Dubium sapientiae initium.

Collapse

2007-01-28T20:24:00.000-05:00

Great civilizations never are conquered; they collapse from within.

I think it is generally understood that America is a great civilization. Since our formation in 1776, and our emergence as the dominant global power throughout the 20th century, I believe that we have achieved the hallmark of being one of the greatest civilizations to have ever graced this Earth. But indeed, no civilization is permanent - in fact, I believe ours to already be crumbling from within.

The symptoms are very clear. One such, highlighted in the link just given, is despicable. I shall let the article do the telling:

"Anti-war protesters were allowed to spray paint on part of the west front steps of the United States Capitol building after police were ordered to break their security line by their leadership...
Approximately 300 protesters were allowed to take the steps and began to spray paint "anarchist symbols" and phrases such as "Our capitol building" and "you can’t stop us" around the area, the source said."

Now - how are United State police officials told to yield to anarchists? Not only do these policemen back off, but they allow them to deface what might be the most sacred building in the entire United State? Is this not outragous? Is this to be accepted? In what kind of a state does our country need to be to allow anarchists to deface a public building?

Moreover, the police were instructed not to make any arrests. Had I been commander of that particular squad, I assure you, every last one of those two hundred would have been locked up and recieved their due punishment.

In 63 BC, Marcus Tullius Cicero was giving a speech before the gathered Roman Senate, in which he exposed the plans of an madman, Cataline, bent on destroying the Roman government and installing himself as dictator - in the midst of the speech, overwhelmed with passion he exclaimed: "O tempora, O mores!" There are varying translations of this outburst, but the one I prefer is "Shame on the age and its principles!" And indeed that quote may apply today, with treasonous gangs abounding in the streets of our Capitol.

The day when uniformed men yield to anarchists represents the yielding of authority to chaos. This day has come. If we are to survive as a civilization, things of this nature must not be permitted to happen.

There is much, much more to write on the topic of the decline of our civilization (especially as a result of the erosion of traditional values in society), but I shall here limit myself and perhaps expand upon this topic at another time. I do assure you all, that this decline can be stopped. However, the current party of the majority in Congress will do nothing to halt this decline.

Meditation on the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

2007-01-22T18:57:00.000-05:00

Twenty-five years ago today, the Supreme Court decided a landmark case which changed the patterns of social, sexual, and political activity within the United States. Roe v. Wade was the most important and influential cases ever to come before the Supreme Court.

This case, based off various precedents that pushed for more personal choice in reproductive rights for women. As a pretty enthusiastic supporter of personal liberty, and an avid denouncer of legislating morality, this entire topic brings a lot of interesting things to mind.

Briefly....

What are 'reproductive rights'? How is an abortion akin to birth control, contraception or abstinence?
How is the termination of an unwanted child a right?
What kind of rights do fathers and unborn children have?
Why would anyone who supports abortion be against the death penalty, or any other sort of institutional killing?
Why would any woman be proud of their right to end a pregnancy?

I know this is vague and scattered. I just wanted to put some ideas out there. Maybe I'll think about this again later.

Obama

2006-12-11T09:33:00.000-05:00

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for the lack of activity of late. Hopefully over Christmastide we can expect to see some more posting, having finished my college semester.

Recently the media has been fanning the flames of the potential candidacy of one Barack Obama. This fervor has only been increased with his recent visit to New Hampshire, in which various media outlets state that he was recieved as a 'rock star.' Indeed Mr. Obama does seem to be received very well nationwide.

I do not believe that this hysteria will last. Mr. Obama, while a good politician, has no experience whatsoever. He is young, and essentially is new to the political process. He is a fresh Senator, and has nothing of the experience and trappings of office. I do hope Mr. Obama has the sense not to run - if he does, he will be torn apart at the national level. If he is not torn apart by the nation as a whole, he will be dashed to pieces by his own party and the powerful interests of Mrs. Clinton.

If Mr. Obama is smart, he will not declare his candidacy.

Moving on to the other side of the spectrum, we Republicans are greeted by several prospective candidates. At the moment Senator John McCain is at the front. Historically, the frontrunner for presidential candidacy almost never garners it. Only time will tell if Senator McCain makes it through the primary process and if he secures the nomination. Another prospective candidate is Mr. Rudy Giuliani, who in my opinion is far too liberal (as is McCain), but may be necessary to reach across the aisle for those extra needed votes.

McCain recently reassured me with his statement that the way to win Iraq is sending more troops. In my opinion, it is about time somebody had the guts to out and say that. I know not whether saying that was merely a publicity stunt to show a flash of conservatism or whether he truly means it. Given his past record, he probably didn't mean it - unfortunately.

Buckle your seatbelts. We're headed for November 2008. The way is to be rough and fraught with debate and skirmish.

"We Have Before Us an Ordeal of the Most Grievous Kind"

2006-11-09T00:57:00.000-05:00

Today has resulted in blow after blow after blow. I was busy for much of the day an unable to keep a close eye on the news as I have so intently in the past 48 hours. Piece by piece I discovered the most devastating of news: first that Montana had been lost; then Missouri. Next came the horrific shock of the resignation of Mr. Rumsfeld. Today we lost a noble man, a man who came into this administration with high and lofty goals for a military - now defeated by mindless rhetoric? Unseated by the absurd calls of a few radicals? I was not able to believe the news when I had heard it. The replacement, of which I had not heard before, seems to be a man of good credentials, having served six previous presidents and having ample experience. We can only hope that he is a strong conservative with absolutely no 'cut and run' in him.

The final piece of disgusting news was the Democratic win in Virginia, which nailed the coffin of the Republican Revolution of 1994 shut. With this, we now know that the Defeatist Party has taken the helm, much to the celebration of the Muslims.

Mr. Bush shall not go down without a fight though. If he is the man we elected, he will fight them bitterly to the end. We cannot allow any further setbacks in Iraq; any Democratic motions to lessen or disengage our involvement there would effectively turn into a defeat for America.

Livy, after the massive defeat at the Battle of Lake Trasimene by the hand of Hannibal, said that this was announced in Rome by the Praetor: "We have been defeated," he said, "in a great battle." (Livy, History of Rome, Book XXII) And indeed that quote holds true today. We have been defeated. But, like the Romans after Trasimene, we shall fight back.

On the bright side, knowing that the Democrats won't accomplish much but infighting, corruption, and squabbling in the next two years, we have a much better chance of winning the presidency in 2008. And by 08 we shall have learned the lesson that we cannot be apathetic about the polls; we cannot allow the Democrats to make an election a referendum on Iraq (when 95% of they themselves voted for the war in the first place!)

In the next two years we need to watch the news closely. We need to be active politically. And we shall not tolerate this ill-won Democratic majority.

I'll finish with Churchill:

"We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim?

I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."

A Preliminary Report

2006-11-08T00:27:00.000-05:00

At the moment it's twenty after twelve Wednesday morning.

The news is sombre. I returned from a Republican banquet with my head bowed low. On the national level my predictions seem, at this early hour, to have been correct. The Democrats at the moment have a majority in the house by six seats, and are likely to gain a few more before the night is out. The Senate is still held by a Republican majority of 3.

Right now it's all about Virginia. The votes are counted and Webb, the Democratic candidate is up by three thousand votes, despite Allen's having held a lead all night long. I had thought Virginia to be ours, but perhaps I was mistaken. A recount is to be held.

Some good news? All of our local Atlantic County candidates did mostly well. Frank LoBiondo did very well. Our Republican team is strong and committed, and we faced a tough competition this year.

Today however I had a good experience. I was involved in the thick of politics. I sat today at a banquet filled with influential people: Senator Bill Gormley, Egg Harbor Twp Mayor McCullough, the head of the Atlantic County Republican Committee, and a lot of other people. I was present for the vote tallying, and I witnessed the victory of several local candidates. I was there for the feeling of victory; I was also there for the feeling of despair that swept the room when the votes from Pleasantville and Atlantic City were announced: in Pleasantville Menendez swept Kean 352 to 2782.

But tonight we all witnessed a Democracy in action, good or not. In the coming weeks we shall witness recounts, rethinking, and changing of policy. I intend to write more when all matters are settled, but I can assure you now that the next two years are to be interesting.

WMDs?

2006-11-03T17:13:00.000-05:00

Of all places.. from the New York Times!?

I'm not going to go saying told you so. I don't even know if that really means this. But certainly the fact that Iraq had sensitive information on building weapons, that we gladly shared with the world for a couple of months, must mean something. Especially since a lot of this was Pre-Gulf War stuff. We don't know if they could have actually sealed the deal and done something with it, but it certainly confirms a lot of suspicions.

Wouldn't it be ironic if North Korea and Iran figured out how to go nuclear because of this stuff?

The Future Implications of the Election

2006-11-02T18:10:00.000-05:00

The election is to be held this Tuesday. This very election is essential to the very definition of what it is to be an American. If the Democrats win we shall see the end of an era, and the construction of an entirely new foreign policy. If the Republicans win we shall see more of the same current policies.

My personal prediction is this: based on the Washington Post, Real Clear Politics, and several other sources, I believe that the Republicans will hold the Senate by a small majority. The Republicans will lose the House.

Some predict the Democrats to win both houses, which would be a blessing and a curse. Taking this hypothetical position, the Democrats would use the congressional powers of subpoena and oversight to investigate the Bush administration and their methods. They would not under any circumstances try and impeach the president - this would only polarize the Republican base and kill any chances of Democratic election in the future decade or two...and the Democrats know this. So if they take the majority, they will be a thorn in Bush's side. The upside to a Democratic majority in both houses is that the Republicans will win the presidency in 2008. The Democratic agenda in the next two years would be to undermine the Bush administration and not actually do anything good for the nation as a whole, and that will hurt them come the next presidential campaigns.

Alternatively, if the Republicans hold the majority in both Houses (somewhat unlikely at this point) it is more likely for a Democratic backlash in the presidency in 2008. So the short term gains would be good, while the long term would hurt us as a party.

The most likely outcome is a Democratic small majority in the House and a small Republican majority in the Senate. This will clog the government for the next two years, and I doubt much of anything will get done. Bush would probably be forced to come up with a more moderate position in Iraq and on other issues and for this outcome I have no predictions for the presidency in 2008.

So ironically I believe it would be most beneficial to the Republicans if the Democrats win right now. It really hurts me to state this, because I never ever wish Democrats a victory. The Democratic position will only result in us paying more taxes, unnecessary gun-control laws, and a vulnerable foreign policy.

I do not doubt a surprise Republican victory, however. I am involved in several grassroots GOTV (Get out the vote) movements, and the Republican Party has 4x more funds than the Democratic party and plans a 72 hour media blitz, as well as phone calling and door knocking (and I myself will participate in this Republican 'ground army' movement in hopes of a victory.)

In the end though, everybody must vote. I predict a higher showing than the average midterm election because this very election is so polarized. But certainly less than 50% of the electorate will turn out, and that is a travesty. I urge you all to go out and vote Republican, because not only does the future of the nation depend on it, but so does our safety and rights as citizens.

John Kerry

2006-11-01T16:27:00.000-05:00

Everyone knew that this election was as referendum on the Republicans. They have squandered their political capital, done some shameful things, and have become lazy, complacent, and corrupt leaders. For the Democrats to pick up some seats in both houses, probably even enough for a majority, really all they had to do was just stay quiet. Maybe a few new policy initiatives, etc., but the Republicans were really the ones who had to shoulder the burden of proof as to why they should remain in Congressional Power. Luckily, over the past couple of weeks, the Democrats have done so many idiotic things that have ended up hurting their chances and shifted some of the burden on them.

And then John Kerry spoke yesterday. This guy is the democratic party. He was their presidential candidate! Now everyone knows where he stands. What an ass.

He could just do some damage control, even if it was just a dumb joke, and simply apologize. But he doesn't seem to want to do that for some reason.

At least we know what our troops think.

Decision 2006

2006-10-27T02:20:00.000-05:00

I just wanted to put this out there: Nanci Pelosi scares the shit out of me. I don't want her to be speaker just because she's such a moron. If we lose control of the house, that's bad. I doubt we'll lose control of the Senate, but, still.

I think parliamentary democracy needs to happen, now. With lots of "hurrumphing."

On Rational Discourse, Emotivism, College Students, and Fundamentalist Islam

2006-10-13T18:12:00.000-05:00

College students are, by nature, a very zealous and energetic lot of people. College is a rather unique time for everyone: it signals the end of childhood and the transition towards adulthood, our education has gone from broad and simplistic to deep and nuanced, the world no longer seems as black and white as it used to be. We all see in shades of gray now. It's only appropriate that during this time that college students become interested in politics, some becoming quite deeply involved. I really only began to scratch the surface of the intricate affairs of contemporary American politics when I moved to college and had the time and the resources to read large amounts of political current events every day and take classes that offered explanations as to how the American and global political system came to the point it is today.

College also should prepare people to become useful and productive citizens. In our classes and in the environment that college campuses foster students are forced to learn about all perspectives and viewpoints, the rationales and motives behind peoples actions in the world theater and we are forced not to just accept them at face value, but seriously consider an actors motives, how their arguments are constructed, and what the result of their actions will be. In short, we are given the tools to seriously critique and analyze actions in the world and use our own experience and the values that we have gained over time to decide if we agree with someone's actions or goals. One can never understand an argument fully if due respect isn't given to it.

This doesn't really seem to matter to most people, college students and those beyond equally. Americans have moved beyond rationalism into emotivism. Few elements of modern political discourse fully examine opposing ideas thoroughly which closes all opportunities to examine an idea or philosophy fully. Rather than this sort of constructive criticism, discourse in America, political or otherwise has descended into a non-cognitivism (click the link for a better explanation. in short, it means that an idea or argument has no truth value but is more an assertion of "Boo! Something" or "Yay! Something") Within this framework, deductive arguments and logic have no real place, since everyones ideas are simply just an expression of personal beliefs that have no real intrinsic meaning. Persuasion and coercion become now more useful tools for discourse, since the desired goal isn't an understanding of why an idea is correct, but rather simply to change someone's opinion.

Our fundamental switch in thinking has many causes, the traditional suspects being mass media, poor primary education, and the sixties. Whatever the root may be, we must no longer deceive ourselves into believing that we have honest rational discourse in any realm of the public sphere anymore. Though this isn't entirely bad (there is no rational reason for being an Eagles fan over a Niners fan, or preferring one type of food to another) when it comes to gravely important matters, such as the normative goals of a nation either in domestic or foreign policy, this route is not only undesirable but wholly unproductive.

This undesirable emotivist approach has become a tactic used most often by the American left. A recent example comes from the actions of a group of Columbia University students that attended a speech by Jim Gilchrist, the head of the Minutemen group, an organization that monitors the Mexican-American border. (HT: brain-terminal) Rather than listen to Mr. Gilchrist's argument, the students immediately stormed the stage and screamed and protested his right to even address the group of students who requested his presence. They inherently denied his right to hold his opinions, and failed to engage in a rational, ideological argument about his group, his beliefs, and his actions. This is not the first time that things like this have happened on campuses across America. In fact there was a similar incident involving Ann Coulter at Loyola last spring. I personally don't care for Mrs. Coulter but I have no problem with her speaking here as much as I would have a problem with Al Franken or Noam Chomsky (if he were speaking about politics rather than linguistics). There is no excuse however for people who deny the expression of other's ideas or views solely because they disagree with them. When this becomes an accepted practice, the entire concept of the free exchange of ideas (or even the First Amendment) are crushed.

This is now the norm in many places in the world, especially in American universities. Diversity is only welcome in terms of race and gender, but certainly not in thought. Should I want to support some cause that another finds appalling, that is my business to do so, and they have the right to convince me from my stance using logic, reason, and skill. Denying my right to say what I believe, however, is completely unacceptable. I have yet to come into severely oppressive political climates in my classrooms, but I know that it is inevitable. Being in college is about learning to discuss ideas openly, critique them vigorously, and allow for a better argument to almost force you to change your own ideas. But this sort of coercion and aimless protest certainly is not what collegiate level academics are about, this sort of behavior is fitting for an elementary school playground.

At this point, it is very fitting to compare this sort of violent repression of dissenting ideas or alternative viewpoints in American discourse to that of violent Islamic fundamentalists. There is a logical evolution between storming the stage at a speech to violence at a cartoon of a figurehead (Well, you could even say things like the WTO protests actually go that far). It is very frightening that 'civilized' yet extreme American liberals would act so viciously towards dissent, but that seems to be the point where they have come now.

Hopefully, a revival.

2006-10-13T17:41:00.000-05:00

I know no one reads this, and I've come to terms with this. This is probably why Dave and I stopped posting as frequently as we were back in the spring. But now I really think it's time for a comeback. I've brought some fresh blood in. Brantley, truly a vir bonus, will now be contributing to this website as he sees fit. He fits more of, at least what I think to be, a 'Paleoconservative' view of the world. Slightly different from Dave's 'Neoconservativism' and my right-winged libertarianism. There is certainly a lot going on in the world, especially in the realm of domestic and foreign politics that could fill books. I'm not quite that ambitious, hopefully a couple of paragraphs here and there.

I guess now I'll mull about the internet and think of some things that would stand as a good reemergence into the zesty world of political blogging.

--Sean

An Introduction and Discussion

2006-10-13T15:57:00.000-05:00

I am the new contributor to this blog, an old friend of the two current authors. I describe myself as a staunch conservative on both social and economic issues: I subscribe to the economic theories of Adam Smith and the policies of administrations such as Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. As a sort of expository statement, I find America to be a troubling country today - where more Americans vote for American Idol rather than the presidential election; where the the leading opinions on academic campuses are often vehemently anti-American; where the youth of America are largely apathetic and often indifferent to politics and current events.

While I have little power to change these shortcomings, I intend to at least express my opinions on the public forum. As for my background, I am a freshman at Richard Stockton College in New Jersey and intend to either major in Classics or Political Science, with possible careers being politics or education.

But I think that's quite enough of my overall background and opinions, and I think it's time to dive into the quagmire of political events that define our nation most dear. The issue at hand right now is the acquisition of nuclear arms by North Korea. Such an issue is intolerable, quite obviously.

What we have is an upstart nation that desires international recognition run by a short, balding, bespectacled man with a Napoleon complex.

On countless occasions Korea has defied the United Nations, and has now finally delivered the coup de grace. The fact that still no sanctions have been put on Korea is outrageous. Kim Jong Il does however state that if sanctions are placed upon his country, he will regard them as a declaration of war. As a result, the UN is foundering: they have softened up the draft resolution against Korea, and both China and Russia have opposed critical pieces of it. This brings on a larger debate about the inefficiency of the UN, a point that I bring up often in personal debate.

As for my personal solution to the issue - the issue lies with the past, and especially the Clinton administration's tolerance and allowing the Koreans to do whatever they please. I highly encourage you to check out an advertisement criticizing the Clinton Administration (and Madeline Albright). To solve the issue, immediate and decisive actions needs to be taken. If our military weren't stretched already in Iraq, I would recommend invasion. But we must settle with diplomatic action in this case and hope for the best. In any case, the United States cannot be nuked, for the missles that North Korea has are only capable of short to intermediate range - which is good news for US, but doesn't say much for Japan and other US allies in the region.

Unfortunately, we must wait to see the reaction of our government and as the adage states, 'Only time shall tell.'

Victor Davis Hansen Part Deux

2006-05-06T10:07:00.000-05:00

For those of you who seem to have forgotten, let me (and Ocnus.net) give you a little recourse.

"America, You Lost"

2006-05-03T23:18:00.000-05:00

Zacharias Moussaoui gleefully pronounced a sentence of his own late this afternoon, declaring that America had lost in its' battle to condemn him to a fate of execution. Moussaoui also expressed his delight in causing the 9/11 victims and their families so much pain.

Moussaoui knows how hard the prosecutors worked to get a death penalty conviction,
and his words must have deeply cut them after months of painstaking effort to mete out the only appropriate form of justice. First I'd like to say thank you to Paul McNulty and the other prosecutors who put forth such a tireless effort, devoid of any vainglories, but came up short in their quest.

It really bothers me that Moussaoui did not recieve the maximum sentence, which is, of course, death. But what is more infuriating is that the jurors on the case were shown victims who would rather reach terminal velocity on the New York City pavement rather than be burned alive. The jurors who heard the last desperate phone calls, phone calls begging spouses to care for their children and know that they always loved them. Jurors who heard the transcripts of the flights. According to the final verdict, these jurors did not recognize Moussaoui's crimes as particularly heinous.

And that is unacceptable.

If mass murder is not an especially heinous act, than what is? What is our benchmark anymore for what we consider "right" and "wrong?" Without an appropriate stratification of moral turpitude, we face an even more uphill battle against the Jihadists. If twelve individuals cannot qualify the 9/11 attacks as a "heinous act" then we can never hope to marshall the kind of cultural unity needed to defeat the Islamofacists, all of whom are in agreement that the death of Americans and Israelis is a good thing regardless of the ends or means.

America, We Lost

Redemption

2006-05-01T17:11:00.000-05:00

My apologies for slacking off recently. I've been too involved in myself to really care about updating this.

I read two amazing articles today, both dealing with (of course) the middle east!

The first is from the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal, entitled A Sage in Christendom, and discusses the amazing scholarship of Bernard Lewis, an old-world middle eastern historian. Lewis' works seem to give a unique and brutally honest account of what is happening in the middle east by showing the cause of Muslim strife to be it's subordination by the Christians. What we are seeing now is an attempt at a humiliated religion trying to regain it's glory. I think there's a lot more to it than just that, but certainly this guy has done a lot more research about this than I have.

The second is from (ta-da) The Weekly Standard: No More Vietnams. The author's thesis is that this is another Vietnam, and that we have a duty to see it through and to finish our job. I couldn't agree more, of course. I think that WMDs or not, invading and liberating Iraq was certainly what the United States was required by our own moral code. We certainly failed the Vietnamese people by pulling out of an easily winnable war. We didn't commit ourselves at the most fundamental level to a complete victory in that war, and it has cost the United States and all of the Western world a lot of power and credibility, especially when it comes to enforcing global policy (either through the UN or through the US itself).

This brings me to something that I've been thinking a lot about recently: the hypocrisy of modern liberalism and humanitarianism. Recently, a group of students from California went to Uganda to experience for themselves the turmoils associated with the LRA. The result of their travels is the film Invisible Children. On Saturday in cities throughout the world, this group of film makers sponsored the Global Night Commute, where politically savvy and interested people around the world camped out in large public areas and wrote letters to President Bush asking for US involvement to stop the violence there. I would have loved to gone, but it was raining, and I'm just a huge wuss about sleeping out in rain.

What strikes me as odd about all of this, however, is the impression I get of the political inclinations of the people who supported this event: mostly left leaning college students, the same kind who are adamantly against the war in Iraq. It seems to me that this is a direct contradiction in ideologies. What is it? Either you are for intervening in foreign affairs to fix egregious human rights violations or you aren't! The violence in Uganda, and even in Darfur are small-scale compared to what Saddam inflicted on his own people throughout his entire rule. The United States is now involved in a very delicate situation that could turn the tide of human rights standards throughout the middle east. If we set up a solid government in Iraq and instill in the Iraqi people that religious and ethnic differences should not be the basis for cruelty, people in other middle eastern nations may begin to support our cause. Will middle eastern security help the US more than the same in most parts of Africa? Of course. But we also don't have to deal with people in Africa involving in global terrorism or the acquisition of nuclear weapons, they are far to impoverished and technologically retarded to be a serious threat. The middle east, however, is a booming place for industry, even outside of oil.

I'm not attempting to excuse our lack of action in Darfur or Uganda or wherever else there is strife, suffering, and injustice in the world. I don't think the United States has been doing enough in the last twenty years to further the global good. We have been involved in the United Nations and it's farce of a Human Rights council, we stand by while people are slaughtered outright, we allow countries like China to do as it pleases in regards to workers rights and political speech. We have even helped bring to power the very people we now fear. This needs to change, dramatically. The Bush doctrine, which seems to be floundering right now, ought to be reinvigorated and applied more. As Gelernter notes in his article, we are involved in a global war, and Iraq is only one front. This isn't just a war against militant Islam, or even terrorism as a whole. We are fighting a war against injustices in the world, and we certainly need to live up to our abilities.

Iranian Terrorism

2006-04-02T16:15:00.000-05:00

I think i'd rather deal with Iranian terrorism than Iranian nuclear war!

The Shame of the Colleges

2006-04-01T12:04:00.000-05:00

When charges were brought last week against the Duke University lacrosse team for allegedly gang raping a black stripper at an off campus house party, I was disgusted. Nominally, this is a heinous act, motivated by the alcohol fueled passions of a few individuals. But the fact of who perpetrated this act is what really gets my goat.
The culture of college is inherantly classist. Generally, as has been my observations, kids with similar levels of income tend to band together, my friends and I included. We're happy being friends apart from monetary issues. But generally, the privlidged male individuals that make up quite a healthy percentage of a private liberal arts school like mine make it a point to join a fraternity, or, a rich kid's club.
I have a few friends who are in a fraternity, and they are good, honest, relatively humble people. But the propensity of their frat brothers are overmonied egoists who have little incentive to put their scholarly ax to the grind mostly because they have no financial stake in their collegiate experience. Niche athletic organizations are the same way. A majority of the athlethes for sports like lacrosse and crew are typically wealthy, prep-school educated fellas whose life is a cloistered environment entailing A)the group B)tons of discertionary income and C)way too much free time. This vapid, idle lifestyle only breeds increasingly debaucherous activities, often accentuated by their role as the fulcrum of a campus party scene. In addition to their wiles, individuals like these alienate many members of campus due to their overly narcissistic nature and Bacchanalian wealth.
The fact that this stripper got raped is only a natural culmination of the continually heightened excesses of the college ethos. Alcohol fueled alpha males are a dangerous pack of individuals, and this is the often the consequence.
Finally, SHAME SHAME SHAME ON ALL YOU COLLEGES OUT THERE, INCLUDING AMERICAN UNIVERSITY. By admitting individuals whose only merit is their capability to meet the full price tag, you have diluted your own sense of integrity and disaffected people who go to college to earnestly advance their station in life. In this, you have also eshewed that lofty virtue of diversiy which you magnanimously trumpet in my face every day. Please rethink who you admit to your school based on their ability to pay. Doing so only amplifies the undue stratification of our colleges and universities, and brings bad ink to schools because of incidents like these.

Changing Concepts of Marriage and Raising Children

2006-03-27T22:15:00.000-05:00

I read an article in the Outlook section of the Washington Post on Sunday, and the issues that it raised were quite startling. The author's project is that the socioeconomic status of black women is opposed to the idea of marriage, and that more frequently black women prefer to raise children and create families alone rather than have an involved father figure. I understand that this is not a new circumstance, but the fact that women are actively having children without a father is a very unsettling idea, especially if you take the author's prediction that this is foreshadowing for what is to come for other race/class combinations in the United States.

Jones' idea comes from the fact that the male counterparts of black women in their mid-twenties to mid-thirties usually earn far less money, are more likely to have problems steming from their youth (drug use, other illigitimate children [can we even use this term anymore?], etc.). If you couple this idea with recent studies that show that women have been doing much better than men in college (I had a good article on this, but I lost the link. I'll post it if I find it), then the idea of women settling down into a more 'traditional' role in the family will be fading quickly.

I'm fine with the idea that women will soon outpace men in terms of career-oriented success, but the idea that this will directly lead to the utter demise of the family as we know it is horrifying. If you couple this trend with the increasing use of artificial insemination that I mentioned earlier, the effects of this are incalculable to coming generations of the American family. I am not against women in the workforce, at all. But I sincerely believe that a child should be raised with a loving and constantly present mother and father. Having kids is not the right of any single parent, or anyone as a whole. But once someone has a child, they have a responsability to do whatever necessary to bring that child up as good as they possibly can. It doesn't seem to me that this really matters to people.

Even the way that children are being raised is changing. Many suspect that the generation gap is dead and that parents are no longer 'growing up' the way that they used to. I sincerely hope that my concerns are for none because the future would be quite bleak if these children develop into the type of people who are hurting morality, philosophy, and American politics today.

Hugo Chavez

2006-03-27T16:50:00.000-05:00

Hugo Chavez is a mad man. I really wish we would depose him and all other crazy socialist leaders down there. The down side to democracy is that sometimes it doesn't work out how we want it to.

This Makes Me Sick

2006-03-27T01:00:00.000-05:00

This came to my attention from our good friends at The American Thinker.

The Bible makes abundantly clear that the narrow strip of land in the Middle East that everyone kills for unequivocally belongs to the Jewish people, who are God's chosen people. By repudating this covenant between God and man, the Presbyterian church is yet another example of wayward Protestant churches submitting to apostasy. Protestant American Christians are Israel's best ally in the world, but you wouldn't know it if you consider this rejection of Scripture.

Damn Those Russians!

2006-03-25T16:41:00.000-05:00

This article from the Washington Times, if it's true, will really change the way the US views Russia, and subsequently parts of Europe and Iran. This isn't a good thing.

The cold war is over. The Russians need to lose this hardon they have for working against us.

European Economic Analysis

2006-03-25T16:25:00.000-05:00

Read this article from the Brussels Journal about the problems of large welfare government in Europe bringing forth their own demise. Good read, albeit dry.

VDH is the man

2006-03-25T15:55:00.000-05:00

If you don't know who Victor Davis Hanson is, you should. He is a leading Classicist who has brought new life to the study of classical civilization and initiated new programs in various universities. Beyond that, he also is one of the greatest minds giving commentary on Western civilization. In his lastest book, which i'm dying to read, he compares the
Peloponnesian war with the war against terror which we are waging worldwide. I saw him on BookTV right before I moved to Chicago. If you want to read a great article discussing the libertarian-right party line on Iraq, et al, check out his article on National Review Online. Read it all. It's fantastic.

For Dave...

2006-03-24T17:31:00.000-05:00

Hey Dave.. check this out.

On the Benedictine Article...

2006-03-23T18:17:00.000-05:00

I've had some serious doubts about Pope Benedict for a long time. Though I am not Catholic, and really know quite little about the Catholic church, some of the high profile policies that the media has been tearing apart has made me incredibly cautious and sceptical about his papacy. I won't go so far now to say that all of my fears have been displaced by sheer hope, but an article he wrote for First Things really changed my view on him, his politics, and his policies as a whole.

For another Kingism (thats 2 in one day!), Benedict is da bomb, dawg!

His article begins by explaining what Europe is beyond the arbitrary geographical divide between Asia and Africa that it is today. Benedict breaks down what exactly formed the concept of Europe, and how it exists today. He points mainly to the establishment of the Roman Empire, it's conversion to Christianity, and the divide that began with the center of the Holy Roman Empire moving to Constantinople. He then examines how the Latins, Greeks, Slavics, Germanics, and Britains began this noble experiment in Europe, and how though their cultural identities may differ greatly, they share some common bonds. But this is all a fantastic history lesson that anyone probably could have synthesized by reading a Wikipedia article about it.

The greatness comes with his discussion of what many herald to be the dying throes of Europe. I share Benedicts view that Europe is certainly in a bad state of affairs right now, but Europe can be saved. Europe's ailments stem from a loss in faith, secularism, technology, newly introduced cultures, and self loathing.

Here's where the most interesting part of the article forms: Benedict's suggestions to cure Europe. To sum it up, the way to fix Europe is to ensure human rights, fix the family and marriage, and bring religion back into the picture. It seems like a pretty good idea to me.

Charlie Sheen, Moron

2006-03-23T17:38:00.001-05:00

Just when you think that Hollywood cannot get anymore debased from the particular issues that our country is engaged in, Charlie Sheen comes along and spouts offthis. Insinuations that the federal government had a hand in orchestrating 9/11 are not only laughable, but genuinely insulting. While the government definately dropped the ball on preventing it, it is only the most vile of slander to implicate our government in this insidious act. Sheen, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, George Clooney, etc. have a right to espouse their views, but no credence should be lent to their positions more than any one of us. They're tax paying citizens with a right to say what they want, but with these silver screen demogouges railing against the Bush administration so maliciously, maybe people are starting to get a little peeved. Just look at last year's box office take.

I know this is bad form... but...

2006-03-23T15:14:00.000-05:00

I posted this as a reply to a comment on something i wrote in my Livejournal (I know, I know).

It's a little incoherent and vague, but I figured I should post this and save it for a rainy day or something.

Let's take this from a Good Semaritan point of view which, though i concede this war was not waged under this pretense, I'll assert that this is what really is happening over there.

We can universalize the idea of helping people who are in need. I don't think there's ever a case when any legitimate code of ethics would allow us to turn a blind eye towards people in distress. The people in Iraq, let me tell you, were in distress. When a leader is in power who indiscriminately kills large numbers of people, these oppressed people exemplify need.

Why shouldn't we support these people? What is a bigger sacrifice for the largest, most powerful, advanced, and wealthy nation on the earth to sacrifice its own money and citizens to liberate others?

My problem with this war is that it shouldn't be happening now. It should have been taken care of during the Gulf War. We shouldn't have stopped where we did, we should have deposed Sadam, and saved the Iraqi people a decade of more intense suffering because of our retaliatory attacks on a crazed dictator.

I also advocate MORE war in this kind of vein. Let's go help the people in Beirut. And in Africa, who are being slaughtered in tribal wars (Rawanda?). Iran? Sudan? Lebanon? (to quote Mr King) DDDDOOOUUCCHHHEE Outta here. Let's kick out Castro, and liberate Cuba. We should put our feet down and say that as the most powerful nation in the world that we will not tolerate injustice and evil anywhere else. It's good for our economy (and theirs), its good for national and global security, and it allows us to put a lot more pressure on countries like North Korea and China, HUGE threats to global peace and human rights.

Or, you know, we could just sit at home, claim defeat already, and wait for the shining symbol of freedom and democracy in the world to get attacked, sacked, raped, and destroyed like Rome was by a group of savage barbarians carrying nuclear weapons.

I'm sorry Val, this wasn't where i wanted any of this to go. But i think we should talk online soon about this stuff, if you promise not to take it personally and to really have an open mind about what I have to say about it.

Another excellent example of why America rocks.

2006-03-23T14:51:00.000-05:00

In a Wall Street Journal Editorial today, the case is made for more American unilaterial action into the Sudan and Chad to stop the Muslim ethnic clensing of Africans.

The UN can't seem to get their act together to do this, and NATO is useless and antiquated now. The more events develop in the world, the more that Bush's "You are either with us or against us" seems to become a concrete real principle of action for how the world works.

We may not have it all right, but I think we have it the most right. And that has to count for something.

I'd love to see what the anti-war sect have to say about this. If they lend an ounce of support to it, then their case against Iraq crumbles. If they stand against it, however, then they allow for pacificsm to enter a new realm indifference where the America ignores the plight of persecuted people for the sake of some rediculous principle.

Hugo Chavez

2006-03-22T16:42:00.000-05:00

I want to kill Hugo Chavez.

This guy is a madman, and the fact that the world allows people to go of spewing this kind of absolute horeshit says a lot about the state of affairs in South America.

What's Really Good : Belarus

2006-03-21T21:23:00.000-05:00

Since the Soviet Union's breakup in 1991, Russia has had trouble maintaining influence in many areas formerly under its grasp (see: Ukraine, Chechnya, Latvia). Yet Belarus has exhibited a cavalier attitude apart from the rest of Europe by adhering to Kremlin policy and promoting a totalitarian regime, under the leadership of one Alexander Lukashenko. Yesterday, Belarus held its presidential election.

Described as "the last dictator in Europe" by the Bush administration, Lukashenko lives up to this odious designation quite aptly. Lukashenko defeated Alexander Milinkevich by taking 82% of the vote, according to official government numbers. While he may not be as popular as Saddam Hussein (100% in his last election), he will still have another chance to meet Saddam's record, because in 2004 he instituted a constitutional "reform" which abolished a limit of two terms on the Presidential office. One European foreign minister called the election "a farce," and I agree. This man is tyrant, and his ruthless pursuit of opposition groups (see Deutsche Welle's recent documentary) and especially Christian movements angers me. Most frightening is the fact that the Belorussian people would rather have a dictator than instability, according to the BBC. Thankfully, the EU has called for increased pressure on reform.

Oh, Nostalga

2006-03-21T19:20:00.000-05:00

I was reading my usual cannon of weblogs today when I came upon this delicious little post off Glen Reynolds's Instapundit

If you want to see a nice collection of pre-war predictions from the anti-war scene, read through the whole article. Some of these people actually thought that anywhere between 40,000-100,000 people would die. Many thought that nuclear bombs would be dropped, and mass chaos would spread. Well, now that the war has gone MUCH better than that, they would rather make a even less convincing case about how the war is going terribly wrong. In Vietnam, the number of soldiers who died on one bloody day would significanly outpace the number of American casualties that this war has dealt out in the last 3 years. The number of Iraqi civilian deaths is dwarfed compared to the number that Sadam would kill in one of his fits of Genocide (i believe one of them went up to around 30,000 people). Most that have died in this war are not civilians, but terrorists and Baathist soldiers. The enemy.

In a related story, my campus is now deluged with sidewalk grafiti including slogans like "Pax","Peace Now","Stop the War!","No More Killing!","Bush Lies!", etc. This in addition to the campus being littered with plastic green soldiers with cute little anti-war facts glued to the bottom of them (Pollution? Littering?). If i were so motivated i would love to start a coaliton of people to go out and correct their scrawlings to reflect some more accurate data.

But i'm lazy, and i go to college. And these people just don't deserve my time.

Update: I forgot to link to this article off Soxblog earlier. If you want another slap in the face of these antiwar communists we are dealing with, then take a gander at this.

Bin Laden Dead?

2006-03-21T00:28:00.000-05:00

Apparantly, al-Qaeda's main man has kicked the bucket, according to Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania. Frankly, I'm taking this with a grain of salt, but what concerns me more is the fact that Iran has been allegedly harboring him and that he may have been funneling orders to al-Zarqawi.

Also, I am suprised that the Iranian new year passed today without any kind of development.

The New American Family

2006-03-20T20:44:00.000-05:00

I rarely ever watch 60 Minutes. Usually I find something more interesting on than bad news-magazine journalism, but this story itself snagged my attention.

The story, in case you don't care to read it yourself, is about the children who are born of either single or lesbian mothers by way of artificial insemination. These children have been raised without knowing who contributed half of their DNA to create them. This situation is not completely new to our culture, but its now becoming a very common practice, and according to the article over 300,000 children are created each year by artificial insemination.

That's a lot of kids.

A parent of one such child has started a social networking website that allows children born artificially to find their half sliblings around the world. They simply enter information about themselves, the donor number of the man who gave the sperm, andvoilaa.

Â [Insert vignette of 5 gorgeous kids walking down some suburban street in the midwest, all looking quite similar]

Doesn't something seem very wrong with all of this? First, the fact that 300,000 children are born YEARLY to single or lesbian parents is a statistic that certainly blew my mind. More surprising is the fact that all of these children feel some need to find eachother and in some cases find who is their father. I think all of this has a lot to say about the nature/nurture arguement that has been very important to the alternative family movement. Maybe these kids will end up being great wonderful products of their societies, but doesn't it seem incredibly interesting that the more we try to alienate ourselves and separate ourselves from the way that we lived before modern technology and alternative living, the more the younger generations seem to want to find some way to reconnect themselves with it?

Wussy French Protestors.

2006-03-18T16:26:00.000-05:00

I saw this article published in the Post today. This is amazing!

Where do these French college-aged kids get off doing this? The government is only trying to jumpstart their rapidly dying econonmy. Europe's econonmy as a whole has been going down the tubes for years, as i'm sure we all know. Large social welfare programs such as these make these economies unattractive to large companies. The fact that these kids are upset that they can get fired from a job without being told why within the first two years of their employment is rediculous. They'd never make it in the US, and we have it pretty easy over here.

Blogger widget!

2006-02-27T18:33:00.000-05:00

Oh man, now I can get even lazier! I can just blog from my dashboard! Totally sweet!

Why I Hate the Facebook

2006-02-20T00:02:00.000-05:00

I don't know one college student in America who does not have The Facebook, an internet social network where people can view each other's personal data (interests, contact info, pictures, etc.) and accumulate "friends" by simply clicking on a link which declares their intention to do so. It's fun, and a minor distraction from the real world. But it's ruining aspects of humanity.
By the nature of ourselves, there is a stage of transient awkwardness at the beginning of any interpersonal relationship, particularly between those of opposite sexes. If we're interested in another person, we pick up and drops hints as to our personality beyond what we can infer based on clothing, mannerisms, friends, etc. But if you have an interest in someone, and also have the Facebook, it's easy to downplay your interest in them and instead resort to the phenomena known as "Facebook stalking" where one combs through their prospective partner's profile, gathering tidpids of pertinant information in an attempt to discern whether or not they would make a compatible duo. And I do not preclude myself from having done this.
While I don't have any problem with people trying to pick out a mate based on tiny nuances (saving themselves the effort and money germaine to a courtship), the outsourcing of this behavior is disconcerting. In the opening salvos of a relationship, it's the awkwardness, the risk, the calculated type of game theory which we all go through that builds character and lets your love interest guage how much you like him or her. It's like going to an ATM machine that is not owned by your bank. You'll pay the two dollar surcharge for the real payoff. And it's slightly thrilling to learn your lover's favorite books, movies, and quotes.
With the Facebook, that facet is partially stripped from the romantic equation. Furthermore, the option to list one's relationship status on the Facebook contributes to a type of meat market atmosphere of attraction which, while extant in a college setting already, is only exacerbated by the digital anonymity which has already nibbled at the crust of our humanity.

Today's "Read it All" Award goes too....

2006-02-15T18:55:00.000-05:00

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, for me, is the most enjoying part of the entire paper. The commentaries and opinions of those featured are usually a selection from some of the most eminent minds in America. Today's commentary by James Q. Wilson entitled "Divided We Stand" is certainly one of the best pieces of opinion based journalism in a long time. Read the whole thing, Wilson goes into quite a bit of depth covering what exactly it is that causes the dramatic split in contemporary politics, and why this is not a GoodThing.

A Chilly Climate of Political Correctness

2006-02-14T22:06:00.000-05:00

I sympathize with groups that want to be called by a certain name. If American Indians want to be called Native Americans, thats fine. After all, Indians are people from the Indian subcontinent. We silly white folks just gave them a misnomer, that's all. But these groups have a national voice to promote their interests.
Today I have witnessed the most inane and borderline troublesome example of political correctness I have ever seen. Every day, my school sends out an email detailing some of the events on campus. This caught my eye in today's edition.

Valentine's Day Snowperson Making Contest
6:00 to 9:00 PM AU Museum Sculpture Garden
To go along with our valentine's day party, the AU Museum will have a snowperson-making contest in our Sculpture garden (weather permitting).
Sponsor: AU Museum
Contact: Rachel Freidmann museum@american.edu

Now I don't know what kind of cultural consciousness exists in the snowperson community, but I'm sure that if they could express themselves, their coal eyes would be rolling just like mine. Seriously....a snowperson? In the words of Royal Tenenbaum, "That's just not right dammit." Can you envision a childhood in which you built a snowperson? Is Frosty the Snowperson some kind of androgenous ice creature? The worst (and most ironic) aspect in all this is that this event is on Valentine's Day, a concept which in it's most fundamental incarnation seeks to bring out those special feelings between the two genders. Too much frivolous political correctness such as this only detracts from the lofty goals of tolerance and diversity they are trying to promote, even a child can see through this farce.

I love this guy...

2006-02-14T01:09:00.000-05:00

Evan Coyne Maloney's blog Brain Terminal was one of the first political blogs I ever started reading. His film Brainwashing 101 is one of the best pieces of good interesting conservative documentary i've ever seen. He has even been dubbed in some circles as the "Michael Moore" of conservativsm -- I personally can't see him as being it that extreme.

On his blog today, he wrote a response to the cartoon scandal going on recently. In response to Andrew Sullivan's article in the London Sunday tines he said one of the most bold statements I've heard about Western media not running the cartoons. He said..

The fact that the cartoons are so mild is a huge part of the story. After all, if people are threatening death over these cartoons, what else will set them into a murderous rage? Wouldn't this information be helpful?

Apparently not, in the view of our media. It is quite easy to stand up as a noble defender of press freedoms when the only people on the other side are finger-wagging octogenarian letter writers complaining about an errant nipple during a Superbowl half-time show. But the pitiful reaction of the press in this instance shows that they are nothing more than bloviating pushovers who will hand over their freedoms as readily as the French in 1940 the first minute they're faced with anything more dangerous than a pile of letters to the editor. But they're worse than just being cowards, because they've just reinforced the only lesson that radical Islamists seem to understand: the best way to achieve their goals is through mob violence.

Well there you go.

The Smoking Gun

2006-02-09T01:30:00.000-05:00

Times were when you could light up a cigarette anywhere in America without fear of reprisal. Things have changed a bit since then, spurred by the deluge of evidence which disproves any theories of smoking being a safe practice. Smoking is an unhealthy habit and costly from a public health standpoint. Many deaths are hastened by the glamour sticks.
That being said, there is an entirely different side to this issue. In the last few years, many municipalities have passed stringent anti-smoking laws, designed to protect their own citizens. It would be understandable if these laws took effect only in public areas such as parks, stadiums, or sidewalks, which would be perfectly acceptable in my opinion. A government should have the right to dictate what kind of activity is permissible on it's own property.
The problem is when the Smoker's Crusade marches into bars, restaurants, and day care centers (ok...maybe not that last one). If a propriator pays the taxes on the business, appeals to a certain clientele, pours forth his own dollars and sweat into his own American dream, then who is to say that he shouldn't allow smoking on his property? If prospective patrons do not want to submit themselves to a smoking environment, then they should not frequent that establishment.
While smoking is a legitimate issue of public concern, the vanguards of the movement seem to be of the left of center variety. This is where we question the impetus of the Anti-Smoking crusaders. Could it be that in the left's failure to wrangle control of the Federal government and Supreme Court from Republicans, they have set their sights on an issue that most would seem entirely unwilling to defend? It smells like sour grapes but with a menthol tinge. Tobacco companies donate huge dollars to Republicans, but their political machine runs on many other sources of revenue besides the goodwill offered from Phillip Morris and the like. The most irking facet of the anti-smoking movement is the fact that while many leftists champion the notion of preserving an ever receeding culture of civil rights, the right to smoke is fading fast. Smoking is a nationalized issue affecting our personal health which you might just have to live with, just as you might have to live with legalized abortion or the right to die.
Expect the day when the right to smoke is brought before the Supreme Court.

Ayds is funny

2006-02-08T22:15:00.000-05:00

Check out this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UtUpPDuMfk

It's hilarious.

Iran, Oil, and Russian Power

2006-02-08T02:57:00.000-05:00

Only those who live under a rock (or in Iraq....think about it) have been oblivious to Iran's increased militancy in their efforts to spread a pan-Islamic ideology across the globe. Newly elected President Ahmadinejad's vitriolic speech regarding Israel and Holocaust, support for the newly elected Hamas government in Palestine, and his frightening alacrity for non-compliance with nuclear proliferation laws (under enforcement by the IAEA) have branded him as a lunatic sitting atop huge oil deposits (the most important political capital nowadays) and a hopeful nuclear weapons program. While recent remarks by U.S. Intelligence Director John Negroponte indicated that Iran's nuclear capability may or may not be short of it's goal (what kind of vauge assessment is that?), the situation is more likely that Russia, a political bedfellow, could be proliferating their own nuclear information or weapons to the bellicose Islamist Republic. Russian President Vladamir Putin's ever increasing authority over the Russian people and the continuous growth of Russia's influence in the international oil game (witness their recent dust up with Europe over supplying Ukraine and Georgia) suggest a more lusty sort of power grab developing in Mother Russia, and Putin is a master politician. If he has it figured out that Russia and Iran's tenuous influence over the global oil market is enough to cause major reverberations in the world economy for the sake of political clout, then don't be suprized if he capitalizes on this, if for nothing else than sheer pride. After all, what else does Russia have?
Compounding the situation is the friction between Europe and the United States on how to handle the matter. After last fall's Paris Riots, Russia's Machevellian oil games, and the recent messy dischord involving a series of cartoons printed in Danish papers, Europe is motivated by fear of Muslim reprisal in their more diplomatic approach to the Iranian issue.
Though Europe's situation can hardly be described as envious, the precarious position the U.S. finds itself in is far from optimal as well. Our efforts to confront Iran are handcuffed by a more politically parsed atmosphere at home. With half-hearted domestic support for the Iraq war and politicians facing midterm elections this year, the United States cannot take any drastic steps against Iran without major political repercussion, let alone the spectre of Middle East rage focused on America and Israel.
I almost failed to mention the other option on the table: the UN. The only organization in New York with less teeth is the Rangers.

A hahaha

2006-02-08T02:52:00.000-05:00

i saw this posted on instapundit...

"And reader Michael McDowell isn't having any of it:

Zerbisias condemns those Westerners who "claim to be morally superior." Well that is absolute horseshit. I am tired of being told not to judge other cultures through my "American lens" because I don’t understand their circumstances. I believe in equal rights without regard to race, religion, color, gender or country or origin. I believe in the freedom of homosexuals to marry and live freely in society. I believe in freedom of expression, and speech, and the free exchange of ideas. I believe in kindness, compassion, consideration, and that dogs make life better. I don’t "claim to be morally superior" to those ass-hat murderers; I am morally superior."

I really like that statement. Everyone keeps advocating to me that we need to judge societies in terms of their own behavior, cultural relativism. How can you be relative and be for human rights? How can you be relative and for civil liberties? These extreme islamist cultures are far far away from the quirkiness of some strange south american society that some rich anthropoligist glorifies in a pretentious novel and brings back royalties on local culture to make her millions of dollars. These are brutal, savage people killing in the name of god. Crusades? The Religion of Peace Strikes Again!!