Racism

"Racism." That's the term many on the political Left choose to use when referring to those of us who are opposed to illegal immigration. To be fair, it isn't everyone who leans towards the liberal side of things that calls conservatives racist. But it is enough for the main stream media to barrage us with that sort of namecalling.

As best I can tell, the racist charge looks something like this formula:

Opposition to Illegal Immigration = Not Liking Hispanics/Latinos.

How one arrives at this kind of formula, I will never know, because I honestly believe all human beings are equal in value to one another. I will go a step further and say that every single person is created in the image of the triune God. At the same time, I am adamantly against aliens trying to unlawfully enter this nation.

I am 100% in favor of having foreigners migrate to this country, only let it be done the right way: legally. If you're unhappy with the process to gain citizenship or the amount of people allowed to emigrate to the United States, then work to change the existing laws.

It baffles me how people on the Left think they can somehow completely understand the hidden motivations and intents of our hearts, and even read into our beliefs the opposite of what we say that we mean. For example, I'm not a racist ... but I am accused of being one because I believe people should only emigrate to the U.S. legally. This doesn't make sense to me. Let me explain my own beliefs and convictions, and please, please, take me at my word.

Around lunchtime I have a chance to catch some of talk radio, and today heard a segment on Medved's show that made me laugh out loud in frustration. For some reason Michael Medved has increasingly become a moderate Republican, and that is especially the case when it comes to illegal immigration. He said that he thinks it is a bad idea for the Republican Party to be known as the "anti-Latino" party because of our stance against illegal immigration.

What I want to ask Michael is this: how is being against illegal-immigration against Latinos? If his answer is that is how I will be perceived by the Mexican-American population, my response would be: so be it. There is nothing I can do if someone wrongly chooses to believe Republicans are racists for trying to secure our borders, and uphold our laws. Oy ... never know what I'm gonna get when I listen to talk radio =)

Ah, the joys of politics,

Rusty

LOST is nearing the end *sniffle sniffle*

For those of you who have yet to enjoy NBC's LOST, I will do my best to not include any spoilers whatsoever. w00ty freakin w00t.

Ran across this article today, written by the actor who plays Hurley, giving his final thoughts and comments on the show coming to a close.

I didn't become an avid fan until season 4, and that only because my best friend was a mega-fan of the show. I vividly remember more than one Nelson family get-together where my presence was a conversation killer. The reason? Because I had yet to watch LOST, and they refused to spoil it for me.

Reluctantly, I began to watch the show by borrowing the DVD's from Scott. He and his sister introduced some of the LOST theorists presented through YouTube, and that's when I knew the series was a hit.

Emily has also taken to the show, and the two of us have made it a weekly ritual to watch that week's episode at Scott and Mindy's place on Tuesdays. I honestly don't know what we're going to do after this Sunday night when LOST is over. I imagine we'll have to get started on a new show =) (Emily already wants to begin Alias. Sooo ... Alias it is!).

For those of you who have yet to get lost in LOST (yes, I really did say that outloud; err, via chat), I will say that this is my second favorite show of all time. My favorite part about the series is that just once I feel I'm gaining a grasp on what's really going on, they introduce a new perspective that changes everything.

Whatever the 2.5 hours series finale brings, I'm sure I'll love every minute of it.

Until next time,
Rusty

You mean the President isn't a gamer?!

Hampton University had the honor of having President Obama deliver the commencement address to those in attendance. Unless you’re living in Canada, you’ve no doubt heard some of the controversial remarks he made about information, technology and democracy. Here is the relevant portion of these remarks:

“And meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- (laughter) -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.”

Most of what I’ve caught the news media discussing is how the President is somewhat “dissing” technology and video games. While this is somewhat true, I personally believe a president ought to have some leeway in poking fun at certain genres – in this case, technologies – without getting beat up about it.

What is upsetting about the President’s words, however, have nothing to do with the President’s inability to use an ipad or xbox360. Ironically enough, while mentioning kinds of informational distractions, he uses distractions himself by joking about his lack of having and using various technologies and games. I believe that the President’s point had very little to do about technology, and everything to do with information being harmful for democracy.

We are living in the “Information Age,” and as Barack Obama rightly pointed out, we have a wealth of information available to us. In fact, we have more information available than any civilization in the history of mankind. The President specifically mentions that there are bad arguments out there. I happen to agree with him. But this begs the question: why bother to mention this? If we continue reading his comments we’ll discover his purpose when he said, “information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.”

I’m sorry, what?! So then, knowledge isn’t power?

To those who have defended the President by arguing that his only intention was to say that video games and entertainment media are unhelpful, I would simply ask how this makes sense considering the speech in its entirety? He spends a great deal of time talking about democracy, and even does so here. He goes so far as to mention bad arguments that don’t rank high in truthfulness.

This leads me to my next question: is the President implying that certain forms of information are dangerous to democracy? If so, what should be done about it?

Do I even need to mention the first amendment and the right to free speech for citizens? This means that even when there are arguments and beliefs I disagree with, people should have the right to express their perspectives. Period. Even if they are bad arguments that don’t rank high on the truth meter. How can this be bad for Democracy? I would submit to you that it is beneficial and necessary for Democracy. Let every perspective be expressed and let the people decide for themselves.

My fear in hearing Obama’s speech is the undertone that bad arguments and untruthful arguments are an enemy of empowerment, emancipation and democracy. Is he implying that government has the responsibility to ensure only good arguments are delivered to the public? I sincerely hope not.

Had Benjamin Franklin attended the commencement ceremony he would not have been pleased by Obama’s thoughts about more information being bad for democracy. It was Franklin who published one of the more popular newspapers in the colonies and experienced first-hand the underhanded back-biting that took place in nearly every paper (he even contributed on more than one occasion). Were Obama to be consistent, he would have to condemn the bad arguments and untruths taking place at the time of the Revolution so that democracy would be benefited. Ironically, it was the expression of many opinions and beliefs – even bad arguments and untrue statements – that contributed to our own political process, and not an attempt to convince the public that only certain kinds of information are helpful to emancipation.

On a side-note, G4TV’s take on this issue has been hilarious. Gamers are all up in arms now. Better not diss technology if you wanna have the l33test fans ftw, Mr. President =).

Thanks for reading,
Rustoleum

The Tea Partier's Rallying Cry

It was completely a spur of the moment decision, but remember a couple weeks back when those Tea Party rallies were happening all over the country? I decided to attend one. I have had mixed feelings about the movement, and I wasn’t overly happy to discover that they take almost no stances on any moral issue. The only things they are united on are their desire for lower taxes and less government.

For whatever reason, I was watching the most boring television program on FoxNews: Greta Van Sustren’s hour-long segment, and for the first time in a long time she caught my attention. I mean she really caught my attention. She was talking about the Tea Party rallies that would be happening (this was the day before April 15th), about the President’s health care bill, and how the Federal government will increase the tax bracket. 10pm being way past my bedtime, I stayed up well past 11pm watching the program and trying to mentally sort out some political issues.

Tax Day was one of my days off that week, so once I woke up and saw live footage of Tea Party rallies around the nation, I knew I had to see what they were all about. The one held in the East Valley was at Freestone Park in Gilbert, which was all of 2 miles away. Parking was a nightmare until the police designated a nearby field as a parking lot =). People were showing up in droves, and the atmosphere was electric. I heard people talking about their outrage for the ever-expanding growth of government and how this is an encroachment of their rights. Of course, there were uber-libertarians present as well, opposed to 99.9% of government functions – I don’t fit this category, mainly because there are certain things I believe government is responsible for: protecting her citizens and securing our liberties.

Dozens upon dozens of speakers were given an opportunity to briefly promote their Tea Party group, and I heard a variety of opinions about government, tax policy, health insurance, and a few moral issues. Overall, the one thing that was abundantly clear about the movement’s goals: fewer taxes and less government = more freedom and liberty. Having thought of Tea Partiers for years as Ron Paul radicals, it was a pleasant surprise to find thousands of normal people all with the same goal.

The event was unfolding with a relative calm until the one (yes, only one) protestor showed up. I kid you not, the very moment he started loudly booing, he was encircled by dozens of people angry at his disruption. Hoping that the poor guy wouldn’t get killed for his foolishness, I stepped in to shake his hand and hear him out. We had a fairly decent conversation about the purpose of government, capitalism vs. socialism, morality and worldviews, and then religion. We exchanged email addresses to further our conversation. I’ll let you know if anything comes of it.

At one point during the rally I was getting bored, hot and tired, so I began making my way back towards Leia II. Once I reached the parking lot, a nice-looking suburban stops in front of me and out steps J.D. Hayworth (running for Senate)! I stood there for a moment, probably looking a bit dumbfounded, pointed to him and said, “J.D.?” He came over, shook my hand and asked my name. He then invited me to walk with him into the rally. In the midst of our very general and brief conversation, I managed to say to him that I was glad he was running and that “I’m not 100% sure who I’ll be voting for, but definitely not McCain!” He laughed.

A friend at church made a suggestion that I may take: somehow helping J.D. Hayworth’s election campaign. I have a strong desire to do something to help the Republicans and put a stop to the rapid expansion of government started by President Obama and the Democratic Party.

On a related note … the information that initially caught my attention on Greta Van Sustren’s show was a discussion of how much the average middle-class American’s tax bracket will increase if Obama gets his way. Right now it is sitting at 35%, that is, until the Bush tax cuts Obama didn’t renew expire. From that simple action alone the tax bracket will be raised to 41%. Obamacare was signed into law but hasn’t taken effect yet. Once the bill and program begins to need funding this will add anywhere from 12-16% in taxes. This is guestimated by considering most European nations that have a government insurance program. Even if we go with the lowest number of 12%, this raises the tax bracket of the average middle-class citizen from 35% to 53%! I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. This kind of FDR / Jimmy Carter policy is just too much government. I would go a step further and say that even 35% is too much.

The desire for the state to gain more power is never ending, and must be kept in check at every turn to keep government in its place. The fact of the matter is, with the right kinds of reform government insurance is unnecessary. In fact, public education is unnecessary. How can I say this? Think about it: what did people ever do before the government provided insurance for them? Weeell, they purchased insurance on their own. Or, what did people do before government-run schools? Were Americans uneducated? Actually, the private schools in the United States were considered the best in the world, at one time. Charter schools are a step in the right direction, but really, the Department of Education is utterly unnecessary. Who is the government to define what an education is and is not anyway? Americans want to be educated, and we don’t need the government to coerce them to receive one. The benefits to finding a job require people to get one. But I’m straying a bit off topic; surely the reader gets my meaning.

I’ll conclude with this: the November elections are approaching, and with them I hope many career politicians are voted out of office. Only then will real and effective change begin to happen. This election is so critical because with enough Republicans and conservatives we can either overturn Obamacare and/or cut its funding. One way or the other, the American people have spoken: no Obamacare, and more liberty to make personal decisions. Hard to argue with that, especially in light of the Bill of Rights.

Thanks for reading,
Case