they struck down the law claiming that it was discrimination. I don't agree with this ruling at all. Oh god, another conservative against gay marriage!!! Nope, sure you thought that though.
I have two problems with this ruling. My first problem is that once again Judges have decided that their job is not to interpret the laws but to write them. This is probably the most irritating to me as in my great state of Nevada the same thing was done by our own judges who decided all on their own that a particular law voted in by the people should be struck down. The law struck down was a state constitutional amendment that forbid any tax increase without a minimum of two-thirds of the state assembly and Senate. Their reasoning in our case was that we, the people, were to uniformed and did not know what we were voting on. To pass an amendment to the constitution here in the state of Nevada the law must be passed twice. So in essence, the supreme court judges here decided that we were to stupid to vote, but I digress.
The other problem I have is that this should not be legislated in the first place. Granted, California voters have the right to make any laws they want in their own state but this is not about their state. the goal is to try to force people to accept, no overwhelmingly support homosexuals. You cannot make me do anything. If I chose not to accept white guys with blond hair and freckles then that is my choice. A simple fact is that this problem of gay marriage is insane because the idea of ANY state sanctioned marriage is insane. I do not care about who gets married to who or even what but I do have a problem with the idea of state sanctioned marriage licences.
There are two reasons for this. Number one, by stating that a marriage is accepted is to state that anyone who disagrees is wrong. This being done on an individual level is fine, we all are different after all. But this is being done on a state and federal level. You are for all intents and purposes saying that you are not only wrong but that you could be held accountable for your beliefs. My even bigger problem is that as I said, people are getting marriage licences. This being true raises the question of what gives the state/federal government the right to tell me I can marry someone. This is not like getting a drivers licence where you have to pass a test to determine whether or not you are competent. This is a subjective test where someone else literally get to decide, for whatever reason they want, that you are "good enough" to get married. You pro-gay marriage advocates should pay close attention, the mere existence of this kind of thinking is what you at least claim to be against. No one and I mean no one has a right to tells someone else who they should really love..
In closing I am ticked off that and court thinks that is can overstep its boundary and rule against the people, but I am also irritated that some entity high in the sky thinks it can make decisions about my life and anyone else's life. If you are gay and reading this now I will tell you that if you are in love then find someone to perform the ceremony, screw marriage licences. Who cares if others agree with you. If on the other hand your goal isn't to spend your life with someone. If your goal is instead to dictate to me what I SHOULD believe, something I have no doubt Sally Kirkland really wants, then the only thing I have to say to you is that you are no different then your oppressors. The only difference is that your method of oppression works in your favor. Simply put, I do not care about what you believe, just let me be as hard headed or soft hearted as I want to be and I will let you do the same.
I have two problems with this ruling. My first problem is that once again Judges have decided that their job is not to interpret the laws but to write them. This is probably the most irritating to me as in my great state of Nevada the same thing was done by our own judges who decided all on their own that a particular law voted in by the people should be struck down. The law struck down was a state constitutional amendment that forbid any tax increase without a minimum of two-thirds of the state assembly and Senate. Their reasoning in our case was that we, the people, were to uniformed and did not know what we were voting on. To pass an amendment to the constitution here in the state of Nevada the law must be passed twice. So in essence, the supreme court judges here decided that we were to stupid to vote, but I digress.
The other problem I have is that this should not be legislated in the first place. Granted, California voters have the right to make any laws they want in their own state but this is not about their state. the goal is to try to force people to accept, no overwhelmingly support homosexuals. You cannot make me do anything. If I chose not to accept white guys with blond hair and freckles then that is my choice. A simple fact is that this problem of gay marriage is insane because the idea of ANY state sanctioned marriage is insane. I do not care about who gets married to who or even what but I do have a problem with the idea of state sanctioned marriage licences.
There are two reasons for this. Number one, by stating that a marriage is accepted is to state that anyone who disagrees is wrong. This being done on an individual level is fine, we all are different after all. But this is being done on a state and federal level. You are for all intents and purposes saying that you are not only wrong but that you could be held accountable for your beliefs. My even bigger problem is that as I said, people are getting marriage licences. This being true raises the question of what gives the state/federal government the right to tell me I can marry someone. This is not like getting a drivers licence where you have to pass a test to determine whether or not you are competent. This is a subjective test where someone else literally get to decide, for whatever reason they want, that you are "good enough" to get married. You pro-gay marriage advocates should pay close attention, the mere existence of this kind of thinking is what you at least claim to be against. No one and I mean no one has a right to tells someone else who they should really love..
In closing I am ticked off that and court thinks that is can overstep its boundary and rule against the people, but I am also irritated that some entity high in the sky thinks it can make decisions about my life and anyone else's life. If you are gay and reading this now I will tell you that if you are in love then find someone to perform the ceremony, screw marriage licences. Who cares if others agree with you. If on the other hand your goal isn't to spend your life with someone. If your goal is instead to dictate to me what I SHOULD believe, something I have no doubt Sally Kirkland really wants, then the only thing I have to say to you is that you are no different then your oppressors. The only difference is that your method of oppression works in your favor. Simply put, I do not care about what you believe, just let me be as hard headed or soft hearted as I want to be and I will let you do the same.
I am back.
I have taken A haiatus of almost a year. I decided for no particular reason to change the name of my blog and deleted my previous posts. To sum up what this is, it is sufficient to say that I am a conservative and this is where I go to vent my frustrations. Why the name? Well... I dont know, just seemed nice.
Making the incorrect assuption that you care, I am a psy student at UNLV. I am currently an honors student. Origonally I was home schooled and later started college at the age of sixteen. Now I am a Jr. with a psy major and a math minor. (Strange combination huh?) Knowing as much about psycology as I do, I think I know now that I should be institutionalized.
My mother is a political consultant, as such I know how the system works. I am a sort of idealist in that I truly beleive that given the right information, people will come to a correct conclusion. Often I am confounded in this belief as people continue to fail to learn from the past. Yes that is right... history is important.
Most of my beliefs I hold come from my family although I do not think I would hold them today if I thought there was anything wrong with them. To give an idea of what I mean it would be easiest to say that I am a big fan of Spock. When I was little, about twelve to thriteen, I watched the origonal series and fell in love with Spock. He seemed smart and was always right so I modeled my thought after him. Thats right, logic is my forte. I tend to ignore feelings and go for things that make the most sense. That, of course, is a requirement of logical thinking. Yes I know what you may be thinking, I am souless and care about no one. Not true. I just will not subject my intellegence to rule under feelings.
I am done talking about myself though and want to get back into talking about political events so Let us begin shall we?
Making the incorrect assuption that you care, I am a psy student at UNLV. I am currently an honors student. Origonally I was home schooled and later started college at the age of sixteen. Now I am a Jr. with a psy major and a math minor. (Strange combination huh?) Knowing as much about psycology as I do, I think I know now that I should be institutionalized.
My mother is a political consultant, as such I know how the system works. I am a sort of idealist in that I truly beleive that given the right information, people will come to a correct conclusion. Often I am confounded in this belief as people continue to fail to learn from the past. Yes that is right... history is important.
Most of my beliefs I hold come from my family although I do not think I would hold them today if I thought there was anything wrong with them. To give an idea of what I mean it would be easiest to say that I am a big fan of Spock. When I was little, about twelve to thriteen, I watched the origonal series and fell in love with Spock. He seemed smart and was always right so I modeled my thought after him. Thats right, logic is my forte. I tend to ignore feelings and go for things that make the most sense. That, of course, is a requirement of logical thinking. Yes I know what you may be thinking, I am souless and care about no one. Not true. I just will not subject my intellegence to rule under feelings.
I am done talking about myself though and want to get back into talking about political events so Let us begin shall we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)