The other day I had the pleasure of talking to the archetype, the quintessential, the cliche, person on the left of the political spectrum.

It didn't take very long to see that he was a liberal, and of course, it didn't take long for him to see me as a conservative. Shortly into the conversation, he said that it's about time we had a woman president, and he was quick to offer up the veritable poster-woman of American politics: Hillary Clinton.
I replied with a standard, "I will not vote for her."
"Why!? Why!?" he asked, champing at the bit.
Calmly I replied, "I don't agree with her policies."
"I can see you're a conservative," he replied, with a sneer.
"Mostly, though I tend to be moderate."
"Ha. Yeah," he said, sarcasm dripping from his mouth (or maybe that was saliva).

And then came the most infuriating part:
"So yeah, you don't think she should be elected because she's a woman, huh," he espoused, pushing hard to jam some words in my mouth.
"No, I don't agree with her policies," I said, matter-of-factly. It's the truth, so why should I hide from it?
"You see, to me, conservatives say that people shouldn't be elected because of blank. You can fill the blank with sex, or race or social status." Again, trying to put words in my mouth. And, without giving me anytime to rebut that statement, effectively tying to make me own his statement, he said, "Well what policies don't you agree with?"
"Health care, for starters."
(Note: Probably the funniest part of this discourse is that he wanted her elected because of her gender, and I don't want her elected because of her views.)

There's really not much need to disect the conversation any farther. What he tried to do, and did because I became frustrated, was to force on me beliefs that aren't mine, beliefs which may very well belong to other people, but not me. And of course, once he had written me off as an "idiot Bush voter" and an "ignorant conservative" any hope at meaning conversation and discourse was thwarted. And yes, it was thwarted because it was intentional on his part.

The nature of the problem is that I understand him. I know how he thinks; I know why he thinks what he thinks. I just don't agree with him - and he has no desire to understand why. All that matters is that his world not be shaken, not be attacked, not be tarnished in any way, and the best way to do that is to belittle your opponent. Write him off as less intelligent; a bigot. Make sure it's all untrue. Why care what he actually believes?

Why is the left so scared of the right? Or the middle for that matter? There are opposing views out there, and the difference between he and I is that I can counter the veiws opposing mine. And as an added bonus, I need not dehumanize my opponent to do so. If you're going to be "better" than me, at least actually be better than me. Please...

Slate article

This is an editorial about learning to fire shotguns and pistols.

Owning and operating a gun is something to be proud of, despite what the UN and many Americans seem to think.

If you want to stand up for a soldier who took into account his own survival, fill out this petition:
Petition

If you don't think that petition is worth anything or that that soldier should not have your support, read this from 1945.
Dachau

And also, anyone comparing us to Hitler's Nazi Germany should read this:
Disanalogous

So I've been trying to get something straight lately, after I made an observation the other day. And I'm not sure I have it all figured out yet.

For some reason, we're supposed to take care of Iran by ourselves. Of course this is the premise being put forth by the same people who say that we're wrong to have busted in on Iraq and jumped the UN.

Are people not willing to see Iran subject to years of weapons inspections? If so, what does this say about our Iraq policy? Remember? It's the one where we had years of weapons inspections which were treated like a big joke. It just seems strange to me.

Either we're right to go it alone or wrong to go it alone, and I'm not saying there's never a time for unilateralism, but this is just nuts. Why aren't these people pushing the high and mighty UN, you know, the pinnacle of modern moral society, to disarm Iran?

I'm aware that the UN just made a breakthough, but the point still stands. Where are all the Americans rooting for the UN in all this?

So says the head of NATO:

New York Times

Apparently America isn't as far off as Old Europe seems to think. Keep in mind this is coming from the New York Times, which isn't exactly the most pro-American policy newspaper around.

Maybe there's something to our policy?

Maybe it's not so bad Bush got re-elected.

Maybe the Bush Doctrine isn't based on folly.

Maybe we still do have some rational friends in Europe.

Maybe there's some strength left in NATO.

Maybe France and Germany are wrong.

Maybe there are some people left that believe there are people in the world that want to destroy our freedoms.

Maybe I'm just thinking out of my ass.

Happy Veteran's Day.

I will now join the chorus of the great many people who will ask you to step back and think about what you have been afforded in this country. The fact is, whether we like it or not, the military and the way we use our military is an extention of ourselves and our freedoms.

Given the ongoing war in Iraq, if you disagree with the policy, do not take it out on the soldier. It is he that puts his life at risk so that you can spit in his face and degrade his intelligence. He is far tougher than you and I, and ought to be respected. Isn't that the point of all of this?

You can sit home, drink tea with milk, sugar, or honey (or all three), put on your slippers, fetch the morning paper, shower with hot water, drive your car to work, go to Starbucks for a pick-me-up, hit up cultural themed restaurants for lunch with authentic cultural foods, return to work in your nice car, and finally head home for a dinner and time with the kids.

And of course, during all of this you passed some time talking politics, badmouthing the President, various senators, and all those who do not agree with you.

Were this Soviet Russia, were this Communist Poland, Communist Germany, Communist Bosnia, Communist China, were this pre-war Iraq, modern day Iran, or pre-war (Taliban) Afghanistan, there would be soldiers on your door, murdering your family before your eyes, before finally executing you. And from there it is off to the mass graves.

And of course, here you are, with the freedom to mock the President, the senators, the opposing party.

Take a moment and think about that. That halfway across the world, people slave away in first and second-world economies, with no rights. If you're a woman, this should hold especially true.

Let's not forget that we're all Americans. Let's not forget that we all have visions of what our country should be, and that we all should strive to carry on peacefully. But let's not forget that we both need and possess a strong hand, a strong arm, a big stick that is equally as important. We have a Gandhi half and a Patton half, a dove half and a hawk half.

The dove half could not exist without the hawk half. There are a great many who would like to take away your right to speak with impunity. They would have you live in a a 7th century state, with women as silent, unimportant. You could only have one religion - theirs. You could only speak one way - in their tongue. You could only live one way - their way.

We are Americans, and we have shown time and time again that we do things our way, and will not be told what to do. And to make sure of that, we salute our soldiers, and we honor those who died so that we can live as we do. We always promise not to forget, but we always take it for granted. Isn't that just as bad?

How many actually take the time to reflect on how different things could be for us? That we could be speaking German, or Japanese? Or Arabic? Let's uphold our moral duties on this day and not overlook the greatness of our soldiers. Their valor and skill are second to none, and deserves recognition.

From Dave Kopel:

President of the United States: The people of the United States defied the United Nations, and reelected their pro-rights president. President Bush's reelection helps ensure that the 2006 United Nations conference on small arms will not become a back-door path to destroying the Second Amendment. President Bush will almost certainly sign any pro-rights legislation that passes Congress. After lawsuit reform, the most important bill would be the restoration of Second Amendment rights to citizens of the District of Columbia.

Dave Kopel is a proponent of gun rights and the Second Amendment.

The reason I'll be keeping my eye on this development is that I don't believe the UN holds any power over me directly. Should they take some action which restricts my rights to gun ownership I will not comply. It's not like I'll end up on the World Court (thanks GWB).

My rights are mine and are not subject to any foreign entity. I abide the laws and uphold my rights as provided by the Constitution of the United States. The U.N. is both impotent and weak, and is not a government.

So for the Democrats, it's a crossroads. After being swept in the House, Senate and Presidential races (and arguably the Court now) they are going to have to change their tone and reform strategy if they hope to win.

It's not all that clear-cut though. Going negative, as John Kerry did, didn't exactly win the Democrats the esteem of the American people. In the debates Kerry came out and attacked the last four years of GWB policy, and while it worked for his energized core, it didn't exactly bring out the swing voter - at least not for his direct advantage.

The obvious silver lining is that if the next four years go badly, things are likely to sway back to the left. This doesn't bode well for a "moderation in all things" political scene. As discovered in this election though, rooting against America doesn't work out well (hat tip: Instapundit). So what does that mean? I'd like to believe there will be a dichotomy in the Democratic party, where any disdain for the current administration and Republicans is talked about rationally and mostly in-house, and to the general population they speak with distinction and pride in their own values. After all, the Democrats have values too. They shouldn't forget it.

Unfortunately current indicators seem to say that instead of a policy of mutual respect, we seem to have more backlashing going on than meaningful conversation. What we have is an angry "divorce" on our hands. While the Democrats are playing the angry spouse who may have legitimate reasons for being angry, they are instead being manifested in veiled threats and general insults. And so we end up with a lot of name calling directed at the "homophobic," "Bible beating," "gun owning" and "stupid" right side.

It's time for some marriage counseling. To the outside and objective world, name-calling only demeans your argument. Bring the substantive arguments, or be quiet.

So what is in store for 2008? More of the same? If things go badly, did the Democratic Party already play the "this administration sucks" card? Given the current scene in which the the "Bush is stupid" argument is extending to the "Bush voter is stupid" argument, I would venture a "yes." So, if the Democrats face a particularly strong Republican candidate in 2008, and the next four years are full of economic growth, tax breaks, and peace in Iraq, then it's pretty much over. The only way to take down a candidate with that in his pocket is to say "I can do it better," and "they are doing it wrong." And of course, that didn't work very well for John Kerry. Despite the lack of an incumbent next term, the Democrats are going to have to pretend that there is one, and that he has the advantage. If they don't, they'll sink again.

I want to see both candidates not only have plans, but explain them. I want to see that the views they espouse are just possible but fundable. I want a candidate to explain that 300 billion dollars of programs will be paid for with 300 billion dollars. I don't want to hear that 97 billion dollars can pay for 300 billion dollars worth of initiatives. Less talking points, more substance in 2008. Please...

So I overhauled this page to use the Blogger interface, which for me is going to be like Moveable Type only without the need for PERL scripts, so my cheapass hosting will let me have comments postable on this page. Yep, I've finally materialized this thing into a real blog. Exciting huh?

The comments section is still unstyled of yet, and I have intentions to catch up on that later. I also want to re-add the Google ads in the sidebar and re-insert nav links to other parts of my site and friends' pages. I hope the template will allow me to do it, though I'm sure I can finagle something. The colors aren't quite perfected just yet so I think I will either fix that now or later, but my goal was that you wouldn't notice any difference between this page now and before. They're actually pretty close.

Later I hope to re-add my old archived posts up here. Some of them were pretty good. I also intend to make this more a farce or spoof of the modern world. Hopefully that'll work out.

Anyway, I'll be back to the politicking soon enough, so hold your damn horses. And remember to check me out over at The Car Blog!

Testing out some possible changes to this site by using BLOGGER.