Raving Conservative


Thursday, January 25, 2007

Who Didn’t See This Coming?

Predictably, Hezbollah has engaged in a violent effort to force a coup in Lebanon. Their desire for power has caused them to foment riots. People have been killed. Property has been destroyed. All in an effort to force new elections during a time when Hezbollah believes it could gain power so they can enforce their version of Muslim rule on that country.

As much as I love to be an “I told you so” I did not bother to write about this imminent occurrence after the war with Israel because it was, and remains my opinion that a blind monkey could have seen this coming. No matter what a terrorist group does to try to “legitimize” itself it will always be a violent, oppressive, and evil movement at heart. All who try to deal with these people rationally or compassionately are doomed fools who will be stabbed in the back at the earliest opportunity by these same fiends who lie when they say they want peace and “negotiations.”

Naturally, liberals and the U.N. will continue to believe that these fiends can be dealt with as if they were human beings and not devils in human guise. In time, these fools will regret their stupidity.

Sunday, January 21, 2007

16 Days and Counting

It has been 16 days since I was hung up on by a representatve of the National Republican Congressional Committee for asking a simple question. I have made several calls to headquarters. I have left mesages. The only time I reached a human being he told me he was teh wrong one to speak to, transferred me, and I wound up leaving a voicemail.

I know I am only one of millions of Republicans, and probably a million members of the NRCC. But how many of them are calling the main office during the off-season? An dont' give me that crap abou being short-staffed again!

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

The Vanity of the Specialty

I recently completed a rather disastrous history course. I say disastrous because I took it expecting to learn history, and the instructor taught it expecting to teach critical thinking.

Do I even need to begin to say the ways this created conflict in this class?

However, this post is not about my perceived injustices, deceptions, or inconsistencies in the class. It is about they way the instructor reinforced the idea that people get very vain about fields of study that they spend a great deal of time in.

Take, for example, the following statement, which amuses me to no end: The study of history is not memorizing stale and dated paradigms, names, dates and places. The study of history is one of the richest endeavors in academia. No where else can information be gathered, verified, examined and considered with the benefit of hindsight.

Before I begin my critical analysis, let me remind you that this instructor seems to consider himself to be a great logical thinker, so great, in fact, that if anyone comes to a different conclusion than he does from looking at the same materials the other person is not thinking hard or clearly enough, and he was rabid regarding spelling and grammar.

No where,” perhaps he meant “nowhere” “else can information be gathered, verified, examined [,] and considered with the benefit of hindsight.” Is that so? Allow me to do an ever so brief examination of several fields of study and determine if this statement is true, or simply the vain hogwash of someone who elevates his own field of study while demeaning others.

1 - Biology: The study of biology, interestingly enough, includes a great deal of research and experimentation conducted in the past that is still built upon to this very day. Technically, a discovery made yesterday is in the past and is now available for study with some degree of hindsight. Also, unlike history, which can only prove what, where, and how while historians around the globe fight over the why, biology is able to verify past results with current experiments, and also to verify current results with the results of past experiments. While there is always some room for interpretation of the data, properly done biology is constantly self correcting. It’s a beautiful thing.

2 - Geology: The study of geology is embedded in the past. While it is not history in the classical sense, it is still a form of history; it’s the history of the Earth rather than the history of humanity. Almost all of the data gathered is studying the past and almost all of it is examined not only with the benefit of hindsight, but there are very clear relations and distinctions that are not possible to be muddled by some eyewitness in times past telling a lie that may or may not be verifiable as a lie.

3 – Paleontology: Studying fossils. That’s all hindsight.

4 – Astronomy: Interestingly enough, due to the speed of light and the vast distances between stars, the study of astronomy is actually a study of the history of the Universe, with all of the same benefits and restrictions as geology, especially in the field of astro-geology.

5 – Literature: Hindsight and modern relevance are essential to the modern understanding of the classics. Shakespeare, Byron, Poe, Shelly, Stoker, Dickens, and others wrapped moral and cultural messages into their writings as they entertained us and provides a peek into the minds of people in the past. Their relevance today is wrapped up in how people can still relate to their work. We are able to study them, not just as stories and poems, but to look at their literary devices, imagery, and speech patterns, allowing us to gain a historical perspective on literature and the legacy great authors and poets have carved out to this very day.

6 – Art: Almost identical to literature, just in pictures and sculpture rather than words.

7 - Mathematics: The current level of mathematical understanding is built upon thousands of years of constant calculations, formulae, and even mathematical debate. Not only does it have what may be the richest and most detailed history of any area of study, but all of mathematical history can be examined, verified, and tested as both a modern exercise and a look in the past from the modern perspective. It is also the only field of study where the conclusions that are drawn are so solid that they can be called fact in every instance. 2+2 always equals 4, but in history who plus how does always equal why, and if you believe this particular individual, none of the whys are completely trustworthy anyway.

I shall stop here. The point is that everything has a past or looks into the past whether it is the study of history or a more functional study. That past can always be examined with the benefit of hindsight as well. Human history does not hold the sole patent on this process.

In this instructor’s obsession with trying to criticize the why, he has lost sight of the who, how, where, and when without which, there would be no why to search for. “history is not what you write. Why because no one has the absolute end on what fact is true, false, twisted, used for agenda. A student, a reader any average person cannot simply read one text and say it is so all facts are known - biases permiate all works - including original source material.” (Note that this is unchanged from the original, grammatical errors and misspellings are all original. I remind you that this professor was obsessive about spelling and grammar. Would you trust his assessment of your grammar?) Again we see evidence of personal vanity getting in the way of facts. History is what happened, where it happened, and who was involved first and foremost because these are the only three of the four aspects of history that can be verified beyond reasonable dispute. Did the holocaust happen? Yes. Did George Washington have a habit of sodomizing elephants? No. The why is the debatable part that employs many historians today, and they are all arguing over whose idea of why is better, more reliable, or more eloquent. The reason is because the facts of history are known. We have dug so deeply into it that only Archaeology, another of the grand hard sciences, is digging up a significant number of new facts to be examined.

biases permiate all works - including original source material” has anyone stopped to consider that these biases in the original source material are valid historical facts that indicate the depth and complexity of why something happened? Might this not indicate that the constant arguing about why just might be pointless since every reason that can be found is, in fact, part of the why? Naturally, this is far too simple a concept for the sophisticated mind of the serious scholar. Biases are the same as lies and must be weeded out or modified into non-bias. Whatever.

It seems that history has lost itself, or, at least, the historians have. “Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it” is absolutely true. Even the most casual observer can see that when racial hatred became institutionalized in Germany it resulted in the holocaust. If you do not know this then you risk repeating that cycle in your own home. Why the racial hatred was institutionalized is a fascinating study that has not been fully settled, and never will be in all likelihood. Thank God we don’t need to figure out the why in order to understand the what and the how so we can avoid committing the same atrocities ourselves. And if the why is so full of lies and inaccuracies that it can never be settled then perhaps we should let the historians argue it out while the rest of us learn the reliable part of history. Nah, the why can be found, the real problem is that there are vain historians who are going around trying to divine great secrets under the assumptions that history is a giant pack of lies that needs to be untangled.

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Preliminary Presidential Match-ups

Based on the current field of Presidential hopefuls, this is how I intend to vote depending on who wins the nominations. In all match-ups the Republican is first and the Democrat is second.

McCain : Clinton = McCain
McCain : Obama = McCain
McCain : Richardson = Richardson
McCain : Vilsack = ?
McCain : Gore = McCain
McCain : Edwards = McCain

Guilianni : Clinton = Guilianni
Guilianni : Obama = Obama
Guilianni : Richardson = Richardson
Guilianni : Vilsack = Vilsack
Guilianni : Gore = ?
Guilianni : Edwards = ?

Romney : Clinton = Romney
Romney : Obama = Romney
Romney : Richardson = Romney
Romney : Vilsack = Romney
Romney : Gore = Romney
Romney : Edwards = Romney

At this point all other probable candidates are inconsequential. While this may change as the election looms nearer, the actual possible match-ups when the dust settles are the ones I have listed. The Republican field is definitely narrower than the Democrat field, largely because of a lack of realistic alternatives to the three men I have mentioned, at least, alternatives who will run for Presient in '08. The Field of Democrats is wide open, and out of what is sure to be many challengers, the candidates that I have listed here are proabably more likely to win the nomination than any others who may or may not have declared an intent to run yet. Yes, I left John Kerry out on purpose because there is no way he can win a second nomination by the Democrats after the way he let them down, grasping defeat from the jaws of what could have been an easy victory in '06. His blunders as a candidate galvanized the Republicans in a way that only Hillary Clinton can hope to exceed.

I will update this list if it becomes neccessary, but probably not before the nominees have been chosen. I know politics wel enough to decide who I intend to vote for before I hear most of the potential Presidential candidates open thei mouths. See, I know their records and their personal beliefs.

Friday, January 05, 2007

What the Heck?

This is interesting. I had a representative of the National Republican Congressional Committee call me just a few moments ago and ask me to renew my membership. Naturally, I said I would. Then I asked her if she could answer a question that has been nagging me since November. I asked if she knew whether the Powers that be in the Republican Party interpereted the recent loss of Congress as a call to return to our conservative roots, or if they thought it meant the repulican was not centrist or liberal enough.

She hung up on me.


I just told her I was going to pay the NRCC money to have my membership renewed, but I was curious about the strategy, and rather than take my money she hung up! Goodness gracious, what kind of way is that to treat your supporters? It's crap like this that has me wanting desperately to be or find the next great conservative leader in the Republican party. I am too young and inexperienced to be that personally, so for now I am desperately hoping the party faithful have the foresight to nominate Mitt Romney for President.

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

The Execution of Saddam Hussein

The time has come and Saddam Hussein has been executed, and a video of his last moments has been plastered all over the news and the internet.

I have been following this since the day Saddam’s appeal failed and he was ordered to be executed. Here are my observations.

Saddam Hussein was a monster who deserved to die, no doubt about that. But There were some highly revealing things that came out in his last days. The first observation I made was that as his death loomed nearer he seemed to remember what it was that first drove him into the political arena. He remembered the love he once had for his country and the dreams he had of making Iraq a great nation before this dream was lost in a lust for power and lasting personal fame and glory. Basically, it seems that Saddam fell prey to the corruption of power, admittedly, very quickly, and he lost his former vision in the tumult of holding powerful positions. This is a common trap that many politicians and other leaders fall into. The big difference between Saddam and many other leaders of nations is that he had complete control over everything. He was despotic dictator, while most of the politicians and leaders in the world have strong restrictions on their power through the structure of the government or military. Absolute power may or may not corrupt more than great power that falls short of absolute, but it does allow much greater freedom to exercise that corruption without anything to stop the individual.

The second observation is that Saddam Hussein was able to face death with dignity. I automatically gain some respect for anyone who, once convicted and sentenced for his crimes is able to accept death and take his punishment like a man rather than whining and crying all the way to the gallows, electric chair, injection table, gas chamber, or whatever other means of execution in being performed. Indeed, the only one in the video of the execution who seemed to have any composure was Saddam. However, while I personally consider unprofessional, unnecessary, and simply immature to taunt and insult a condemned man as he is about to be executed, I must admit that I am not surprised that this happened. Historically, whenever a murderer or other egregious criminal has been executed the audience and even the executioner have taunted and insulted the condemned during the execution. While we have moved away from this for the most part here in the U.S. it must be noted that this happened here for centuries as well. In the end, while I understand that people are upset that Saddam was not given a dignified execution I find myself unmoved by the conduct of his executioners.

Finally, I noted my own reactions and emotions the whole situation. I am satisfied that justice ha been meted out in a properly swift manner and that Saddam Hussein finally got the punishment he so greatly deserved. I also find that I have no happiness that this happened, and that my one wish in this whole situation is that someone had been allowed to speak to Saddam about the Forgiveness that was available to him in Jesus Christ so that he did not have to burn in Hell for his crimes if would but repent and submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in his heart. If this did happen he certainly did not accept this ministry because he carried a copy of the Koran, a book he didn’t exactly obey, to his execution. By my estimation, under Islam he was definitely less than 51% good and was doomed to hell by his own religion and the only chance he had was to come to Christ. Some of you may wonder why I would want to give such a horrible man the chance to be saved after all he has done. I answer thusly: “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that none may perish, but have everlasting life.” This includes such monsters as Saddam Hussein, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and even Mao. I want to everyone given the chance to be redeemed by Jesus, no matter how horrific their crimes may be because the punishment for sin is the same for everyone. The punishment is eternity in Hell, and the only way to escape is through forgiveness in Jesus Christ. It may be weird that I think murderers, rapists, and child molesters should die while being given every chance to come to Jesus before their execution, but the one is the necessary just punishment for an action while the other is the necessary duty to try to save every soul from eternal punishment. Does mean I am conflicted in any way about the execution of Saddam Hussein? Not at all. He murdered hundreds of thousands of people and death was the only proper punishment for such a crime.

Good riddance Saddam Hussein. It’s a shame you lost yourself in power, and it’s an even bigger shame that you must now pay for your crimes for all eternity when you had a way out. At least you faced death with courage and dignity, and that, at least, is worth something.

Listed on BlogShares