All liberals are saying is give hate a chance. Are you a conservative who suffers from a superiority complex? Are you a self-loathing conservative who seeks to further your self-esteem by getting others to like you? Have you ever considered hating Sarah Palin?

If you’re one of those people that doesn’t get all caught up in ideals, party platforms or consistent thought, there’s an opportunity waiting for you to make friends and influence people. The liberal intelligencia is making a one-time, limited offer for you to hate and be loved. If you act now, you too can be considered smart and be loved. For a limited few, there may even be a chance to appear on an NBC network.

Sarah Palin is a woman, and we all know that you’re not supposed to hate women. You’re also not supposed to believe that a woman is less than educated. This is why the opportunity to feel comfortable with your prejudices is such a special offer. With Sarah Palin you not only get a conservative, but a prolife supporter, and an outspoken one at that. She is a wormhole in the politically correct universe that offers you untold riches among liberals if you choose the mission of dissenter.

You may still claim that you are a conservative among our kind, as long as you add the caveat: “but I’m not a fan of Sarah Palin.” You can then call her dumb or inexperienced. You can state that she didn’t attend a prestigious college on the east coast, and state that she doesn’t have the intellectual wherewithal to be a world leader. You can also state that she doesn’t have the experience, but leave out the fact that she had more executive experience than Barack Obama had at the time.

Stating that a conservative is dumb will gain you liberal friends every time. It’s a strategy that liberals and conservatives have used to get along since Dwight D. Eisenhower. It helps us all get along to acknowledge that conservatives are not educated, and shouldn’t it be our motive in life…to get along?

One of the best arguments I’ve heard against socialized medicine, among the hundreds, is that right now America leads the world in producing medical technology. The advancements of American ingenuity in the medical care industry is one of the reasons that Canada and Europe have been able to remain on socialized medicine. I’ve heard the argument that non-political people say: “Why do they need profit in the field of medicine?” Why would a Merck or a Pfizer need profits to continue in research and development? The research arm of the these pharmaceuticals is based on profits. These companies take their profits and sink them back into their research and development for the next year and the next batch of advancements, medicine, and medical technology. If America goes to socialized medicine, you can expect most of the technological advancements America has been renown for to taper off or stagnate. One of the reasons for the stock market bubble in the early 90’s was the money freed up in the 80’s for firms such as Microsoft and IBM to devote to their research and development departments. The computer advancements of the 90’s may have tapered off or stagnated if these companies hadn’t had profits to devote to the growth of their company. Some would argue that many of these advancements were unnecessary and frivolous, but will we be saying the same thing about medical advancements? I guess we’ll have to leave that argument to future generations if this bill passes.

Think about what millions of people have done to salvage what Lincoln called: "The great American Experiment."  Think how many lives have been lost, how many brutal thugs have been dethroned, and how much money and treasure have been lost to preserve this great freedom that we have.  Consider now the fact that for the last couple decades this foundation has been chipped away.  No one person or group would get away with a massive overhaul, yet, but there has been a little thing called incrementalism that has crept in and gained acceptance.  The keys to victory, for those who want to chip away, are through defeat.  They're inexhaustible, because they know what they're up against.  Yet, they have found acceptance by counting on our bend toward acceptance.  We all strive to be open-minded, and we all strive to be inclusive.  Therefore, when a person confronts us with an opposing viewpoint we may reject it on an idealogical standpoint, but we tell them that we understand their viewpoint.  When they come at us again, we are a little more forgiving.  We do not want to be judgmental.  When they come at us again, we offer an alternative based on their premise.  We want them to believe that we are intellectuals who consider all viewpoints, and then we allow for a compromised bill on that standpoint.  Before long, of course, their entire agenda is implemented, and we don't get angry, because where has anger ever gotten us?  It only makes us look bad when we get angry about something and protest it.  We just need to accept the fact that someone thinks differently than we do, and we need to learn to live with the new ideas that they're implemented, until we are living in a country far different than the one that existed when they first approached us with their contrary viewpoint.  This grand experiment that Lincoln and Washington and Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan fought for at one time, is slowly slipping away, and we're not really doing anything about it.

            In a December speech given as an official dedication of a new Capitol Visitor Center, Harry Reid commented on the good ventilation system that the building would employ. He said: "In the summertime, because (of) the high humidity and how hot it gets here, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol." 

          I’ve told this story to a number of people, and most people laugh. Harry meant it as a joke, but I don’t understand how people I know could laugh. In every decent joke, there is an element of truth attached. Did Harry mean the joke, or was he simply going for an off color joke? Who cares, it shouldn’t be funny to anyone.

          I think we all learned on the playground to assume that the bully wasn’t talking about us. It was the best way to avoid the follow up. They were talking about us then, and they are talking about us now. We just let them get away with it, because our self-esteem prohibits us from considering ourselves riff raff. Are we riff raff to Harry Reid though?  

          Are you someone who makes less than 250,000 a year, then you’re probably riff raff. Do you have two kids, a wife and a picket fence? Riff raff. Did you graduate from college? Did you graduate with a Law degree? Was it an Ivy League school? You’re probably riff raff to Reid.

          Look at the disdain they show a faction of the people who chose to voice their opinions in the recent town hall meetings held with our senators and congress people. I’m sure that the behind the scenes comments are not being made about you on this matter, because you agree with them. What if you don’t though? What is you deign to disagree with them on a matter you hold dear, do you think that they will hold you in high regard if you disagree with them? If your answer to that is yes, then you are probably what Josef Stalin would call a useful idiot.  

          Comedians implore this technique of telling a joke about the people before them, but they always get a laugh because no one ever assumes the comedian is talking about them. Comedians are trying to get people to laugh at themselves, however, and this is something we all enjoy doing. Was Harry Reid attempting to do the same thing? I guess, if you know that you smell, and you know you’re not worthy of Reid’s perch in life.

          I’ve also heard congressmen and senators say that there’s no way that the people in attendance at the various town hall meetings were common folk, because they were dressed in Brooks Brothers suits. So, when common folk get gussied up, what do these people think we wear? If we gathered up some body odor would they know that it’s us? Would they take us a little more serious if we smelled and dressed in plaid? 

          Who are these people? Do they believe that they have achieved aristocracy? Aren’t we supposed to live in a representative republic? Are they still representative of our views and our lives, or have they reached a point where they decree a standard of living on us from Mount Olympus? 

 

           The money quote: “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”

          There are problems with health care, but what are the solutions?

          Former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders has stated that she “supports public health over profits in health care reform.” What are profits in health care? Profits, it could be argued, are that which a doctor takes home after paying the rent for the establishment, the workers in the family physician’s office, the health care of himself and his employees, malpractice insurance, and on and on. Let’s say that our doctor is a young doctor. If that’s the case, he has spent twelve years in school; he has spent a number of years as an intern putting in hours that would drop a horse; and he has probably sacrificed a great deal of his time and social life to be a doctor. My point in bringing this up is that we have to give a young person the incentive to become a doctor. Let’s say that we have a young urban professional that is so talented that he can become anything that he wants to become. Let’s say this kid is brilliant. Why would he want to become a doctor under a regime that is going to cap his pay? Officials that are promoting this form of health care are saying that they will do nothing in the tort reform arena, but they are saying that they will cut all other costs…including a doctor’s salary. What happens to his college loans? The government will pay them you say, who is going to want to enter a government run health care school? What kind of teachers are going to want to teach in a school that caps their salary? They should do it from their heart you say. I think all medical professionals should do what they do for their fellow man you say. No one desires becoming a good doctor for the money alone. Most of those who sacrifice so much in life are, by nature, altruistic individuals, but the fact that they are well paid for their sacrifice attracts the young and brilliant. I can’t stand listening to a friend of mine complain about a finger on their blister. These guys patiently listen to people in pain for a living, and they love what they do. How come we are considering these people more often in this argument?  

          The current pool of doctors is roughly 88,000 in number. The current population of The United States numbers around 300 million in total. What percentage of this population seeks treatment for inconsequential procedures, and what percentage puts it off for a time because it is inconsequential or too expensive? What percentage of the population will seek treatment for the inconsequential immediately if there is no upfront cost? How will this affect the consequential procedures and the wait therein?  England and France have about 60 million in their population, Germany is just over 80 million, and Canada is somewhere around 30 million. They are able to maintain their health care system to some degree, but theirs is still something of a disaster by most accounts. The British, the French, the Germans, and the Canucks have had the system in place for some years, and they are used to waiting for a number of months for a Catscan, but an American is not used to waiting, or if they do wait they want a good reason for doing so. 

          Then we have the idea of medical advancements. There are some who say that the reason that Europe and Canada are afforded the “luxury” of socialized medicine is because they count on the medical advancements made in America. What happens when America joins those who offer socialized medicine? What happens to the ABC pharmaceutical company that produces the latest in medicine and medical technology when a regime steps in and puts a cap on their research and development department? 

          In the end, our health care system is in need of reform, but to what degree? Who do we put in charge of it? The government? I don’t care if you are Democrat or a Republican, do you really believe that out of touch bureaucrats should be placed in charge of such a vital system? Under the current bills being proposed, government officials would not be participating in that which they are proposing.  So they want to be in charge of it, but they don’t want the decisions they make to affect them?    

          Even if government run health care exceeds expectations there will be problems, and what happens when these problems arise? Politicians are notorious for not fixing problems. Politicians like problems. If there are no problems, politicians have nothing to run on. This is relatively fine when it comes to building that park in central square, but when you need a blood transfusion and you’re informed that there is a government sanctioned wait list procedure that puts you on a three month waiting list, how patient are you going to be with the politician that won’t fix the problem right away?  

          And one more thing that will inevitably take place if government takes over the health care industry…there’s no rolling it back. We won’t be testing this out to see how it goes. Once it’s in place, our society will begin to see it as a right. Welfare and Social Security and that one percent rise in sales tax in your state were all temporary cures for the emergency of the day, but once the legislature got it past us how eager were they to roll it back when the need was satisfied? How eager is any government body to serve the public beyond serving its own best interest? 

             Does dependence on the state extend to local courts? A recent broadcast on the Rush Limbaugh show guest hosted by Mark Belling had the host saying that the courts are used too often to settle disputes. Belling stated that this details our dependence on the state. I’m confused.

          A liberal friend of mine and I had a debate a couple years ago about the George W. Bush policy regarding the detainment of prisoners without proper jurisprudence. My argument to that was that those who are held without proper jurisprudence were deemed terrorists. His question was ‘who determines what a terrorist is?’ This debate was largely in the theoretical, until my liberal friend personalized it by saying that a friend of his was held for years without trial. He said that the guy had dreadlocks and he was a Muslim, Jamaican.  This, of course, is the liberal tactic of trying to take the argument out of the theoretical. Was it a fib? Of course. He was trying to construct a red herring argument that focused on the Muslim Jamaican rather than the larger issue of laws for the masses versus those of the individual.

          “Tell your friend to sue the government,” I said. “Matters, such as these, that are exceptions to the rule (i.e. anecdotal evidence) need to be taken to the courts on a case by case basis. The federal government cannot decide how to govern on matters both domestic and foreign, based upon the circumstances of every individual. This would cause chaos and no government would be able to operate under those constraints.”

          I’m not sure if my friend did not give this matter the proper amount of thought, or if he chaos in the Bush presidency was exactly what he wanted, but my answer provoked no further responses. 

          My question to my conservative brethren is if such a scenario were to happen, how should a good conservative handle it?  If the prevailing wisdom among conservatives is, as Belling believes, that even going to the courts suggests state dependence how does one achieve justice against a federal law that harms him in an individual manner?

              George Will: “Dr. Von Hayek, why is it that so many intellectuals and particularly economists look at capitalism, they won't see the overwhelming prosperity and success that it has generated." 

          Dr. Von Hayek said he troubled over this for a long time trying to understand it, and the best that he could come up with was that, to intellectuals, it's all about control.

           One of the problems of today’s politician is that they do not engage in the pursuit of simple truths. Today’s politician is, more often than not, a theoretical emotionalist. A theoretical emotionalist finds it hard to believe that the proverbial Joads that run the local bakery are happy. “How can they be happy?” asks the politician, “when they’re barely making it?” To solve what the politician believes is a crisis he will put in theoretical railroad switches to assist the Joads in living a better lifestyle. The politician cannot help himself. He has been well schooled in the theoretical, and he has spent countless hours reading other theoretical ideas on the subject, and he decides that the simple truth can exist no longer. The world has become complicated, he says, and the simple solutions of the past no longer apply. As with most issues of an economic nature, the invisible hands that put the switches into place usually do more harm than good. Most politicians mean well, but they never appropriately gauge the unintended consequences of their intervention. They don’t realize what a vital role the Joads play in the economy--even from their seemingly unsubstantial branch. So, they help them. They place these theoretical railroad switches in place to help the little guy. In doing so, of course, the politician is hurting the big guy. In some ways, this is the goal. If held to point, the politician will inform the public that the big guy can afford to withstand a little pain. The big guy has big pockets, he informs us, and he hopes that we will hold our fist high in our battle against the big guy.

          In this scenario, let’s say the big guy is the supplier who the politician believes is taking unfair profit in the cycle of the business venture with the Joads. Of course, the big guy will pass the pain onto the Joads who in turn pass that pain onto their customer base, and in the end the business of the Joads is hurt worse than anyone else in the cycle, because they were just barely making it when the politician decided to put in the switches. In the end, the politician meant well, so the final result is rarely called into question. The politician may even try to put in another switch to rectify the damage done in the previous attempt. The thing of it is, most politicians are lawyers, and they don’t understand the inner workings of the business cycle. All they know is that their good intentions make for an excellent advertisement, a point in a debate, or a platform position. In general, politicians are the best and the brightest in our community, but some of the times they over complicate issues when the simple truth is staring them in the face. 

Is it possible for a theocracy to rule the United States?  If one were to listen to Hollywood and New York's literary world, the United States has stepped precariously close in the past.  We've been jumping at cardboard cutouts for as long as I can recall.  Think of all the movies, the books, the songs, and the talking head oratories.  As these things go, such an overthrow of this nature would’ve been impossible for some Jim Jones archetype, because we've been chomping at their bit for decades now.  We still jump at the first hint of puritanism, but when it comes to the more permissive types we've been an accepting nation.  We've allowed notions that the nation would've scoffed at even twenty years ago.  (James Earl Carter has an asterisk in this piece, because he was elected in the aftermath of Watergate.)  We elect the permissive types, because it shows growth on our part, it allows us to feel enlightened when the pollster asks us why we voted the way we did, and it allows us to feel well-rounded and wonderful when our friends ask us who we voted for.  We didn't know what to expect from the permissive types.  We giggled at some of the possibilities, and we thought we might enjoy the fruits of a more permissive society.  We had been told for decades that we live in a puritanical society, and we thought we could use a little more bipartisanship.  We never stopped to gauge the worst possibilities, and we scoffed at what we thought were bell ringers on the street corners.  We still don't.  We still find it impossible to believe that the permissive types are going to be the ones taking away our freedom.

I just got done watching what little I could stand of the Rachel Maddow show, and it was all that you could expect from any news commentary show.  There was sexual innuendo, a dismissal of all of those involved, and derision.  The theme of the show was: "Those crazy, crazy anti-intellectuals."  They used anecdotal evidence to deride those crazy anti-intellectuals.  They used charges of racism by saying that there were "subtle forms" of it.  The subtle form of it that the commentator mentioned was that there was a placard that she read that said something about earmarx and Obama's ears.  The two of them laughed with shame at the crazy anti-intellectuals.  I couldn't tolerate the entire thing (can you blame me?) but from what I saw there was no coverage about the substance of any of the rallies.  Take heart liberals, your excuses are locked and loaded for any event such as this one. 

          Growing up in the Catholic religion, I learned all there is to know about shame.  In my teens and twenties, I rebelled against the religion’s idea that shame is a virtue, but watching the American icon-igensia has led me to believe that a few of them could use a dose of Catholicism’s shame.  In other words, shame can be good.

If you don’t let shame get in your way, in America today, you can accomplish a great deal.  Hollywood and Washington have filtered through a number of dirty words of our lexicon.  They've selectively ruled some words as good and some as bad.  As they run out of dirty words, they develop new ones.  One particular word that has taken on a new taboo: judgment.

          Twenty some odd years later, another president, Bill Clinton, found himself in a similar predicament.  He committed a measly, little crime.  It was stupid.  It was dumb.  In hindsight, we all know that he didn’t have to do it.  When it was done, however, he compounded the crime by committing all kinds of horrendous crimes.  I don’t want to run through the list of Clinton’s crimes, but suffice it to say that most of them were abuses of executive power.  Would Clionton have resigned in self-imposed shame when all was said and done?  We all know the answer to that.  We all know that Clinton was willing to put himself, and the nation, through the shame of a grand jury testimony, an FBI semen test, and an impeachment hearing.  Why was Clinton willing to leg it out, because he knew that his fellow Democrats were not about to shame him into resigning. 

          I don’t know if this slouch toward Gomorrah began in my lifetime, but it has been provided an accelerant in the form of our media.  Who is O.J. Simpson?  I remember when O.J. was first indicted for his crimes.  Little kids were stopping him on golf courses to get autographs.  These little kids were far too young to know O.J. the athlete, they were too young to know O.J. the broadcaster, and I think they were too young to enjoy the humor of the Naked Guns.  They only knew O.J. the murderer, and they wanted his autograph.  Was this a result of the media, the parents of these children, or their peers?  Is the sociopathic nature of an O.J. Simpson a result of some sort of natural, chemical imbalance in his brain, a result of him being protected from shame by his star studded status throughout his life, or is his nature endemic of our society?

          Then you have Kobe Bryant.  My greater concern is not with the purported crimes that are committed by the celebutants that are brought before a judge.  Purported criminals have been getting away with crimes since legal systems were developed, but the concern should be properly placed on us. Kobe Bryant was a prime time star in the NBA, even before the alleged crime was committed, but the alleged crime put him on the map.  His star took off.  A public relations expert could not have envisioned a greater publicity stunt for Bryant.  His status and stature were never better.  I think it was the ESPY’s that Bryant walked into to receive a standing ovation.  For what?  For alleged raping a woman.  People later wanted to say that they ‘had his back’, and that they were they were there for him.  For what?  Moral support?  The man may have been guilty for all they knew.  I think that the greater message that those in the seats wanted to send is that they are not going to judge him regardless of the outcome.

          We all know the Madonna, Britney, and Paris scandals, but there was a particularly interesting one that arose recently that involved the young Mylie Cyrus.  If you don’t know Mylie, she is the star of the Disney show Hannah Montana.  Recently, there were some scandalous pictures taken of Cyrus by a photographer named Annie Leibovitz.  As with most of these celebutant scandals, this scandal didn’t interest me either, until I saw our reaction to it.  Mylie’s status and stature are taking off to heights presumably higher than what it was before.  A recent Etv special stated that fans expressed a general sentiment of “what’s the big deal?” in their new found endearment to her.  If I had a cynical mind that slipped under a marketing cap, I would say that Mylie’s youthful show Hannah Montana may be running it’s course as Mylie ages.  I would say that Cyrus’ handlers may have been a little worried about her post Hannah Montana career, so they wanted to give her a very adult scandal.  If I were one of her handlers, I would’ve presented Cyrus with a proverbial cost benefits package that informed her and her parents that there may be some drop off in her stature and status as parents came to grips with the fact that their children were watching a product involved in a scandal.  The drop off, I would assure them, would be short term, and the long-term benefits would far outweigh that which was coming to them. 

          As someone who enjoys the study of our nation’s history, I can’t think of another era in which shame had reached such historic lows.  I know the Dickens quote: “It was the best of times.  It was the worst of times…”  I realize that we humans are almost conditioned to believe this of our era, but I can’t come up with an era that has had such a preponderance of evidence that even hints at the current lack of shame in our current society. 

I used to be a man who sought out religious people to defeat them. I knew a lot about religion. I had been a Catholic school boy for the first eighteen years of my life. I have taken a religious class every year for nearly twelve of those years. I attended services of my religion, and some others, at least once a week and some of the times two times a week. I have attended philosophical seminars on religion, and I have engaged in philosophical discussions with friends and family more times than I can count. I had had enough of religion to last me a lifetime, at one time in my life, and anyone who dared cross my threshold was going to get the brunt of my retribution.

I was always respectful to religious people don’t get me wrong. I have always tried to be respectful of another’s viewpoints regardless of what they were. I did try to sway them to my line of thinking though. I did try to assist them in seeing the errors of their way by leading them to the way, the truth and the light of my new found knowledge. I asked constant questions of those of faith. I asked rhetorical questions for which my goal was not answers but their belief that I was of a superior intellect. I challenged their beliefs with my questions, as I have always challenged my own. But my intent was always a good one. I never intended to have them switch their religion or drop religion altogether.

I couldn’t sit by, however, and allow these people to pursue their devotion in an anti-intellectual manner though. It dated back to my eighteen years spent in religion in which those who taught me the precepts of the religion asked me to do so in an anti-intellectual manner. They told me that I had to have faith. It was infuriating to my young and ever curious mind. Having said that, I was bound and determined to force those around me to endure my thought process on the matter. I couldn’t stand the fact that these people were happy in their religion when I had been so unhappy in my own.

I think that there are some who cannot stand the fact that there is such an enormous religious populace in this country, and I think many mean to change this one person at a time. How can you believe in a religion that cannibalizes it’s Savior on a weekly basis? How can you believe in a religion that speaks of a virginal birth? How can you believe in a religion that speaks of a Savior dying and rising from the dead? It’s all so illogical. These questions, for some, may be honest questions of a curious mind. If that’s the case, then I have no problem with it. I have, however, seen many of these "curious minds" turn to me with laughter the minute their subject left the room.

My curious mind wants to know why we feel the need to engage in such questioning of the religious mind? Why do we feel a need to put them through the paces? Are these questions that are directed to the religious mind nothing more than curious and non-threatening? How many times have we asked the religious person a question, then turned to our friends later and said: "They had no answer for that." In lieu of that, how many of us have felt a sense of accomplishment by putting these religious people on the spot?

My question is why can’t we leave these people alone? They’re happy people. They enjoy their uncomplicated, unquestioning lives. They may not have examined their lives or their religion in the manner we have, but why does this bother us to such a degree? There may be certain aspects of their religion that they don’t sufficiently question, but why does this bother us so much that we feel a need to call them out on the mat?

"We have a dumb society, that doesn’t question matters enough for their own good. Maybe I can enlighten them with my studies."

"Well," I say quoting Caddyshack, "the world needs ditch diggers too." Not everyone has the wherewithal or desire to put themselves through the self-examination processes that the supposed enlightened do. A dirty, little secret that I have found among the enlightened is that they are, on the whole, unhappy and unfulfilled people. They have spent so much time filling their mind with contrarian thought that at the end of the day they are empty people in search of fulfillment. This search of theirs usually lands in other "religions" such as Scientology and Kaballah.

I don’t want anyone reading this to think that I think the pursuit of religious ideals or morals is an anti-intellectual pursuit. I used to believe that, but I have been so successfully contradicted over the years that I no longer believe this is the case. Are there some holes in the plot, sure, but this does not mean that there isn’t enough material in the various religious texts to keep the most abundant brains satisfied. There are some, however, and we all know them, who don’t need the intellectual stimulation to pursue the religion of choice.

"What if they’re trying to convert me?"

Well, do you have confidence in the strength of your mind and thought processes? If you do, then you have nothing to worry about. Brainwashing, like hypnotization, cannot make you do anything you do not want to do. This idea that the God-fearing ideas and tenets are somehow Svengali in nature is a myth propagated by the anti-religious who think that the human mind is a weak vessel. Most religious people are, also, not out to convert you. There are the airport people, the bicycle riders and the missionaries, but by and large those who make up religions are good, normal people who find solace and fulfillment in the religion of their choosing. I think that it’s about time that we left these good people alone.

As a former liberal, Democrat, I spent a great deal of time and effort learning what it meant to be a good liberal. I learned all of the tenets of the religion, and I worked very hard to gain the esteem that I sought for being so. It was exhausting.

There were a number of tenets and notions that I had to accept if I wanted to gain entrance into the religion. 

The first notion I was had to learn to accept is that the United States of America is not the greatest nation on the Earth at this time. I had to learn that that 'grand experiment,' that Abraham Lincoln worked so hard to maintain has gone awry. Due to the societal constraints of the U.S., the pejorative 'you' cannot achieve success within the paradigm that they have created. This is because 'you' are a fill in the blank from whatever societal group that you happen to be classified in. The limit that I had to accept in this philosophy is that the 'they' who succeed in this country are different beings. They have been given an unfair advantage that only a government official can rectify.

I found this notion hard to swallow at the time, for I had always heard the jokes about politicians being liars and corrupt. To this, a friend of mine replied: "Who else are you going to trust?"

The second notion that I had to want to exert over others is a desire to be more wonderful than they were. This was an easy notion to implore, for who doesn't want to be wonderful? In this tenet, it's very important that we say we care. It's very important that we elect people who say they care, and it's very important that we elect people who show they care. The reason the word show is italicized in the sentence is that it's important to those that care that those they elect display a symbol of caring.

I remember an episode of Buggs Bunny in which Yosemite Sam ran around a town kissing babies to show the public that he could be a viable politician. I didn't get the joke at the time. I do now. I now understand how important it is that a politician show that he care. I do realize that a portion of a president's job is symbolic, but to what degree?

Does every politician involved in the area, both locally and federally, have to make a personal appearance at every catastrophe? When we see him speak, do we have to moved by his words? I'm not talking about his ideas. If we're moved by his ideas, that should be a qualifier, but what if the other guy is better looking? What if the other guy looks like a better politician? What if the other says that he cares about us? What if the other guy squints to portray the importance of his words, and he bites a lip in the sad moments of his presentation?

Empirical results, after all, are for pointy headed economists to blather about. In this tenet of the philosophy the means justify the means. How we get to the ends, or if we get to the ends, is fodder for others with more power than us to worry about, so we must elect those who care. The fact that we care enough to vote for someone who cares show that we care. Again: "Who else are you going to trust?"

Another philosophy one must buy is the idea of the inevitable. If you disagree with something a politician has issued or proposed, fellow liberals will argue that that idea is an inevitability that you are just going to have to learn to accept. It's inevitable that politicians will eventually become corrupt. So, if you think that a politician has acted in a corrupt or deceitful manner, then you have to accept the fact that they've all done it, or they will eventually do it. The country of America will eventually succumb to socialized medicine, therefore you may as well accept this inevitability and move on. High taxes are an inevitability, so all this blather is nice, but in the end an escalated tax rate in inevitable. They consider these responses to be excellent ammunition to those who argue against their politicians.

Another tenet one must buy into is the conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are fun and exciting. Conspiracy theories are excellent fodder for a slow news day, and they're fun.  One doesn't have to learn the facts of a conspiracy.  They only need know the motives.
 

Motive is the most consistent inconsistency of the philosophy. There are no facts to suggest that George W. Bush elected to go into the Iraq War for selfish reasons, but when one factors in that George W. Bush is an oil man, and Dick Cheney is a Haliburton guy, then one plus one equals two if you focus on motive. If one factors in that Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate George H.W. Bush, then two plus two equals four. If one factors in the political gain that W. would attain from the World Trade City towers falling, then it makes perfect sense that Bush would order the towers to be brought down...I guess. The most important four words in this paragraph is there are no facts. Facts aren't fun and exciting though.

One could argue that conspiracy theories abound on both sides of the aisle, and that would be correct, but the conservative philosophy does not lean on these planks as heavily as the liberal. The liberal philosophy, itself, it built on a foundation of the theoretical, and a great deal of these theoretical notions are conspiratorial in nature.

The motive is the grey theory and to be a quality liberal one must invest himself in the grey. I once had a Black Studies teacher who informed us of the problems that existed in the world, and he–of course–concentrated much of his venom for the U.S. Fair enough, it's not a perfect country, and the problems abound. What is the solution though? The teacher didn't have solutions. It was enough for him, in his portrayal of our tumultuous world, to simply recognize the problems. In a paper that I wrote for that class, I addressed the problems and posed some solutions. These solutions may have been wrong. I'm not so egotistical to say that I think I had then answers then or now, but I have a solutions oriented mind. Plus, I think the liberals deity Franklin Delano Roosevelt had an excellent method of solving problems: "If one solution doesn't work, try another."  In my paper, I posed a number of solutions. All of them were dismissed with the same theme: "Too simplistic."

The thing I knew then, and I learn more and more every day, is that liberals do not seek solutions. They only seek the proselytization of the problem. They only seek to condemn solutions as too simplistic. They also seek to condemn the character of those who pose solutions. Liberals, themselves, are too worried that the solutions they pose will be wrong, and they're also too worried that posing a solution will make them appear simpleminded. And who do you think you are to pose a solution, say those who will not pose one, you're just a simpleton from small town, America. You don't have the knowledge of the all mighty politicians.

They tell us that we don't have the knowledge to pose solutions to social issues, because we are simpletons from small town America, yet these same people have no qualms with posing solutions on issues of military and war. To my mind, social issues are issues for which the common man can pose solutions. The common man can have fact based opinions on social issues based on similar circumstances that man has encountered throughout time. In matters involving war, however, it could be argued that the common man cannot make informed statements about the issues, because they are not privy to the same intelligence reports given to generals and high ranking officials. Yet, liberals feel that they can pose informed solutions on issues of war and conflict, but that they are simply not intelligent enough to provide an idea on how to solve a social concern.

Liberals also focus on the exception to the rule. If one were to pose a solution oriented idea on a social concern, liberals would quickly point out that that solution would do nothing to help Mary Smith from Poughkeepsie, Illinois. Mary has five children, a drug problem, and a husband who will not support her in her travails. Fair enough, what's your solution? No answer. How about we develop a societal solution, such as the one I posed, and deal with the various Mary Smiths on a case by case basis? That's too simplistic.

When I was younger I used to confuse 180 degrees and 360 degrees when I would tell a story. I would tell people that their ideas were 360 degrees different than mine, when I should've said 180 degrees. I hear many adults still make this mathematical error in philosophical discussions. Liberals, however, make this error in their methodology for problem solving.

Another tenet of the liberal orthodoxy that one must buy into is that the pejorative you cannot comment on a matter. You, as a white, cannot comment on matters of race. You, as a man, cannot comment on matters concerning the choice of abortion. You, as a member of a given religion cannot comment on other the practices of religions. You, as a person without children, cannot comment on the raising of children or sending a young person to war. You, as a person who has never served, cannot comment on any matters that involve the military or war. I've even had friends tell me that due to the fact I haven't traveled as extensively as they have, I shouldn't be able to comment on world affairs. Even though their travels involved only the golden streets of tourism. This methodology provides liberals a way to dismiss an argument if they cannot defeat it.

As I say, I used to be a liberal, and I think this gives me a decent vantage point from which to leap in my understanding of them. I personally found it exhausting to be a liberal. Liberals are less inviting to the individual, unless that individual is an artist who seeks to portray a perversion of some sort. Liberals prefer that you learn your role in the world. As a liberal, you must learn your limited role in the world based on the group to which you belong. To be a good liberal, you should display shame for your role in the world and the role your ancestors played in the current state of the world. If your friends have other ideas, inform them of their role based upon whatever group it is to which they belong: American, white, and whatever religion they involve themselves in. They consider this excellent ammunition. Personally, I found it exhausting. I've found it's a lot less exhausting to learn the facts.

In the beginning scenes of The Godfather, Michael Corleone explains to his wife to be, Kate, that the president had someone killed. Kate responds that she doesn't believe that a president would kill anyone. "Now who's being naive Kate?" he asks.
 

Yeah, I thought. What an excellent burn. He laid down the law. He spoke the truth. I probably gave this too much thought when I was younger, but I didn't want people to call me naive. In fact, I wanted to be the one who called others naive. I think I can say without too much challenge, that we all attempt to be this way to a certain point. No one wants to be perceived as naive, but how far do we take this? What do we do and what do we believe to avoid being perceived as naive?

An old phrase in the police force is: "Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see." I'm sure it's an almost mandatory phrase beat into every cop's mind on a daily basis, but most of us don't deal with the worst of humanity on a daily basis. Most of us can provide a little leeway to our fellow man when it comes to believing in the worst or the best of them.

Having said that, I hate salespeople. To me, salespeople are some of the worst of humanity. They seek out weakness, they seek pause, indecision, and momentary lapses of belief.

I am a processor. I take people, places and things, and I process the material they've given me before making a decision on anything. I'm rarely one who makes snap judgements about anything or anyone. I like to think I'm a quick wit who takes a half a second to evaluate something, but I'm not. I'm a processor. Salespeople hate processors, and I hate salespeople.

How many of us process the people, places and things in our lives before making such a judgement about them? Before answering, you must remember that most people see processors as slow. "How could it take you more than a minute to decide what you think about that?" they ask "Isn't it obvious??

Enter objective thinking. An objectivist thinker wonders what would happen if the opposite were the case. An objective thinker pauses.  An objective thinker appears to be indecisive.  An objective thinking may appear ensconced in a momentary lapse of understanding.  In truth, an objective thinker attempts to consider a matter from all sides.

If man is causing global warming, for example, what would the temperature of the Earth be if man had never existed? A decent objectivist thinker tackles a subject matter from an angle others may not have considered.

Are UFO's landing on planet Earth? Well, why would they come here? To study our planet? How would they get here? We've studied our immediate universe, and we've determined that there are no such life forms in our vicinity...Life forms that could gather a degree of advancement to visit our planet anyway. The answer to this, say some, is that they are so much more advanced than we are. First of all, we have no proof this whatsoever, and I challenge that very idea. Due to the fact that we have no proof of their advancement, I think that the belief of their superhuman advancement comes from our own insecurities. Also, if they were so advanced why would they continually visit us? If I had the chance to travel back in time and visit the cro-magnon man, I might...once. I might even do it twice. It would be one hell of a novelty after all, but I would soon grow bored. They would have nothing to offer me.

Well, they say, I have an open mind to the belief.  The implication, therein, is that you have a closed mind. This idea strengthens their resolve on the matter. But couldn't it be said that their mind is closed to the belief that they are, in fact, visiting us, and that they are superior to us? In questioning them, in such a fashion, you're denying them a degree of valor they have in being of a minority opinion. For it is in gaining entrance into the minority opinion, and the open minded, that one feels provides them a shield against ever being perceived as naive.

The defense against being perceived as naive also focuses on being on the right side of matters. On global warming, for example, the intellectual Al Gore has said that the science is in, and that there should be no more scientific refutation of the idea that man is causing global warming. Isn't the very idea of global waming based on science?

When can we ever close the door on the objectivist thinking in science? Some of the science that is in on global warming is negative, but is it simply easier to believe in the negative aspects of any matter? Does it protect us against appearing naive to believe in the negative? Or am I on the naive side of the issue?

As for determining which side is the right side, I wrote a piece for my novel on this topic that I feel concludes this piece well.

Larry: "On which facts do you base your opinion? Whose ideas? When you hear an idea from someone you respect, or side with, are you more susceptible to running out to the streets without questioning the facts of the matter? And when you hear someone of the opposing viewpoint, do you instantly question his motives and his agendas? It's a natural inclination of all to question the information they hear, but it's also the human condition to question the people with whom they differ before even considering the facts. You're held in a prism of idea by your philosophy of life."

Dominic: "Well, I don't do that."

Larry: "Everyone says that. Everyone considers this practice something only people on the other side of the aisle do."

Dominic: "I have a new definition of intelligence I've developed just for you."

Larry: "Do tell?"

Dominic: "Intelligence is not only knowing the facts but being able to analyze the facts. The definition of an intellect is one who not only knows the issues, but he knows them well enough to provide astute analysis. A man treads a fine line in analysis however. He reaches a breaking point in which he begins to eventually overanalyze. In other words, one can be intelligent if he studies a fact for a truth, because there are basic truths in life. If a man studies a fact for too long he begins to see things that are not, in fact, there. It's equivalent to those dot imaging paintings that were so fashionable in the late eighties/early nineties. Twelve people could stand around staring at the same painting, and they could all see twelve different things. Who's right in such a situation? Who cares? They've all spent so much time and energy trying to create a truth for themselves that they've lost the basics."

What is the seminal difference between those who follow a religion and those who do not?

The human being is an intellectual being constantly in search of more. Most human beings are not satisfied with the status quo. Human beings seek a meaning of life. They seek an understanding of matters greater than they are. A quest exists beyond that to understand who is right and who is wrong.

One thing neither side will disagree with is that our universe, and everything beyond, exists in a harmony that is breath taking. The question that has existed for centuries is, how do we explain it? Some will say that the magnetic (i.e. gravitational) forces that one body exerts on another keeps a balance. Some will say that the reason that an asteroid or meteor has not penetrated the Earth’s rim is based on the dynamics of the Earth that can be explained scientifically. Some will say that God created all this and monitors it. Others will say that God created this universe to be self-servient. Some will say that God created man in His own image. Some will say that Darwin’s theory of evolution explains this. Others will say that evolution has occurred, but there are unexplained pockets of evolution that are either a result of a miracle or that they cannot, as of yet, be explained by humans.

We cannot, at this point, say with 100% certainty that one side is correct and the other side is 100% wrong. So, where does this leave us, on issue, with the two sides?

I don’t know if it is indigenous to America or not, but I think the two sides are divided by a sort of sports mentality. In professional and collegiate sports of the America of today, you have two sides of a championship game. You have the winner and an utter loser. No credit, in the American sports game of today, is given to finishing second. The Buffalo Bills, for example, made it to four straight Super Bowls, yet they are considered complete losers by some. The Atlanta Braves won fourteen straight division titles, yet they are considered losers for only winning one World Series. So, too, with the issue of who is right and who is wrong in the political arena of the religious versus the non-religious.

If you believe in intelligent design, you are a complete and absolute moron. There is no ceding to certain facts or ideas. There is my way and the wrong way. Scientific data explains everything, they say, and I can’t believe you don’t see this.

This uncompromising philosophy leaks over into the manner in which the non-religious regard the religious. If you believe in God and worship Him, you must seek simplistic solutions to your daily life. My question, after the atheists have attempted to debunk all that I believe, is: "Where is your passion formed?"

Why does my "simplistic" point of view provide you a threat so severe that you feel a need to lower my status as a human life form?

We all seek spiritual fulfillment. Christians, Muslims, the Jewish and all other religious factions seek inner fulfillment through belief in mysticism. In general, atheists and non religious folk seem to seek inner fulfillment through scientific and philosophic fulfillment, but most of these people that I’ve run across in my life have an emptiness that they cannot totally explain.

Some of these people find solace in short term releases. They argue that the religious folk need short term fulfillment in their lives to take the place of this never-ending search for fulfillment. If you did more drugs, or had more meaningless sexual activity in your life, then you wouldn’t worry so much about this search for greater answers. I think it can be said that other than the short term euphoria these solutions offer, they don’t provide anything substantive to the inner core.

In the end, the question must be asked: Why do you care? I am not an ardent believer in either side. I have questions on both sides. Both sides are flawed in their pursuit of truth. The greater question remains: Why do you care that I seek these answers in the method I do? Why do you care if I don’t believe the same thing you do? If I’m incorrect in my pursuits, why is there this ardent need to change my mind? Is it because you’ve been unsuccessful too, or is it that my chase for an answer isn’t as empty and unfulfilling as yours?

For most of my life, I have been led to believe that we conservatives are stuffy, self-righteous elitists who make fun of those less fortunate than we are. Perhaps this was true at one time. Perhaps, during the 60's, the conservatives were the loathsome creatures that are depicted in the movies and on television. Perhaps, there were Mr. Howells on Mount Olympus laughing at the less fortunate, but I’ve never seen it in the conservatives circles I run in.

On the show Curb Your Enthusiasm, however, we do see such a depiction of stuffy, self-righteous elitists who make fun of those less fortunate than they are. Curb Your Enthusiasm, in case you haven’t watched the program, is a show that depicts the reality of the daily life of Larry David. Or, at the very least, say insiders of the show, it depicts the reality David wants to see in his life. Larry David is the husband of environmental activist Laurie David.
 

On a recent episode, environmental activist and liberal extraordinaire, Ted Danson holds a party. We assume that this party is Ted Danson’s birthday party. We assume, with the setting, that the posh home is Ted Danson’s. David, and his fictional wife, arrive to the party in a limousine. I don’t see anything wrong with this on the surface, but again we are talking about liberals here. Wouldn’t it have been more conscientious for them to arrive in a Prius?

At the Danson home, Larry David makes a magnanimous gesture by beckoning Danson to allow his limo driver to enter the posh home. David explains that some of this magnanimous gesture is borne from the fact that David used to be a limo driver.

"You used to be a limo driver?" Danson scoffs. "All right, let him in, but keep him in the kitchen."

Keep him in the kitchen? These are liberals. Danson, Larry David, and I assume that Jeff Garlin is a liberal also due to the fact that he is on the show. Also, in a previous season’s episode Garlin scoffed that one of the people at another party was a conservative. Perhaps, he was only reading a line written by David, but the show advertises itself as a largely unscripted show, and that most of the lines are improvised in a framework. How could liberals demand that a laborer be kept in the kitchen? Shouldn’t he be invited into the inner throes of the party? Shouldn’t that there is no difference his class and the class of the Davids and the Dansons? Instead, he is informed of his status in their world and kept in the kitchen.

Then, in the David’s framework, the idiot, peasant limo driver can’t help but become intoxicated when left to his own devices. He can’t help but grope Danson’s wife, and David gets thrown out of the Danson home for allowing the man in.

On the surface of it, there’s nothing wrong with what Danson did. The man did become intoxicated, broke some vase or something stumbling into the room, and he did grope Danson’s wife. But shouldn’t a good liberal attempt to understand the man’s actions? What if the limo driver were a member of a minority persuasion? Would that have changed Danson’s reaction to the man? What if the man were mentally diminished in some way? He wasn’t any of these things, but he was of a lower class. Shouldn’t the Danson’s have attempted to see that the pain of not being one of them could only be soothed by imbibing alcohol?

There was nothing wrong with what happened on this show. It was an exclusive birthday party to which David beckoned Danson to allow his personal limo driver into the party, but it goes against everything I’ve been told about the difference between liberals and conservatives from the liberal perspective. Those last two words are the key to it all: "The liberal perspective." Character, as the old saying says, is what you do when no one else is looking. Granted, this was on a national broadcast, but I don’t think that anyone involved in the show believed that anyone was looking at their show from another perspective. So, they acted in their usual stuffy, self-righteous and elitist manner, and the best manner in which one can diffuse guilt for acting in such a manner is to accuse the other of doing it first before anyone analyzes you.