Salvete.
You know what I love about Thanksgiving? The giving of thanks to God, the communion with family, the history behind the day, the football, and, of course, the pumpkin pie.
As the years go by, it seems like Thanksgiving is becoming more and more "modern." Honestly, who gives thanks to God? Society is trying to put a big, black tarp between us and God, and atheists are multiplying by the second. It's no longer cool or smart to be a Christian. To society, religion has become a fad, like a sign of the zodiac or favorite color. It should be shameful to see God's reputation on Earth get dragged through the mud.
Family's going out of the picture too. What film in recent years has not put parents under the bus? Teenagers are being taught that your parents know little to nothing about you, and that the best thing for you to do is to cut all ties with them- except, of course, for your use of their insurance and car. Online communication has rapidly replaced in-person communication. The family unit has all but dissolved.
Then there's the problem with history. It used to be that pilgrims lived in peace and harmony with the Indians, and the Thanksgiving feast was a symbol of the good times they had. Now, the story goes that greedy, imperialist pilgrims came over, trashed the landscape, and wiped out the Native Americans with their biggest weapon, smallpox. My, how the times have changed.
Has anybody heard about the most recent news in football? I can't expect a single answer; there's just been too much news. Football players are becoming Kim Kardashians: political, easily offended, and gossipy. It's not that I don't like watching football; it's just that I want football, not some sort of extraneous garbage. No profession should be like this.
So what's left of Thanksgiving? A meaningless day off, kind of like Cesar Chavez Day. All of the good stuff has been sucked out. No wonder people start talking about Christmas weeks before Thanksgiving. That's the reason why there is Black Friday.
Well, at least there's pumpkin pie.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Offending People: Part 1
Salvete.
A couple Sundays ago I was attending church like I usually do. Every week there is a "get to know you," question, That day, the sermon topic was the environment, and the question was "What would you like to see out your window?" Most people wrote answers like Yosemite or some other nature/hobby place. Being the stereotypical conservative I was, I put down "coal mining facilities" as a joke. I got lectured to, and I eventually threw the nametag away. It got me thinking: why should offensive things be social faux pas? Our Constitution allows us to say whatever we want, but that doesn't stop American society from running over anyone with an offensive comment. What's the matter with our nation? What good is there with shutting people up? There is no difference in the eyes of justice between offensive speech and pacified speech, so why should there be any social difference?
It frustates me when I want to voice my opinion. Either I cannot because "it's not the time" (it's never the time for politics), or I get drowned out if I do. People say that they merely don't like politics, and the conversation ends as quickly as it started. The only political debates that are acceptable are linked with Democratic Party lines: gay rights, for instance. Guess what? I don't want for people to be gay. I can't express my opinion, however, because I'm shut out if I do. How dare you, America. You're better than this.
A couple Sundays ago I was attending church like I usually do. Every week there is a "get to know you," question, That day, the sermon topic was the environment, and the question was "What would you like to see out your window?" Most people wrote answers like Yosemite or some other nature/hobby place. Being the stereotypical conservative I was, I put down "coal mining facilities" as a joke. I got lectured to, and I eventually threw the nametag away. It got me thinking: why should offensive things be social faux pas? Our Constitution allows us to say whatever we want, but that doesn't stop American society from running over anyone with an offensive comment. What's the matter with our nation? What good is there with shutting people up? There is no difference in the eyes of justice between offensive speech and pacified speech, so why should there be any social difference?
It frustates me when I want to voice my opinion. Either I cannot because "it's not the time" (it's never the time for politics), or I get drowned out if I do. People say that they merely don't like politics, and the conversation ends as quickly as it started. The only political debates that are acceptable are linked with Democratic Party lines: gay rights, for instance. Guess what? I don't want for people to be gay. I can't express my opinion, however, because I'm shut out if I do. How dare you, America. You're better than this.
Nuke 'Em: The Nuclear Option and What It Means
Salvete. Yes, it is a little late, but the nuclear option is something I believe we should discuss for weeks, well past Thanksgiving.
So why is the nuclear option important? Well, in essence, it prevents the 51% from rolling over the 49%. People are saying that, while this is supported and passed by a Democrat base, the big change would promote the Republican Party, and so the Democrats are doing Republicans a huge favor and blah, blah, blah.
It seems like nobody is realizing the big picture. Sure, Republicans could win the next election, but in the long run? The deal is far better for the Democratic Party, especially since they have historically been more likely to cheat to the top. Even if it's true, this debate shows that Republicans will side with the Constitution and traditional laws, even if it means that the party is worse off. That is the true mark of a representative.
I hope people start to see this. Oh wait, Thanksgiving's in two days. Great.
So why is the nuclear option important? Well, in essence, it prevents the 51% from rolling over the 49%. People are saying that, while this is supported and passed by a Democrat base, the big change would promote the Republican Party, and so the Democrats are doing Republicans a huge favor and blah, blah, blah.
It seems like nobody is realizing the big picture. Sure, Republicans could win the next election, but in the long run? The deal is far better for the Democratic Party, especially since they have historically been more likely to cheat to the top. Even if it's true, this debate shows that Republicans will side with the Constitution and traditional laws, even if it means that the party is worse off. That is the true mark of a representative.
I hope people start to see this. Oh wait, Thanksgiving's in two days. Great.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
South Ossetia and Palestine: Compare and Contrast
Salvete. I could talk (and was planning to talk) about many different things, but they can wait for another day. Let's talk about a topic that absolutely no one talks about: South Ossetia.
I'm a big fan of little-known countries, as you could probably tell from my love of Estonia. As I was researching various topics, I came across the country of South Ossetia. After some research, this is what I found.
Georgia has two insurgent factions: Abkhazia and South Ossetia. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, The two factions sought independence. Georgia, of course, was against the struggle, but Russia, out for revenge, took the side of the insurgents and stopped a force sent by Georgia to crush the rebels. South Ossetians were able to maintain their "independence" but weren't recognized by any major power except Russia (a few minor factions do recognize their sovereignty, like Venezuela, but they aren't strong enough to back the claim with force).
The catch is that South Ossetia (and the Russian counterpart North Ossetia) are a hop, skip, and a jump from Chechnya, the renowned terrorist home base.
At this point, the similarities between Palestine and South Ossetia should be fairly clear. The two sides are vying for independence due to nationalist ideals, and there is a definite possibility that either side could get out of hand. Both countries have been recognized by some UN states but not all.
So what, in my opinion, is the difference between Palestine and South Ossetia? For one, Palestine is generally solidly against the state of Israel. In the eyes of many, there is not enough space in the region for both of them. South Ossetia merely wants independence; there is nothing stopping Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Georgia from living in harmony. Also, there are heavy religious and ethnic motivations behind the conflict in Israel, while there is little motivation in the war for independence in South Ossetia but political and loyalty reasons.
As for myself, I support South Ossetian independence, but I can easily make a case for either side. I am, however, firmly against Palestinian independence primarily because I support a united and strong Israel as the beacon of the West in the Middle East. I welcome any arguments otherwise, and I would love to listen to comments on the topic.
I'm a big fan of little-known countries, as you could probably tell from my love of Estonia. As I was researching various topics, I came across the country of South Ossetia. After some research, this is what I found.
Georgia has two insurgent factions: Abkhazia and South Ossetia. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, The two factions sought independence. Georgia, of course, was against the struggle, but Russia, out for revenge, took the side of the insurgents and stopped a force sent by Georgia to crush the rebels. South Ossetians were able to maintain their "independence" but weren't recognized by any major power except Russia (a few minor factions do recognize their sovereignty, like Venezuela, but they aren't strong enough to back the claim with force).
The catch is that South Ossetia (and the Russian counterpart North Ossetia) are a hop, skip, and a jump from Chechnya, the renowned terrorist home base.
At this point, the similarities between Palestine and South Ossetia should be fairly clear. The two sides are vying for independence due to nationalist ideals, and there is a definite possibility that either side could get out of hand. Both countries have been recognized by some UN states but not all.
So what, in my opinion, is the difference between Palestine and South Ossetia? For one, Palestine is generally solidly against the state of Israel. In the eyes of many, there is not enough space in the region for both of them. South Ossetia merely wants independence; there is nothing stopping Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Georgia from living in harmony. Also, there are heavy religious and ethnic motivations behind the conflict in Israel, while there is little motivation in the war for independence in South Ossetia but political and loyalty reasons.
As for myself, I support South Ossetian independence, but I can easily make a case for either side. I am, however, firmly against Palestinian independence primarily because I support a united and strong Israel as the beacon of the West in the Middle East. I welcome any arguments otherwise, and I would love to listen to comments on the topic.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Halloween Afterthoughts
Salvete.
I hung out with my dad for Halloween, and we were both equally shocked at the utter lack of children in the streets. There was practically nobody. After all of the hype about Halloween and all, I was shocked to find the utter lack of trick-or-treaters. Dad told me of the time when he was a kid and the streets were sprawling on Halloween, and we talked about the change from the past to the present.
What's the difference? Fear. Fear that their kids might get shot or kidnapped or God knows what else in the streets. Some fears are valid, but most fears (especially the ones in my area or places not ridden with crime) are invalid and even unnecessary. Parents now accompany their children to protect them from everything.
But fear can't stop everything. Is fear the only factor? No. There is also a general lack of friendliness. When was the last time anyone said "Hello" as they passed by a stranger? Chances are one in a thousand that they're anyone with ill intentions, and it surely wouldn't hurt. When was the last time you did a random act of kindness for anyone? It's not sacrificing too much. We no longer go out of our way to meet strangers, to do nice things, to live in a world beyond the cell phone screen and our personal bubble. That is precisely why the percentage of American church-going people is at an all time low. That is precisely why there are no people in the streets on Halloween. We've sacrificed our acquaintanceship to fear, comfortability, and society. How dare we.
I hung out with my dad for Halloween, and we were both equally shocked at the utter lack of children in the streets. There was practically nobody. After all of the hype about Halloween and all, I was shocked to find the utter lack of trick-or-treaters. Dad told me of the time when he was a kid and the streets were sprawling on Halloween, and we talked about the change from the past to the present.
What's the difference? Fear. Fear that their kids might get shot or kidnapped or God knows what else in the streets. Some fears are valid, but most fears (especially the ones in my area or places not ridden with crime) are invalid and even unnecessary. Parents now accompany their children to protect them from everything.
But fear can't stop everything. Is fear the only factor? No. There is also a general lack of friendliness. When was the last time anyone said "Hello" as they passed by a stranger? Chances are one in a thousand that they're anyone with ill intentions, and it surely wouldn't hurt. When was the last time you did a random act of kindness for anyone? It's not sacrificing too much. We no longer go out of our way to meet strangers, to do nice things, to live in a world beyond the cell phone screen and our personal bubble. That is precisely why the percentage of American church-going people is at an all time low. That is precisely why there are no people in the streets on Halloween. We've sacrificed our acquaintanceship to fear, comfortability, and society. How dare we.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Halloween Post
Salvete.
Is it just me, or is Halloween this year far more popular and pronounced than Halloweens of past years? I guess it's just the result of all of the zombie movies, dismal news, and culture change. Yet another example how people are drifting from the light into darkness. There's plenty of darkness in this world nowadays. Crime and tyranny are just two examples. Nevertheless, I can be glad that there will be light soon.
Is it just me, or is Halloween this year far more popular and pronounced than Halloweens of past years? I guess it's just the result of all of the zombie movies, dismal news, and culture change. Yet another example how people are drifting from the light into darkness. There's plenty of darkness in this world nowadays. Crime and tyranny are just two examples. Nevertheless, I can be glad that there will be light soon.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Dual Citizenship
Salvete.
Just for kicks, I looked up the citizenship requirements for different countries. It's not for the reason that you'd think; I'm just a fan of different countries. Unfortunately, several countries (among which are Estonia and Sweden) require residency and other things to become a citizen (Estonia requires a test in Estonian. Maybe that's why the population has been decreasing). While I would love citizenship, I'm not that eager. I'm open to suggestions. Follow, like, and comment as you would please. Also, please subscribe to Trygve Plaustrum/plaustrum20 on Youtube at http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6aohxEWYpLSG6lCxxSzgYQ. I'm thinking about making videos.
Just for kicks, I looked up the citizenship requirements for different countries. It's not for the reason that you'd think; I'm just a fan of different countries. Unfortunately, several countries (among which are Estonia and Sweden) require residency and other things to become a citizen (Estonia requires a test in Estonian. Maybe that's why the population has been decreasing). While I would love citizenship, I'm not that eager. I'm open to suggestions. Follow, like, and comment as you would please. Also, please subscribe to Trygve Plaustrum/plaustrum20 on Youtube at http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6aohxEWYpLSG6lCxxSzgYQ. I'm thinking about making videos.
Would God Flood the World?
Salvete.
Most kids born and raised in the Christian faith know the story of Noah and the ark, when God saw that the world was so wicked, flooded it, and promised to never flood it again with a rainbow. It leaves me wondering: If God had not made that promise, would he flood it now?
This past Friday a gang member in my county shot several officers. The shooting occurred frighteningly near a friend's house. I never expected my county, a pinnacle of morality and conservatism, could fall so low. Cultures of good are being swallowed up by cultures of evil. This is a problem far worse than environmentalism, debt, or even inequality.
I mean, society is horrid. The top members of society are telling us to step away from God an live a filthy life based on everything that God abhors. When was the last time there was a fiction-based video game that did not involve polytheism or some other false religion? Did anybody remember the time when the Democrat Party abandoned God in their platform? You get the idea.
This isn't just a whistful remembrance of the past. What has our society come to? Society literally will not be able to function properly within the next few centuries, if not the next few decades. We can't continually be resisting the old way of things if it means destroying our morals. It's hard to believe that the despisble society of old could be worse than this society. It's hard to believe any society could be worse than this society. And yet it will be far worse in the next century, mark my words. We are creating the Apocalypse, and I can't wait for Rapture.
Most kids born and raised in the Christian faith know the story of Noah and the ark, when God saw that the world was so wicked, flooded it, and promised to never flood it again with a rainbow. It leaves me wondering: If God had not made that promise, would he flood it now?
This past Friday a gang member in my county shot several officers. The shooting occurred frighteningly near a friend's house. I never expected my county, a pinnacle of morality and conservatism, could fall so low. Cultures of good are being swallowed up by cultures of evil. This is a problem far worse than environmentalism, debt, or even inequality.
I mean, society is horrid. The top members of society are telling us to step away from God an live a filthy life based on everything that God abhors. When was the last time there was a fiction-based video game that did not involve polytheism or some other false religion? Did anybody remember the time when the Democrat Party abandoned God in their platform? You get the idea.
This isn't just a whistful remembrance of the past. What has our society come to? Society literally will not be able to function properly within the next few centuries, if not the next few decades. We can't continually be resisting the old way of things if it means destroying our morals. It's hard to believe that the despisble society of old could be worse than this society. It's hard to believe any society could be worse than this society. And yet it will be far worse in the next century, mark my words. We are creating the Apocalypse, and I can't wait for Rapture.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Amendments
Salvete. I'm a tad slow on the draw, but I'm going to talk about the "compromise" and what it means to everyone.
Just think: all it took for a "compromise" was a false compromise, a deadline, and weak senators. Imagine if that could happen for state assemblies. The Democrats of Congress could easily have two-thirds of the House and Senate, enough for the legislature to pass an amendment. If this is a repeat in only a quarter of the Republican states, Democrat liberals could pass several amendments to the Constitution before Republicans can react in the next election. This could very well have catastrophic results. What if Obamacare was a "constitutional right"? The very concept is shocking.
What would Democratic liberals choose for their special amendment when it's their time to strike? What is the most critical agenda that Democrats want to pass through without opposition? Clearly they have the funding and influence to win over corrupted Republicans. I hypothesize that they would either transfer power from the legislative branch to the executive and/or judiciary branches or make some free thing a constitutional right, like, for example, Obamacare or free Wi-Fi. If they do that, the United States constitution would now become their ally, and we conservatives would be backed into a corner and would die quietly if we didn't react aggressively.
God help us.
Just think: all it took for a "compromise" was a false compromise, a deadline, and weak senators. Imagine if that could happen for state assemblies. The Democrats of Congress could easily have two-thirds of the House and Senate, enough for the legislature to pass an amendment. If this is a repeat in only a quarter of the Republican states, Democrat liberals could pass several amendments to the Constitution before Republicans can react in the next election. This could very well have catastrophic results. What if Obamacare was a "constitutional right"? The very concept is shocking.
What would Democratic liberals choose for their special amendment when it's their time to strike? What is the most critical agenda that Democrats want to pass through without opposition? Clearly they have the funding and influence to win over corrupted Republicans. I hypothesize that they would either transfer power from the legislative branch to the executive and/or judiciary branches or make some free thing a constitutional right, like, for example, Obamacare or free Wi-Fi. If they do that, the United States constitution would now become their ally, and we conservatives would be backed into a corner and would die quietly if we didn't react aggressively.
God help us.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
A Letter to Congress
Salvete.
Dear Congress (and to whomever else it may concern);
You know what irks me?
When people sacrifice their personal values for personal gain.
You know what irks me?
When the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
You know what irks me?
When I'm helpless to confront corruption, treason, and injustice.
You know what irks me?
Well, basically, you.
So please forgive me when I get all upset and outraged and start throwing insults at you and rioting in the streets. I'm just mad that I actually managed to elect you and you betrayed me today. I'm disappointed that you think I'm worth less than a two-billion-dollar dam and that I'm just a fancy toy that you could use to your heart's desire. I'm basically just frustrated at everything right now, and I wish it all would just stop.
Sincerely,
U. S. America
P. S. If you still don't get it, I'm talking specifically about the "compromise" Republicans and Democrats made to continue reckless spending and the backroom deals with Mitch McConnell to corrupt the Republican Party and get the one-sided "compromise."
Dear Congress (and to whomever else it may concern);
You know what irks me?
When people sacrifice their personal values for personal gain.
You know what irks me?
When the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
You know what irks me?
When I'm helpless to confront corruption, treason, and injustice.
You know what irks me?
Well, basically, you.
So please forgive me when I get all upset and outraged and start throwing insults at you and rioting in the streets. I'm just mad that I actually managed to elect you and you betrayed me today. I'm disappointed that you think I'm worth less than a two-billion-dollar dam and that I'm just a fancy toy that you could use to your heart's desire. I'm basically just frustrated at everything right now, and I wish it all would just stop.
Sincerely,
U. S. America
P. S. If you still don't get it, I'm talking specifically about the "compromise" Republicans and Democrats made to continue reckless spending and the backroom deals with Mitch McConnell to corrupt the Republican Party and get the one-sided "compromise."
Friday, October 11, 2013
The China Mentality
Salvete. Let's look into the state of the American society.
For better or worse, we are becoming more and more like a more expensive China. The government is giving people more and more stuff: healthcare, college aid, social security, et cetera. As a result, people are expecting the government to do more and more for them, and they see the government as the center of it all. Especially in the recent sequester and government shutdown, the government is actively trying to promote this idea: if you can't have all this government, you can't do anything. Even though there is an abundance of inefficiencies, the United States government is making itself out to be the source of everything, from central parks to private industries ("You didn't build that!"), by taking away the most critical parts of America first, like the memorials, national parks, and profit-making industries, but withholding the inefficiencies of government, like, for example, Obamacare. What is the result of this? The government would solidify its position in private-industry affairs and immediately search for more. People just assume that the more government there is, the better off industry will be.
China is not anti-capitalist per se. They recognize the power of capitalism. The reason why they are Communist and the quality of living is so low is because the Chinese government took all of the industry away from the private sector. This is how people are able to point at China and say how well the country is doing. Yes, the Chinese government is stronger than the American government, but the American private sector runs circles around the Chinese private sector (if there is one) and the Chinese government combined. The private sector is our strength. Period. The American government is trying to limit our greatest weapon. This cannot happen.
For better or worse, we are becoming more and more like a more expensive China. The government is giving people more and more stuff: healthcare, college aid, social security, et cetera. As a result, people are expecting the government to do more and more for them, and they see the government as the center of it all. Especially in the recent sequester and government shutdown, the government is actively trying to promote this idea: if you can't have all this government, you can't do anything. Even though there is an abundance of inefficiencies, the United States government is making itself out to be the source of everything, from central parks to private industries ("You didn't build that!"), by taking away the most critical parts of America first, like the memorials, national parks, and profit-making industries, but withholding the inefficiencies of government, like, for example, Obamacare. What is the result of this? The government would solidify its position in private-industry affairs and immediately search for more. People just assume that the more government there is, the better off industry will be.
China is not anti-capitalist per se. They recognize the power of capitalism. The reason why they are Communist and the quality of living is so low is because the Chinese government took all of the industry away from the private sector. This is how people are able to point at China and say how well the country is doing. Yes, the Chinese government is stronger than the American government, but the American private sector runs circles around the Chinese private sector (if there is one) and the Chinese government combined. The private sector is our strength. Period. The American government is trying to limit our greatest weapon. This cannot happen.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Capitol Camera
Salvete. So I go onto the Senate website, hoping to see some of the debate about the most controversial program in United States history. I find a link called, "Capitol Camera." I clicked on it and saw a view of the United States Capitol building.
Because I want to see the building with a few fluttering flags on it as opposed to what's actually going on in there.
Honestly, who really watches that? News rooms, maybe, as opening footage, but there's practically no use for that.
Because I want to see the building with a few fluttering flags on it as opposed to what's actually going on in there.
Honestly, who really watches that? News rooms, maybe, as opening footage, but there's practically no use for that.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Ted Cruz is a Hero
Salvete. If you could put a finger on the most heroic event that occured on the American Senate or the American House of Representatives floors, What event would it be?
There are doubtlessly quite a few examples throughout American history (David C. Calhoun's speech, for example), but there are very few that we have deemed "heroic" since the turn of the millenium. The passing of laws usually boils down to a majority smashing a minority. Politicians are notoriously corrupt, self-centered, and mediocre.
Enter Ted Cruz. Last night, he stood up on the podium for over 18 hours to protest Obamacare. He knew his single action would not stop the vote, nor would he likely be able to swing the vote in his favor. He merely got up and stood for what he believed and, to put it plainly, ranted about the way things are going now. He read a book for his child, he did not use teleprompters. If this guy was not on the losing side of history, this guy may very well be praised throughout history. It's Ted Cruz, with a small team of supporters, against the world. He defended himself against plenty of opposition, confronting plently of biased questions with biased answers. Ted Cruz is the underdog and would likely lose, yet he spoke until he could speak no more. That is heroism.
In the aftermath, I watched a senator from Maine (which, according to http://www.pleated-jeans.com/2011/01/24/the-united-states-of-shame-chart/, is the dumbest state in the country) defend Obamacare in a fallacious (but, I admit, mediocrely valiant) counter to Ted Cruz's heroism. The fact stands alone: Ted Cruz is a hero.
Thanks for being a patron. I haven't posted in a while, and probably won't post in a while, but I'll try.
There are doubtlessly quite a few examples throughout American history (David C. Calhoun's speech, for example), but there are very few that we have deemed "heroic" since the turn of the millenium. The passing of laws usually boils down to a majority smashing a minority. Politicians are notoriously corrupt, self-centered, and mediocre.
Enter Ted Cruz. Last night, he stood up on the podium for over 18 hours to protest Obamacare. He knew his single action would not stop the vote, nor would he likely be able to swing the vote in his favor. He merely got up and stood for what he believed and, to put it plainly, ranted about the way things are going now. He read a book for his child, he did not use teleprompters. If this guy was not on the losing side of history, this guy may very well be praised throughout history. It's Ted Cruz, with a small team of supporters, against the world. He defended himself against plenty of opposition, confronting plently of biased questions with biased answers. Ted Cruz is the underdog and would likely lose, yet he spoke until he could speak no more. That is heroism.
In the aftermath, I watched a senator from Maine (which, according to http://www.pleated-jeans.com/2011/01/24/the-united-states-of-shame-chart/, is the dumbest state in the country) defend Obamacare in a fallacious (but, I admit, mediocrely valiant) counter to Ted Cruz's heroism. The fact stands alone: Ted Cruz is a hero.
Thanks for being a patron. I haven't posted in a while, and probably won't post in a while, but I'll try.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
9/11
What is the darkest day of American history? Is it today, September 11, twelve years ago, when our country was humbled by terrorists and hundreds of people killed? Is it September 17, 1862, the single bloodiest day of the Civil War? December 7, 1941, the "day that will live in infamy"? What is our darkest day?
September 11, 2001 was a horrid day. We lost potentially the greatest buildings and greatest people in our time. September 11, 2002. Our enemies laugh at us, waving their victory flags. September 11, 2003. We were now six months at war. Good. We were doing something, getting revenge, rebuilding our reputation. September 11, 2004. In record time, America becomes war-weary. Forget 2001. America doesn't want to go to war. September 11, 2005. The anti-war sentiment grows to levels not seen since Vietnam. 9/11 Truthers rise up. "Hey! It wasn't the Muslims! It was the government!" September 11, 2006. pro-Muslim movements begin, demanding an end to the war. September 11, 2007. Would-be president Barack Hussein Obama runs with a platform that wants to bring the Iraq War down. September 11, 2008. Obama wins. September 11, 2009. Iraq is now a sleepy backwater topic for American politics. No one cares any more. September 11, 2010. More of the same, but this time al-Qaeda is itching for more power. A reluctant America with a reluctant leader is powerless against them. September 11, 2011. We've somehow been at war in Egypt and Libya, fighting a war that was neither advantageous nor helpful to either America or the Middle East in general. Egyptian Muslim extremists plan to take Egypt by storm in the upcoming "election," while Libya destroys itself. September 11, 2012. Everyone is anticipating the elections when suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, our ambassador and his bodyguard are shot in a shady part of Benghazi. We learn later that Secretary Hillary Clinton told the necessary military assistance not to save the lives of our American military.
September 11, 2013. Nothing. No one talks about or even remembers Benghazi anymore. People still don't care for the Iraq War, despite countless terrorist attacks on the United States. Muslims march on Washington under the guise that they've been treated unequally since the attack. Most people have forgotten everything about 9/11 except that the phrase "9/11" is a bad name.
9/11/01 was horrid. It has taken the lives of hundreds of people. But what is worse is the Sun-Tzu-style psychological defeat of America, punctuated by the murder of our ambassador 11 years later. No one cares. We have no fiery spirit for American spirit and our desire to take back our dignity is all but destroyed. In fact, there is a fiery spirit AGAINST American fighting spirit. America is encouraged to not defend itself from attacks because you would hurt various small minorities if you did. Political correctness and tolerance will kill America if we don't watch out. I need not remind you of the fourth war with Syria that we plan to have. This will give al-Qaeda a third opportunity to take over the region.
September 11, 2001 may not be our darkest day. I propose that September 11, 2013 may very well be our darkest day.
September 11, 2001 was a horrid day. We lost potentially the greatest buildings and greatest people in our time. September 11, 2002. Our enemies laugh at us, waving their victory flags. September 11, 2003. We were now six months at war. Good. We were doing something, getting revenge, rebuilding our reputation. September 11, 2004. In record time, America becomes war-weary. Forget 2001. America doesn't want to go to war. September 11, 2005. The anti-war sentiment grows to levels not seen since Vietnam. 9/11 Truthers rise up. "Hey! It wasn't the Muslims! It was the government!" September 11, 2006. pro-Muslim movements begin, demanding an end to the war. September 11, 2007. Would-be president Barack Hussein Obama runs with a platform that wants to bring the Iraq War down. September 11, 2008. Obama wins. September 11, 2009. Iraq is now a sleepy backwater topic for American politics. No one cares any more. September 11, 2010. More of the same, but this time al-Qaeda is itching for more power. A reluctant America with a reluctant leader is powerless against them. September 11, 2011. We've somehow been at war in Egypt and Libya, fighting a war that was neither advantageous nor helpful to either America or the Middle East in general. Egyptian Muslim extremists plan to take Egypt by storm in the upcoming "election," while Libya destroys itself. September 11, 2012. Everyone is anticipating the elections when suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, our ambassador and his bodyguard are shot in a shady part of Benghazi. We learn later that Secretary Hillary Clinton told the necessary military assistance not to save the lives of our American military.
September 11, 2013. Nothing. No one talks about or even remembers Benghazi anymore. People still don't care for the Iraq War, despite countless terrorist attacks on the United States. Muslims march on Washington under the guise that they've been treated unequally since the attack. Most people have forgotten everything about 9/11 except that the phrase "9/11" is a bad name.
9/11/01 was horrid. It has taken the lives of hundreds of people. But what is worse is the Sun-Tzu-style psychological defeat of America, punctuated by the murder of our ambassador 11 years later. No one cares. We have no fiery spirit for American spirit and our desire to take back our dignity is all but destroyed. In fact, there is a fiery spirit AGAINST American fighting spirit. America is encouraged to not defend itself from attacks because you would hurt various small minorities if you did. Political correctness and tolerance will kill America if we don't watch out. I need not remind you of the fourth war with Syria that we plan to have. This will give al-Qaeda a third opportunity to take over the region.
September 11, 2001 may not be our darkest day. I propose that September 11, 2013 may very well be our darkest day.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Obama's Syria Speech
Well, I just heard most of Obama's speech. Here are my thoughts.
For one, I find it interesting how he began with a blatant appeal to emotions. Yikes. If America is that shallow and illogical, I fear for this country.
Obama noted the concerns of the left and right on the issue of Syria. I like that he recognizes the concern, or at least tries to recognize the concern. Unfortunately, he didn't give sufficient answers to the concerns in his speech. For example, he said that al-Qaeda will in fact gain more control in Syria if America does not act. Perhaps, but they definitely will gain more power if we take out an outpost of their greatest rival in Syria. Also, he noted that this will be a "short" war. When Russia says, "Don't touch Syria" and we touch it, there will likely be huge consequences. It will not be a short war, just as the North figured that the Civil War would be short but that the Civil War was the biggest and bloodiest war in our history.
I think the biggest qualms that I had about his speech was his appeal to the right and left. Obama said, "And so to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America's military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left [note the change of tone in his voice. Not too important, just interesting], I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor."
Wow. Either he or the speechwriter really don't know the stereotypical liberal or stereotypical conservative. Notice how Obama equated liberalism to freedom and conservatism to military might. Because military might is all that conservatives care about when it comes to war, and liberals only care about freedom when it comes to war. Mr. President, the cause is not so plainly just, nor is it clear, like you said about midway through the speech. It's like WWI; there really isn't that much of a difference between sides, and it might just be better to let the two sides fight themselves into oblivion. I find it almost comical how Obama also gives a second outrageous Appeal to Emotions.
Well, I hoped you all enjoyed the stereotypical Obama speech, and I'll see you tomorrow.
For one, I find it interesting how he began with a blatant appeal to emotions. Yikes. If America is that shallow and illogical, I fear for this country.
Obama noted the concerns of the left and right on the issue of Syria. I like that he recognizes the concern, or at least tries to recognize the concern. Unfortunately, he didn't give sufficient answers to the concerns in his speech. For example, he said that al-Qaeda will in fact gain more control in Syria if America does not act. Perhaps, but they definitely will gain more power if we take out an outpost of their greatest rival in Syria. Also, he noted that this will be a "short" war. When Russia says, "Don't touch Syria" and we touch it, there will likely be huge consequences. It will not be a short war, just as the North figured that the Civil War would be short but that the Civil War was the biggest and bloodiest war in our history.
I think the biggest qualms that I had about his speech was his appeal to the right and left. Obama said, "And so to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America's military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left [note the change of tone in his voice. Not too important, just interesting], I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor."
Wow. Either he or the speechwriter really don't know the stereotypical liberal or stereotypical conservative. Notice how Obama equated liberalism to freedom and conservatism to military might. Because military might is all that conservatives care about when it comes to war, and liberals only care about freedom when it comes to war. Mr. President, the cause is not so plainly just, nor is it clear, like you said about midway through the speech. It's like WWI; there really isn't that much of a difference between sides, and it might just be better to let the two sides fight themselves into oblivion. I find it almost comical how Obama also gives a second outrageous Appeal to Emotions.
Well, I hoped you all enjoyed the stereotypical Obama speech, and I'll see you tomorrow.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Impeachment
Salvete. The actions of many politicians nowadays have been horrifyingly embarrassing. Obama has just recently rejected the opportunity to ease relations with Russia. Before that, his administration spied on conservatives while letting extreme leftist wackos slide by. Before that, there was the IRS scandal. Before that, we learned that Hillary Clinton told our American military to not protect our ambassador and his bodyguards when he was clearly under the threat of death. (I will hopefully elaborate on Benghazi this September 11th.) The American government is hoodwinking us left and right, and we do practically nothing!
We've given threats. We say that we should impeach Obama. We say that we should secede. We say that we should really do better this next election by pitting a practically white male (Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, etc.) in a heavily divided party up against the potential first female president (Hillary Clinton) in charge of a unified, determined party.
We're going to lose this next election. No one reads the political news anymore. No one cares that the Democratic candidate helped kill our American ambassador. No one cares that she's been practically behind it all. All they hear is "first female president" and they go nuts. Hillary Clinton, the evil braggart, will get a second term, and we will have had darkness for sixteen years in a row with many more years to come.
We need to take the radical conservatives seriously. Impeach Obama, and don't stop! Why not dismiss all the traitors, Republican and Democrat? There have been senators and congressmen that have profited at the expense of the American people, and clearly nobody likes it, but we do nothing! Why are we so afraid of standing up and refreshing the government? Why have we given presidents eight years to reign by consistently reelecting presidents that we don't like? The ability to impeach was given to us in our Constitution for a reason, yet America has only seriously attempted to impeach two different presidents for petty crimes and were met with meager success.
Republicans are being drowned out. Conservative values cannot die peacefully or all is lost.
See you on September 11th.
We've given threats. We say that we should impeach Obama. We say that we should secede. We say that we should really do better this next election by pitting a practically white male (Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, etc.) in a heavily divided party up against the potential first female president (Hillary Clinton) in charge of a unified, determined party.
We're going to lose this next election. No one reads the political news anymore. No one cares that the Democratic candidate helped kill our American ambassador. No one cares that she's been practically behind it all. All they hear is "first female president" and they go nuts. Hillary Clinton, the evil braggart, will get a second term, and we will have had darkness for sixteen years in a row with many more years to come.
We need to take the radical conservatives seriously. Impeach Obama, and don't stop! Why not dismiss all the traitors, Republican and Democrat? There have been senators and congressmen that have profited at the expense of the American people, and clearly nobody likes it, but we do nothing! Why are we so afraid of standing up and refreshing the government? Why have we given presidents eight years to reign by consistently reelecting presidents that we don't like? The ability to impeach was given to us in our Constitution for a reason, yet America has only seriously attempted to impeach two different presidents for petty crimes and were met with meager success.
Republicans are being drowned out. Conservative values cannot die peacefully or all is lost.
See you on September 11th.
Obama, America, Russia, Syria, and Sweden: What the Heck is Going on?
Salvete.
Imagine this: You are in charge of the superpower Country A. You have been constant rivals with superpower Country B. You have also been allies with Country C. Country B wants to attack Country C and comes to you for permission, to ease tension and whatnot. The leader of Country B comes to a city on the outskirts of your country, refuses to go any farther, makes the conversation awkward, and promptly leaves to go visit Country D for the fun of it. Nothing is settled, and in fact Country B has made things worse.
Now replace Country A with Russia, B with America, C with Syria, D with Sweden, and the leader with President Obama. As Russia, if there was no threat of nuclear war, I might very well end diplomacy right there, move more troops to Syria, and possibly outright declare war on America. Obama did an absolutely horrifying job with easing tensions and satisfying Russia. Putin must be furious, and America is in no better situation. I recommend that the president himself apologize for his actions there. I don't care that Russia let in Snowden. The American government has a responsibility to look after its people and act according to America's best interests. The current administration has done nothing of the kind during its conflict with Syria. WWIII is even closer now.
I will say, though, that I envy Obama for visiting Sweden. I'm part Swedish myself, but I've never been there. Oddly enough, I believe that Sweden is relatively conservative, but I'll explain in a later post.
This has been the first post that I've written in a while. I hope to be more consistent, but my work load is hindering me slightly.
Imagine this: You are in charge of the superpower Country A. You have been constant rivals with superpower Country B. You have also been allies with Country C. Country B wants to attack Country C and comes to you for permission, to ease tension and whatnot. The leader of Country B comes to a city on the outskirts of your country, refuses to go any farther, makes the conversation awkward, and promptly leaves to go visit Country D for the fun of it. Nothing is settled, and in fact Country B has made things worse.
Now replace Country A with Russia, B with America, C with Syria, D with Sweden, and the leader with President Obama. As Russia, if there was no threat of nuclear war, I might very well end diplomacy right there, move more troops to Syria, and possibly outright declare war on America. Obama did an absolutely horrifying job with easing tensions and satisfying Russia. Putin must be furious, and America is in no better situation. I recommend that the president himself apologize for his actions there. I don't care that Russia let in Snowden. The American government has a responsibility to look after its people and act according to America's best interests. The current administration has done nothing of the kind during its conflict with Syria. WWIII is even closer now.
I will say, though, that I envy Obama for visiting Sweden. I'm part Swedish myself, but I've never been there. Oddly enough, I believe that Sweden is relatively conservative, but I'll explain in a later post.
This has been the first post that I've written in a while. I hope to be more consistent, but my work load is hindering me slightly.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Syria and WWIII
Salvete. No, I did not meet my quota of trip posts. My apologies.
Yesterday I heard from The Blaze (a conservative news source) that America will attack Syria today. I had earlier learned that Russia, China, and Iran plan to react heavily to America's attack on Syria. WWIII may thus start today.
Let me be clear: Invading Syria would be one of the stupidest things (if not the stupidest thing) America has done in its history. We tried intervention in Egypt. After suffering a new, tyrannical dictator, Egypt now has a military dictatorship. Fun. We invaded Libya, assuming that the overthrow of the Libyan dictator would mean that all is well in Libya with a brand-new, absolutely-perfect democracy. People were so grateful that they killed our ambassador. We just watched it happen and did nothing.
It's sad to see that Russia and China seem to be waking up before America. Granted, Syria is an ally to Russia, but Russia knows what American intervention would lead to. Assad's dictatorship would be replaced by chaos that would shock the nation for decades on end.
America knows what happened to Egypt, Libya, and even Iraq, yet it may very well choose to once again intervene and knock out another pillar of stability in the Middle East. To do this, America would have to risk waging World War III. And for what? Another dose of turmoil in the region? They can't possibly believe that democracy will come out of this.
Well, if we survive today, I'll write again soon.
Yesterday I heard from The Blaze (a conservative news source) that America will attack Syria today. I had earlier learned that Russia, China, and Iran plan to react heavily to America's attack on Syria. WWIII may thus start today.
Let me be clear: Invading Syria would be one of the stupidest things (if not the stupidest thing) America has done in its history. We tried intervention in Egypt. After suffering a new, tyrannical dictator, Egypt now has a military dictatorship. Fun. We invaded Libya, assuming that the overthrow of the Libyan dictator would mean that all is well in Libya with a brand-new, absolutely-perfect democracy. People were so grateful that they killed our ambassador. We just watched it happen and did nothing.
It's sad to see that Russia and China seem to be waking up before America. Granted, Syria is an ally to Russia, but Russia knows what American intervention would lead to. Assad's dictatorship would be replaced by chaos that would shock the nation for decades on end.
America knows what happened to Egypt, Libya, and even Iraq, yet it may very well choose to once again intervene and knock out another pillar of stability in the Middle East. To do this, America would have to risk waging World War III. And for what? Another dose of turmoil in the region? They can't possibly believe that democracy will come out of this.
Well, if we survive today, I'll write again soon.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Trip Posts: Google
Salvete. Today my trip led me to the Google headquarters. It was amazing. Everywhere there was something new, something exotic that would never be in an ordinary business environment. There was a huge food court, a swimming area, recreational fields (like a tennis court), huge outdoor and indoor pavilions for lunch, et cetera. I heard from an employee that Google asks its employees what they want to have in the headquarters, the employees respond, and Google meets the most popular demands.
What I love about this is that this is the prerogative of the business. No union or government can force something this big onto a business (yet). Google simply chooses to give its employees a little extra something. If they gave nothing to their employees, I would respect them as a successful company. But because they went over and beyond, I admire them that much more.
As I learn about Google and the other Silicon Valley companies, I realize that companies from the West often choose radical, high-risk business plans in a go-big-or-go-home attitude. Although there is a lot of sense in taking the steady path, this attitude is both what makes Western businesses this large and what makes the West the West. God bless the West and the Western way of life.
What I love about this is that this is the prerogative of the business. No union or government can force something this big onto a business (yet). Google simply chooses to give its employees a little extra something. If they gave nothing to their employees, I would respect them as a successful company. But because they went over and beyond, I admire them that much more.
As I learn about Google and the other Silicon Valley companies, I realize that companies from the West often choose radical, high-risk business plans in a go-big-or-go-home attitude. Although there is a lot of sense in taking the steady path, this attitude is both what makes Western businesses this large and what makes the West the West. God bless the West and the Western way of life.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Trip Posts: San Francisco...
Salvete. Today I went to San Francisco. As I was there, I saw an enormous city hall building. It was at least the size of the California capitol building, if not larger. It was monstrous.
Quite honestly, the city hall is a symbol of the enormous, oppressive government that rules San Francisco. Such an enormous, wacked-out city is run over by nudists, extremist activists, and the like. My friend even found an Occupy Wall Street mask in Chinatown. This city is politically and financially shot. This city will soon follow many major cities in "pulling Detroits," turning upside-down, and destroying themselves from the inside out.
Yet big cities like these are attracting people by the millions! Plays, books, the media, et cetera are all worshipping the "grandeur" of these cities, drawing the masses into the terror that is large cities. The masses accept and are slowly put in place in the anti-growth environment while immersed in the supposed heart of growth itself.
It is far better to be less centralized. Rural and suburban regions have rarely if ever been manipulated, infected, or assaulted. There is no incentive to convert these regions, so these regions are safe. I live in one of these regions, and it is the greatest hometown that anyone could hope for. America should not be the nation of overgrown, run-down cities. It should be the nation of hometowns.
Quite honestly, the city hall is a symbol of the enormous, oppressive government that rules San Francisco. Such an enormous, wacked-out city is run over by nudists, extremist activists, and the like. My friend even found an Occupy Wall Street mask in Chinatown. This city is politically and financially shot. This city will soon follow many major cities in "pulling Detroits," turning upside-down, and destroying themselves from the inside out.
Yet big cities like these are attracting people by the millions! Plays, books, the media, et cetera are all worshipping the "grandeur" of these cities, drawing the masses into the terror that is large cities. The masses accept and are slowly put in place in the anti-growth environment while immersed in the supposed heart of growth itself.
It is far better to be less centralized. Rural and suburban regions have rarely if ever been manipulated, infected, or assaulted. There is no incentive to convert these regions, so these regions are safe. I live in one of these regions, and it is the greatest hometown that anyone could hope for. America should not be the nation of overgrown, run-down cities. It should be the nation of hometowns.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Trip Posts: Party Split
Salvete. I was just talking to a friend from Great Britain. We talked about many various subjects, but one subject in particular is the topic of party splitting on the Republican/conservative sides. Apparently the situation in Great Britain is as bad as the situation over here: fiscal conservatism (socially liberal) versus social conservatism (fiscally liberal), just like Republicans splitting over traditional fiscal and social values and adapting fiscal and social values.
My opinion on party splitting: Don't just split. Splitting would cause the conservative groups to lose. Split to takeover. Split to dominate the other side. I want a conservative split to overwhelm and take over the Republican Party. I would definitely like it if the Democratic Party did the same thing. It must, however, be quick. It must be thorough. It must be clean. Otherwise, the Democratic Party wins the 2016 election by default. It must be over well before party nominations, so I would say that this change has at most two years in order to be effective.
My opinion on party splitting: Don't just split. Splitting would cause the conservative groups to lose. Split to takeover. Split to dominate the other side. I want a conservative split to overwhelm and take over the Republican Party. I would definitely like it if the Democratic Party did the same thing. It must, however, be quick. It must be thorough. It must be clean. Otherwise, the Democratic Party wins the 2016 election by default. It must be over well before party nominations, so I would say that this change has at most two years in order to be effective.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Trip Posts: Interrupting TED Talks Part 2
Salvete. I am currently on a trip for approximately two weeks in a far-off location. I'm with a lot of friends who are quite interested in politics. While I'm away, I'm hoping to blog at least ten times about general thoughts and political opinions. So, without further ado...
Etiam salvete. Today was the first full day of my trip. I'm here with folks from around the world, many of whom are interested in international politics. At the end of the day, after talks about crumbling political parties, apocalyptic scenarios, and the conservatism in Sweden, my friends and I sat down to listen to a speaker. She was an amazing speaker, TED-talk worthy. She was way left, but she was talented nonetheless.
I don't care what people say. People who give TED talks deserve respect, no matter what their political stance is. They represent the pinnacle of success, hard work, and brilliance. These are the people who will be remembered in their respective fields for generations.
And this is what we as American people have lost. We have lost our respect for the praiseworthy folks on the other side. Liberals mock businessmen without recognizing the hard work, time, and just plain brilliance that they put into society to get where they are today. Conservatives chide professors for their extreme bias without recognizing the new information that they give to the world. By no means does everything deserve respect, but at least those who are successful should have at least some credit.
Respect is dying. It must be restored for America's dignity to recover.
Etiam salvete. Today was the first full day of my trip. I'm here with folks from around the world, many of whom are interested in international politics. At the end of the day, after talks about crumbling political parties, apocalyptic scenarios, and the conservatism in Sweden, my friends and I sat down to listen to a speaker. She was an amazing speaker, TED-talk worthy. She was way left, but she was talented nonetheless.
I don't care what people say. People who give TED talks deserve respect, no matter what their political stance is. They represent the pinnacle of success, hard work, and brilliance. These are the people who will be remembered in their respective fields for generations.
And this is what we as American people have lost. We have lost our respect for the praiseworthy folks on the other side. Liberals mock businessmen without recognizing the hard work, time, and just plain brilliance that they put into society to get where they are today. Conservatives chide professors for their extreme bias without recognizing the new information that they give to the world. By no means does everything deserve respect, but at least those who are successful should have at least some credit.
Respect is dying. It must be restored for America's dignity to recover.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Five in Two Days: Police
Salvete. This post is partly dedicated to the American police force.
There has been a large increase in police (highway patrol) activity on Californian freeways recently, and likewise I have seen a large amount of anti-police sentiment. We used to believe that policemen are heroes, right next to firefighters and nurses. Nowadays we have neither respect nor approval of the police force.
The American police corps is an amazing force. It is one of the most hardworking, benevolent forces that were ever given substantial power. It is one of the big factors that separate the United States of America from nations like Iran and Egypt. Without them, society would be ruled by mobs at gunpoint by now.
What's up with all the traffic enforcement and the handing out of warnings and tickets? Don't direct any anger towards the individual police. They are not the ones controlling the police activity. The government (the Californian government in particular) is desperate for money, and it finds police work to be an effective solution. When a product malfunctions, should one be angry at the customer support or should one be concerned rather with the manufacturing, or even the product itself?
Besides, policemen are simply upholding the law. Don't break the law; don't get punished for breaking the law. Simple.
Why is there corruption in the police force? There has been corruption in every occupation invented by mankind, from doctors to farmers to businessmen to teachers to engineers to fast food workers to (especially to) politicians. Most policemen are benevolent, kind people who have good intentions and most likely would not give people tickets if it was not part of their job. They merely do their duty and serve their country.
Whether we have never received a single ticket or whether we have gone to prison many times, we should all be thankful that there is a transparent, benevolent force on our side.
There is the five. Expect more later.
There has been a large increase in police (highway patrol) activity on Californian freeways recently, and likewise I have seen a large amount of anti-police sentiment. We used to believe that policemen are heroes, right next to firefighters and nurses. Nowadays we have neither respect nor approval of the police force.
The American police corps is an amazing force. It is one of the most hardworking, benevolent forces that were ever given substantial power. It is one of the big factors that separate the United States of America from nations like Iran and Egypt. Without them, society would be ruled by mobs at gunpoint by now.
What's up with all the traffic enforcement and the handing out of warnings and tickets? Don't direct any anger towards the individual police. They are not the ones controlling the police activity. The government (the Californian government in particular) is desperate for money, and it finds police work to be an effective solution. When a product malfunctions, should one be angry at the customer support or should one be concerned rather with the manufacturing, or even the product itself?
Besides, policemen are simply upholding the law. Don't break the law; don't get punished for breaking the law. Simple.
Why is there corruption in the police force? There has been corruption in every occupation invented by mankind, from doctors to farmers to businessmen to teachers to engineers to fast food workers to (especially to) politicians. Most policemen are benevolent, kind people who have good intentions and most likely would not give people tickets if it was not part of their job. They merely do their duty and serve their country.
Whether we have never received a single ticket or whether we have gone to prison many times, we should all be thankful that there is a transparent, benevolent force on our side.
There is the five. Expect more later.
Five in Two Days: Free Refills
Salvete. Today I decided to talk about something light: free refills.
The opponents of the fast food industry particularly use free refills as an example of businesses "trying to make America fat." When looking at the big picture, though, one can see that free refills are a symbol of America's success. Think about it- free refills are proof that the capitalism practiced by the fast food industry works so well that companies can afford to give their patrons as much beverage as their patrons can drink in one sitting- and then some. It also shows the generosity of the fast food industry. Sure, they probably do intend to attract a few more customers through free refills, but not every business gives away an unlimited amount of their product to consumers. No office supplies company says, "Buy this pack of pencils and receive as many pencils as you can carry!" No electronics company says, "Get unlimited free hardware for buying this computer!" Free refills are just one small example of how capitalism has worked in America.
The opponents of the fast food industry particularly use free refills as an example of businesses "trying to make America fat." When looking at the big picture, though, one can see that free refills are a symbol of America's success. Think about it- free refills are proof that the capitalism practiced by the fast food industry works so well that companies can afford to give their patrons as much beverage as their patrons can drink in one sitting- and then some. It also shows the generosity of the fast food industry. Sure, they probably do intend to attract a few more customers through free refills, but not every business gives away an unlimited amount of their product to consumers. No office supplies company says, "Buy this pack of pencils and receive as many pencils as you can carry!" No electronics company says, "Get unlimited free hardware for buying this computer!" Free refills are just one small example of how capitalism has worked in America.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Five in a Day: Egypt...
Salvete. Egypt...
Interference in Egypt has been one of the worst decisions in United States history. We overthrew a dictator who liked us for a dictator who hated us. But have no fear! The Egyptian military has come in to save the day! What could possibly happen with an overly powerful military?
We've just spun Egypt into chaos. I probably will not end for years, if not decades. Dictator after dictator will rise to power, crumble, and fall.
The solution for prosperity in Egypt: Give power to Israel. Don't give up power to a shaky ally and hope for the best. Many people would call that either extreme trust or suicide. We can rely on Israel. Israel has never let us down, though we have let Israel down far too many times. An Israeli presence in Egypt means that Egypt will remain weak during the hazardous process of establishing democracy. As a plus, Christians and Jews won't be murdered in the streets. Wouldn't that be nice?
Interference in Egypt has been one of the worst decisions in United States history. We overthrew a dictator who liked us for a dictator who hated us. But have no fear! The Egyptian military has come in to save the day! What could possibly happen with an overly powerful military?
We've just spun Egypt into chaos. I probably will not end for years, if not decades. Dictator after dictator will rise to power, crumble, and fall.
The solution for prosperity in Egypt: Give power to Israel. Don't give up power to a shaky ally and hope for the best. Many people would call that either extreme trust or suicide. We can rely on Israel. Israel has never let us down, though we have let Israel down far too many times. An Israeli presence in Egypt means that Egypt will remain weak during the hazardous process of establishing democracy. As a plus, Christians and Jews won't be murdered in the streets. Wouldn't that be nice?
Five in a Day: Justice for Zimmerman
Salvete.
The Zimmerman trial has been all over the news lately. This topic has been the subject of intense debate. If you do not know about the Zimmerman trial yet, I advise that you do research before reading this blog.
I don't recall ever seeing this much public approval in America for one man to die. The outcry of the former Occupy Wall Street gang* is insane. There are so many hoops that the left must jump through to justify their actions. Here are just some:
1. Zimmerman is a racist. Racism in and of itself is not a crime in America, but the left is basing their argument almost completely on race. For one, this has been proven false. For another, so what if he's racist? That does not explain the death of Trayvon.
2. Zimmerman intentionally murdered Trayvon. This is not likely. I will never know, nor will anyone ever know, but the evidence points to self-defense.
3. Zimmerman intentionally murdered Trayvon because Trayvon was African American. Wow. What a stupid argument. Even if Zimmerman was a racist, he would not have just randomly decided to take out Trayvon for his pleasure. No sane man would just take a night walk and say, "Hey! An African American! Let's get him!" That is stupid, and most of that terrorism died years ago.
4. Zimmerman deserves every single bit of this public outcry. When taken logically, many people would rather be in Trayvon's shoes than in Zimmerman's. The American people have condemned Zimmerman to a fate worse than death. Zimmerman now has to fend for his life, be afraid every single moment of his life, and have state and federal officials tracking his every move. He may never be able to get a decent job, nor may he ever shake off this false reputation.
Shame on you, America. How dare you let your feelings get in the way of the facts. You can do so much better.
The Zimmerman trial has been all over the news lately. This topic has been the subject of intense debate. If you do not know about the Zimmerman trial yet, I advise that you do research before reading this blog.
I don't recall ever seeing this much public approval in America for one man to die. The outcry of the former Occupy Wall Street gang* is insane. There are so many hoops that the left must jump through to justify their actions. Here are just some:
1. Zimmerman is a racist. Racism in and of itself is not a crime in America, but the left is basing their argument almost completely on race. For one, this has been proven false. For another, so what if he's racist? That does not explain the death of Trayvon.
2. Zimmerman intentionally murdered Trayvon. This is not likely. I will never know, nor will anyone ever know, but the evidence points to self-defense.
3. Zimmerman intentionally murdered Trayvon because Trayvon was African American. Wow. What a stupid argument. Even if Zimmerman was a racist, he would not have just randomly decided to take out Trayvon for his pleasure. No sane man would just take a night walk and say, "Hey! An African American! Let's get him!" That is stupid, and most of that terrorism died years ago.
4. Zimmerman deserves every single bit of this public outcry. When taken logically, many people would rather be in Trayvon's shoes than in Zimmerman's. The American people have condemned Zimmerman to a fate worse than death. Zimmerman now has to fend for his life, be afraid every single moment of his life, and have state and federal officials tracking his every move. He may never be able to get a decent job, nor may he ever shake off this false reputation.
Shame on you, America. How dare you let your feelings get in the way of the facts. You can do so much better.
Five in a Day: Bomb Shells in the Coral Reef
Salvete. I have been gone for quite a while and have missed quite a lot. So, without further adieu, I will attempt to write five blogs in one day.
Let's start with some of the more recent news: From what I have read, the United States military has dropped unarmed "bombs" into the coral reef.
I don't care. Get over it.
Quite honestly, it seems like such a "great" distraction from all of the flak that the current administration has been getting and the Zimmerman case. It's almost as good as the news that Princess Kate and Kim Kardashian are having babies. I don't care for stuff like that because it has no sway in the grand scheme of things. History books won't make a side note that says, "Oh, by the way, Kim Kardashian had a baby at this time." History will remember the Zimmerman trial, the scandals in the White House, and the Benghazi incident. I advise the American people (as well as people around the world) to think accordingly.
Let's start with some of the more recent news: From what I have read, the United States military has dropped unarmed "bombs" into the coral reef.
I don't care. Get over it.
Quite honestly, it seems like such a "great" distraction from all of the flak that the current administration has been getting and the Zimmerman case. It's almost as good as the news that Princess Kate and Kim Kardashian are having babies. I don't care for stuff like that because it has no sway in the grand scheme of things. History books won't make a side note that says, "Oh, by the way, Kim Kardashian had a baby at this time." History will remember the Zimmerman trial, the scandals in the White House, and the Benghazi incident. I advise the American people (as well as people around the world) to think accordingly.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Fourth of July Post: Nationalism
Salvete. Today's the day: the Fourth of July, American Independence Day. It is an amazing sight to behold: people of all parties, all opinions, and all backgrounds come together to celebrate America.
As I look around, I realize that Independence Day really seems to be more about America than the cause of freedom. That really is what society is like today. People of all parties support America because... it's America! Don't worry about the ideals behind America or the lessons that we have learned as America; it's just... America!
Nationalism has basically taken over the public mindset. Just plain America means nothing without the cause of America: independence, republicanism (the principle, not the party), self-reliance, and faith. Supporting America because it's America is just like the Nazis supporting Germany because it's Germany or the Soviets supporting Russia because it's Russia. Nationalism is a feature of all nations, but it is a very dangerous thing. Nationalism has blinded us from problems, prevented us from solving them, and given us a false pride.
This is not to say that nationalism is a bad thing. Nationalism unites the American people, gives morale when there is none, et cetera. But we do not owe allegiance "to the flag of the United States of America" or any insignia that emphasizes America, nor do we even owe allegiance "to the Republic on which it stands." We owe allegiance to God foremost, family second, and the ideals on which our Republic stands.
I pledge allegiance
To the cause
Followed through in the United States of America
And to spread republicanism
Which stands on the principles
Of faith, justice, equality, and independence,
To every nation
Under God
So that there will be liberty and justice for all.
As I look around, I realize that Independence Day really seems to be more about America than the cause of freedom. That really is what society is like today. People of all parties support America because... it's America! Don't worry about the ideals behind America or the lessons that we have learned as America; it's just... America!
Nationalism has basically taken over the public mindset. Just plain America means nothing without the cause of America: independence, republicanism (the principle, not the party), self-reliance, and faith. Supporting America because it's America is just like the Nazis supporting Germany because it's Germany or the Soviets supporting Russia because it's Russia. Nationalism is a feature of all nations, but it is a very dangerous thing. Nationalism has blinded us from problems, prevented us from solving them, and given us a false pride.
This is not to say that nationalism is a bad thing. Nationalism unites the American people, gives morale when there is none, et cetera. But we do not owe allegiance "to the flag of the United States of America" or any insignia that emphasizes America, nor do we even owe allegiance "to the Republic on which it stands." We owe allegiance to God foremost, family second, and the ideals on which our Republic stands.
I pledge allegiance
To the cause
Followed through in the United States of America
And to spread republicanism
Which stands on the principles
Of faith, justice, equality, and independence,
To every nation
Under God
So that there will be liberty and justice for all.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Pulling a Jefferson: Secession in a Follow-the-Leader World Part 1
Salvete. It seems like secession is at most an overly radical dream for dissenters and at least a laughable proposal. In reality it is both a viable and eventually necessary option.
Take, for example, the hostilities between party lines: Democrat versus Republican, conservative versus liberal, Christian versus atheist, et cetera. In a short while, it will be near impossible to keep the two groups together under the same banner. The nation must be peacefully split before it is violently split.
The idea of secession is neither a Republican-based nor a conservative-based position. It is simply the idea that localized governments would better fit a local area than would a federal or even state government. For the Republicans let's have a Republican leader. For the liberals let's have a liberal leader. For farmers let's have someone who knows farming to lead. For coastal regions let's have a leader who knows about maritime trade and good leadership toward a thriving economy. Localized governments are coming under attack from larger government entities. It is nearly impossible for small towns to function without interference by the government. It would be better to leave now than to wait for power to be completely stripped from local communities.
More on secession in Part 2. Also, I have started a gaming blog (Plaustrum20 Gaming). Follow or comment as you would please.
Take, for example, the hostilities between party lines: Democrat versus Republican, conservative versus liberal, Christian versus atheist, et cetera. In a short while, it will be near impossible to keep the two groups together under the same banner. The nation must be peacefully split before it is violently split.
The idea of secession is neither a Republican-based nor a conservative-based position. It is simply the idea that localized governments would better fit a local area than would a federal or even state government. For the Republicans let's have a Republican leader. For the liberals let's have a liberal leader. For farmers let's have someone who knows farming to lead. For coastal regions let's have a leader who knows about maritime trade and good leadership toward a thriving economy. Localized governments are coming under attack from larger government entities. It is nearly impossible for small towns to function without interference by the government. It would be better to leave now than to wait for power to be completely stripped from local communities.
More on secession in Part 2. Also, I have started a gaming blog (Plaustrum20 Gaming). Follow or comment as you would please.
Let's Go Right for the Big Topics: Gun Control Part 4
Salvete. I chose to save Part 3 for another day. Here is Part 4.
If I were purposefully trying to take people's constitutional rights away, I would pit one against the other. I would give the people a choice: choose one to protect the other. This is exactly what gun control lobbyists are doing: they are pitting the right to privacy against the right to bear arms through background checks. "Do you want to bear arms? First, then, we will have to dig into your personal background. Yes, the fact that you have a dog named Sandy is very important to seeing whether or not we can sell you a gun." Eventually, we will either not have our second amendment rights or not have our fourth amendment rights. (Of course, recent news has shown us that we don't have fourth amendment rights anyway, but that is a different debate entirely).
Also, I don't think the American people realize how much power they are giving the government via background checks. We are giving the government the keys to our personal life, records that we do not want to be put out in public, and so much more. We would not even tell some of our friends what we tell to the government. The government is trying to achieve omnipotence, and we just let them go on their merry way. Why should we give the government another ounce of power?
Thank you very much for viewing. Today is the one-week anniversary of Plaustrum20 Politics and the birth of the sister blog Plaustrum20 Gaming. At nearly 40 views, I think we have made a lot of progress and are ready for more. Have a nice day.
If I were purposefully trying to take people's constitutional rights away, I would pit one against the other. I would give the people a choice: choose one to protect the other. This is exactly what gun control lobbyists are doing: they are pitting the right to privacy against the right to bear arms through background checks. "Do you want to bear arms? First, then, we will have to dig into your personal background. Yes, the fact that you have a dog named Sandy is very important to seeing whether or not we can sell you a gun." Eventually, we will either not have our second amendment rights or not have our fourth amendment rights. (Of course, recent news has shown us that we don't have fourth amendment rights anyway, but that is a different debate entirely).
Also, I don't think the American people realize how much power they are giving the government via background checks. We are giving the government the keys to our personal life, records that we do not want to be put out in public, and so much more. We would not even tell some of our friends what we tell to the government. The government is trying to achieve omnipotence, and we just let them go on their merry way. Why should we give the government another ounce of power?
Thank you very much for viewing. Today is the one-week anniversary of Plaustrum20 Politics and the birth of the sister blog Plaustrum20 Gaming. At nearly 40 views, I think we have made a lot of progress and are ready for more. Have a nice day.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Eesti!
Salvete. Plaustrum20 here, your friendly political blogger.
Other than the second German view and the South Korean view (about both of which I am excited), I am especially happy about the view from Estonia! I have had an interest about Estonia for years now, so I dedicate this blog to the people of Estonia.
(This information is based upon the author's knowledge, the CIA World Factbook, and the Heritage Foundation's 2013 Index of Economic Freedom).
Eesti (Estonia's name in its native tongue) is an amazing nation. In the centuries before World War I, Estonia has been tossed around by the Swedes, Teutonic Knights, Germans, Danish, Russians, and many others. Even after they became a modern nation in the aftermath of World War I, they still managed to get taken over by the Germans and Russians. Yet after they led the way for the dissolution of the Soviet Union, they became a powerhouse of the Baltic factions. According to the CIA World Factbook, they have the second highest industrial growth rate of any nation in the world. According to the Heritage Foundation 2013 Index of Economic Freedom, it is the 13th most economically free nation in the world and is one of the only two nations in Europe without an enormous government spending problem or a government corruption problem (the other is the epitome of economic freedom, Switzerland).
So why do I like Estonia so much? It started when I was looking on the CIA World Factbook and came across Estonia's page. I really became a fan, however, when I had an obsession with Sweden (Yes, it is not usual for a Republican conservative to like Sweden; I'll post about it later; I'm one-fourth Swedish). As I continued research both about Sweden and about other similar countries, I realized that not only was Estonian history closely tied with Swedish history but that Estonia was one of the greatest nations on Earth.
So what do I like about Eesti? For one, it is small. If any nation had a success story in the past century, it would be Estonia. It is also fairly conservative (in the European sense, of course). Just look at the Index of Economic Freedom report or the home page of the popular Estonian political party Isamaa ja Res Publica Liit (abbreviated IRL; they also have a YouTube account).
Stay strong and stay free, Eesti! As the Estonians say, "Kui sa, mu isamaa!"
Thanks for viewing. Please subscribe or comment as you so please. My next blog will come soon.
Other than the second German view and the South Korean view (about both of which I am excited), I am especially happy about the view from Estonia! I have had an interest about Estonia for years now, so I dedicate this blog to the people of Estonia.
(This information is based upon the author's knowledge, the CIA World Factbook, and the Heritage Foundation's 2013 Index of Economic Freedom).
Eesti (Estonia's name in its native tongue) is an amazing nation. In the centuries before World War I, Estonia has been tossed around by the Swedes, Teutonic Knights, Germans, Danish, Russians, and many others. Even after they became a modern nation in the aftermath of World War I, they still managed to get taken over by the Germans and Russians. Yet after they led the way for the dissolution of the Soviet Union, they became a powerhouse of the Baltic factions. According to the CIA World Factbook, they have the second highest industrial growth rate of any nation in the world. According to the Heritage Foundation 2013 Index of Economic Freedom, it is the 13th most economically free nation in the world and is one of the only two nations in Europe without an enormous government spending problem or a government corruption problem (the other is the epitome of economic freedom, Switzerland).
So why do I like Estonia so much? It started when I was looking on the CIA World Factbook and came across Estonia's page. I really became a fan, however, when I had an obsession with Sweden (Yes, it is not usual for a Republican conservative to like Sweden; I'll post about it later; I'm one-fourth Swedish). As I continued research both about Sweden and about other similar countries, I realized that not only was Estonian history closely tied with Swedish history but that Estonia was one of the greatest nations on Earth.
So what do I like about Eesti? For one, it is small. If any nation had a success story in the past century, it would be Estonia. It is also fairly conservative (in the European sense, of course). Just look at the Index of Economic Freedom report or the home page of the popular Estonian political party Isamaa ja Res Publica Liit (abbreviated IRL; they also have a YouTube account).
Stay strong and stay free, Eesti! As the Estonians say, "Kui sa, mu isamaa!"
Thanks for viewing. Please subscribe or comment as you so please. My next blog will come soon.
Let's Go Right for the Big Topics: Gun Control Part 2
Salvete. Ready for Trygve Plaustrum's Part 2?
How does this relate to today's world? First off, our government is becoming far more tyrannical with each passing day, and the two things that seem to stop the government from seizing power are decency and the people (and the government's decency is quickly waning). The people have no power in the eyes of a tyrannical government unless the people are armed and are stronger than the tyrannical government. More arms that the people have are the better. Nowadays the United States also have an extremely large army, by far the largest in the known world. It would indeed be a challenge for the people to match such a large army, especially with just rifles, handguns, and shotguns. So yes, I do believe that American citizens should be able to own grenades, rockets, and whatever other arms that they can afford and get their hands on.
Thanks for viewing. Parts 3 and 4 will be on their way soon.
How does this relate to today's world? First off, our government is becoming far more tyrannical with each passing day, and the two things that seem to stop the government from seizing power are decency and the people (and the government's decency is quickly waning). The people have no power in the eyes of a tyrannical government unless the people are armed and are stronger than the tyrannical government. More arms that the people have are the better. Nowadays the United States also have an extremely large army, by far the largest in the known world. It would indeed be a challenge for the people to match such a large army, especially with just rifles, handguns, and shotguns. So yes, I do believe that American citizens should be able to own grenades, rockets, and whatever other arms that they can afford and get their hands on.
Thanks for viewing. Parts 3 and 4 will be on their way soon.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Smoking Bubbles
Salvete. Trygve Plaustrum here, with a total of 14 views.
So I was watching some commercials before a movie, and one of said commercials was from Tobacco Free California. It was the commercial set in an ideal world where people blew bubbles instead of cigarettes.
I do not believe that will happen anytime soon. First, one would have to find a way for the bubble solution to involve nicotine or some other similar addictive chemical and then mass produce the product specifically for smokers.
On second thought, just don't even go there. It would ruin the fun of blowing bubbles for the kids.
Hope you enjoyed my rant. I will post soon.
So I was watching some commercials before a movie, and one of said commercials was from Tobacco Free California. It was the commercial set in an ideal world where people blew bubbles instead of cigarettes.
I do not believe that will happen anytime soon. First, one would have to find a way for the bubble solution to involve nicotine or some other similar addictive chemical and then mass produce the product specifically for smokers.
On second thought, just don't even go there. It would ruin the fun of blowing bubbles for the kids.
Hope you enjoyed my rant. I will post soon.
Let's Go Right for the Big Topics: Gun Control Part 1
Salvete. I'm Trygve Plaustrum, here with some more conservative discussion.
Let me be honest. The closest thing that I have to a gun is an Airsoft rifle. I know very, very little about the mechanisms of rifles, handguns, or (Biden's favorite) shotguns. I do know that they are weapons designed to effectively injure or kill intruders (or potentially victims). That is all that I need to make this case.
Before I begin the bulk of my argument, I would like to state that the mass shootings of the past (most notably Sandy Hook) have little to no basis in this argument. Unfortunately, I must agree with Joseph Stalin when he says, "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic" (quote taken from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/joseph_stalin.html). Honestly, in comparison to the hundreds if not thousands of deaths coming each day via smoking, cancer, alcohol, abortion, and car accidents, do massacres like Sandy Hook have any weight?
While I am on the topic of Sandy Hook,
To Whom It Concerns: Do not wave our children around in the argument for gun control (or, really, any argument). Both conservatives and liberals talk about our nation's children far too often. The argument is fallacious, overly emotional, and illogical. Should I care any more about a death because it was the death of a child? If a program is inefficient and corrupted, is it adoptable if suddenly children are involved? This generation will make its own decisions and hold its own opinions, the generation after this one will make its own decisions and hold its own opinions, et cetera. Our children will become adults someday and be able to look after themselves. Do not worry about our children. If the government leaves our children alone, our children will do just fine. Let us worry about this generation for now.
Our founding fathers probably never considered mass shootings like the one at Sandy Hook (apologies for not mentioning others like Columbine, but Sandy Hook was one of the more recent and well-known mass shootings). Our founding fathers installed the right to bear arms in the Constitution in order to make sure that no American administration would be without a leash. The Continental Army was underfunded, outnumbered, and divided, but the Continental Army particularly was outgunned. The Framers knew the importance of arms of any shape and size and knew that the more efficient and advanced the weapon was, the better (from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_washington.html, "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty teeth"). Knowing this, they ensured that each citizen would be able to have what they need to keep the government under control. Should a government become tyrannical, the American citizens could "pull a Jefferson," secede (hint), and potentially overthrow the government or establish a new one . Shootings were not even in the equation (although guns are definitely helpful in defense). Also, the United States government was very much against a large standing army. The people, then, were the ultimate American defense. Militia were critical in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War.
Stay tuned for Part 2. Subscribe and have a nice day.
Let me be honest. The closest thing that I have to a gun is an Airsoft rifle. I know very, very little about the mechanisms of rifles, handguns, or (Biden's favorite) shotguns. I do know that they are weapons designed to effectively injure or kill intruders (or potentially victims). That is all that I need to make this case.
Before I begin the bulk of my argument, I would like to state that the mass shootings of the past (most notably Sandy Hook) have little to no basis in this argument. Unfortunately, I must agree with Joseph Stalin when he says, "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic" (quote taken from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/joseph_stalin.html). Honestly, in comparison to the hundreds if not thousands of deaths coming each day via smoking, cancer, alcohol, abortion, and car accidents, do massacres like Sandy Hook have any weight?
While I am on the topic of Sandy Hook,
To Whom It Concerns: Do not wave our children around in the argument for gun control (or, really, any argument). Both conservatives and liberals talk about our nation's children far too often. The argument is fallacious, overly emotional, and illogical. Should I care any more about a death because it was the death of a child? If a program is inefficient and corrupted, is it adoptable if suddenly children are involved? This generation will make its own decisions and hold its own opinions, the generation after this one will make its own decisions and hold its own opinions, et cetera. Our children will become adults someday and be able to look after themselves. Do not worry about our children. If the government leaves our children alone, our children will do just fine. Let us worry about this generation for now.
Our founding fathers probably never considered mass shootings like the one at Sandy Hook (apologies for not mentioning others like Columbine, but Sandy Hook was one of the more recent and well-known mass shootings). Our founding fathers installed the right to bear arms in the Constitution in order to make sure that no American administration would be without a leash. The Continental Army was underfunded, outnumbered, and divided, but the Continental Army particularly was outgunned. The Framers knew the importance of arms of any shape and size and knew that the more efficient and advanced the weapon was, the better (from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_washington.html, "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty teeth"). Knowing this, they ensured that each citizen would be able to have what they need to keep the government under control. Should a government become tyrannical, the American citizens could "pull a Jefferson," secede (hint), and potentially overthrow the government or establish a new one . Shootings were not even in the equation (although guns are definitely helpful in defense). Also, the United States government was very much against a large standing army. The people, then, were the ultimate American defense. Militia were critical in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War.
Stay tuned for Part 2. Subscribe and have a nice day.
Imperialism or Isolationism: Choose, America
Salvete. I am Trygve Plaustrum, the conservative, Republican, Christian, Californian, blogger.
Give me a superpower other than America and I will tell you whether or not the country is imperialist or isolationist. Russia is imperialist. China is isolationist. India is isolationist. Great Britain is imperialist. There are many other examples of these two categories around the world. America, however, is one of the few countries that is both imperialist and isolationist. America grew up isolationist and attempted to remain neutral and work on internal affairs but found out during the late 1800s and throughout the 1900s that it was hungry (perhaps even desperate) for power and influence. Thus America went to war with Spain and conquered her holdings, solidified bases in the Pacific, and became the main factor in two world wars and the Cold War.
After all this history, we still cannot decide an identity. We have recently gone to several useless wars with the Libyan, Egyptian, and Iraqi governments, two of which turned out to be extremely harmful to the United States. We send only a handful of soldiers to foreign soil, hope they do not get shot, and bring them home without our goals and missions being fulfilled. We are desperate for homemade industries but are addicted to trade with China. We are hesitant to let go of either of these two identities.
As an analogy, I will use one of my favorite video games (Sega's Empire: Total War) as an example. There are two main aspects of the game: an overarching campaign, and a real-time series of battles. The artificial intelligence for the games are notoriously bad, as is shown by my example. In real-time battles, the computer makes constant reactions to the player's every move. The result is a constant shift between positions depending on the deployment of the player's troops. The result is a messes-up jumble of soldiers that are easily hunted down and destroyed by the player's troops.
America cannot invest just a few troops into a war and leave most of the troops at home and assume that everything is going to be fine and that America will come out on top. Choose one identity and stick with it. There is nothing wrong with imperialism, nor is there anything wrong with isolationism. Imperialism allows America to have dominance and influence over the world, spreading prosperity and liberty to every inhabitant of our earth. Isolationism allows us to watch on the sidelines as other nations destroy themselves and prevents us from being corrupted by foreign, socialist-communist political influence from the outside. But we cannot have both. We will die otherwise.
Another analogy: Imagine that your friends have wagered money on a 50-50 bet. All of your friends have invested all of their gambling money onto this bet for one side or the other. You have more money than any of your friends, and you play to win. If you put half of your money on one side and half of your money on the other, you know you will lose. You must risk it all and place all of your money on one side or the other, or surely one of your friends will walk home the winner.
If we are imperialist: metaphorically, shoot to kill. We cannot fight a war, win it, and walk away shouting, "We won the war!" while our enemies come back and nullify everything for which we have fought. When we come into a country, we must come into the country to stay. We must stay until well after the war is over, until not only every scrap of resistance is taken care of in one form or another but also until American culture, business, and values are implanted firmly into the country. Only then can we truly say that our job is done. It would not hurt to seize territories for our own. Territories that are rich in oil, that are of some economic or political use to us, or that are just generally great regions to have should be incorporated (or perhaps even annexed) into the United States.
If we are isolationist: cut off any and all ties. Pay off any foreign debt or declare it nullified. If we look irresponsible, so be it; we were irresponsible for having such a large debt in the first place. If we go to war, so be it. It would be a defensive war, and we are more powerful than our enemies as it is. Raise tariffs and lower income taxes. Tariffs would make us less reliant on foreign trade, but income taxes are simply stumbling blocks for the common man. Build a military. If we are on our own, we better make sure that we can handle being on our own. And please make sure that everyone is well armed (hint for next topic). Use our natural resources. Yes, this does mean oil, lumber, anything that is in our boundaries. Otherwise, we are reliant on foreign countries. Only then will we be free from globalization.
Choose one. Discard the other. Prosper.
Thanks for viewing. Please subscribe. I shall be working on the other shortly. I am thinking about writing a video game blog. Opinions are welcome in the comments.
Give me a superpower other than America and I will tell you whether or not the country is imperialist or isolationist. Russia is imperialist. China is isolationist. India is isolationist. Great Britain is imperialist. There are many other examples of these two categories around the world. America, however, is one of the few countries that is both imperialist and isolationist. America grew up isolationist and attempted to remain neutral and work on internal affairs but found out during the late 1800s and throughout the 1900s that it was hungry (perhaps even desperate) for power and influence. Thus America went to war with Spain and conquered her holdings, solidified bases in the Pacific, and became the main factor in two world wars and the Cold War.
After all this history, we still cannot decide an identity. We have recently gone to several useless wars with the Libyan, Egyptian, and Iraqi governments, two of which turned out to be extremely harmful to the United States. We send only a handful of soldiers to foreign soil, hope they do not get shot, and bring them home without our goals and missions being fulfilled. We are desperate for homemade industries but are addicted to trade with China. We are hesitant to let go of either of these two identities.
As an analogy, I will use one of my favorite video games (Sega's Empire: Total War) as an example. There are two main aspects of the game: an overarching campaign, and a real-time series of battles. The artificial intelligence for the games are notoriously bad, as is shown by my example. In real-time battles, the computer makes constant reactions to the player's every move. The result is a constant shift between positions depending on the deployment of the player's troops. The result is a messes-up jumble of soldiers that are easily hunted down and destroyed by the player's troops.
America cannot invest just a few troops into a war and leave most of the troops at home and assume that everything is going to be fine and that America will come out on top. Choose one identity and stick with it. There is nothing wrong with imperialism, nor is there anything wrong with isolationism. Imperialism allows America to have dominance and influence over the world, spreading prosperity and liberty to every inhabitant of our earth. Isolationism allows us to watch on the sidelines as other nations destroy themselves and prevents us from being corrupted by foreign, socialist-communist political influence from the outside. But we cannot have both. We will die otherwise.
Another analogy: Imagine that your friends have wagered money on a 50-50 bet. All of your friends have invested all of their gambling money onto this bet for one side or the other. You have more money than any of your friends, and you play to win. If you put half of your money on one side and half of your money on the other, you know you will lose. You must risk it all and place all of your money on one side or the other, or surely one of your friends will walk home the winner.
If we are imperialist: metaphorically, shoot to kill. We cannot fight a war, win it, and walk away shouting, "We won the war!" while our enemies come back and nullify everything for which we have fought. When we come into a country, we must come into the country to stay. We must stay until well after the war is over, until not only every scrap of resistance is taken care of in one form or another but also until American culture, business, and values are implanted firmly into the country. Only then can we truly say that our job is done. It would not hurt to seize territories for our own. Territories that are rich in oil, that are of some economic or political use to us, or that are just generally great regions to have should be incorporated (or perhaps even annexed) into the United States.
If we are isolationist: cut off any and all ties. Pay off any foreign debt or declare it nullified. If we look irresponsible, so be it; we were irresponsible for having such a large debt in the first place. If we go to war, so be it. It would be a defensive war, and we are more powerful than our enemies as it is. Raise tariffs and lower income taxes. Tariffs would make us less reliant on foreign trade, but income taxes are simply stumbling blocks for the common man. Build a military. If we are on our own, we better make sure that we can handle being on our own. And please make sure that everyone is well armed (hint for next topic). Use our natural resources. Yes, this does mean oil, lumber, anything that is in our boundaries. Otherwise, we are reliant on foreign countries. Only then will we be free from globalization.
Choose one. Discard the other. Prosper.
Thanks for viewing. Please subscribe. I shall be working on the other shortly. I am thinking about writing a video game blog. Opinions are welcome in the comments.
Interrupting TED Talks
Salvete. I am Trygve Plaustrum, your friendly political blogger from the conservative part of California.
Not that anyone is following me every day, but apologies for not writing yesterday. I was at a theater internship for 11 whole hours. So, to make it up, I will be putting up three posts today.
First off, yesterday I nearly interrupted a TED meeting. For those of you who do not know what TED talks are, they are based off of lectures and speeches from the most brilliant minds in the country, if not the world. Said people come to a specific hall or stage in front of a large crowd to share their ideas or knowledge.
In an attempt to look for an available chair, I opened the door to my internship's college's Performing Arts Center. I found a couple techs drastically motioning for me to close the door. I did. That was it. It was nothing big in particular.
Later, I thought about analyzing the TED talk that I had accidentally walked into, but I could not find the video. Apparently some TED talks are posted long after the lecture is given.
Anyway, have fun and enjoy the next post.
Not that anyone is following me every day, but apologies for not writing yesterday. I was at a theater internship for 11 whole hours. So, to make it up, I will be putting up three posts today.
First off, yesterday I nearly interrupted a TED meeting. For those of you who do not know what TED talks are, they are based off of lectures and speeches from the most brilliant minds in the country, if not the world. Said people come to a specific hall or stage in front of a large crowd to share their ideas or knowledge.
In an attempt to look for an available chair, I opened the door to my internship's college's Performing Arts Center. I found a couple techs drastically motioning for me to close the door. I did. That was it. It was nothing big in particular.
Later, I thought about analyzing the TED talk that I had accidentally walked into, but I could not find the video. Apparently some TED talks are posted long after the lecture is given.
Anyway, have fun and enjoy the next post.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Billboard
Salvete. I have something quick that I wanted to share with you. As I was driving, I saw a billboard promoted by Fatherhood.gov that said something along the lines of, "Take Time to Be a Dad Today"
with images of characters from the movie Despicable Me.
Really? Is there no better use for taxpayer dollars? Are there that many fathers that are going to change their lives or even their schedule just by looking at that billboard?
Anyway, I am glad to see viewers from Germany and Poland watch Plaustrum20. Have a nice day, and I hope to post again soon.
with images of characters from the movie Despicable Me.
Really? Is there no better use for taxpayer dollars? Are there that many fathers that are going to change their lives or even their schedule just by looking at that billboard?
Anyway, I am glad to see viewers from Germany and Poland watch Plaustrum20. Have a nice day, and I hope to post again soon.
Big Government and Big Business
Salvete. I am Trygve Plaustrum, the conservative political blogger from California, and I look forward to voicing my opinion on this blog.
Today's topic is big government versus big business. Buy in large, liberals are strictly opposed to big business and ally with big government, while conservatives are strictly opposed to big government and ally with big business. Each side believes that their opponent is bigger and needs to be brought down.
So I was thinking the other day about big government and big business and I thought to myself, "Big government by its very definition must be greater than big business." No matter how small the government of a country is, it is still capable of bringing down business through regulating procedures or products, outlawing said items, and, at extreme cases, arresting the leaders of the business and directly seizing the business. When a business is able to counter these assaults by the government and become greater than the government, big business would not be greater than the government. Big business would be the government. At this point the debate between big business and big government is obsolete.
In America, I personally believe that big government is far greater than big business. The American people have already seen the United States government take over businesses (General Motors), enact and enforce regulations, and tax corporations. The United States government has authority. Big business does not. The United States government has a military. Big business does not. The United States government can enact laws and has the final say in interpreting them. Big business cannot and does not, respectively.
Besides, governments often owe little to no allegiance to its people. Dictatorships, for example, do not care about the plights of their people. Businesses, however, must appeal to a consumer base in order to make a profit and survive. Very often this consumer base is ordinary citizens, either in a country or around the world. We see in the American government how unelected officials are gaining more and more power.
So my opinion is that the American people should tackle big government first and perhaps big business later. Big government is the problem as well as a source of power in America. Limiting big government would ensure that power is kept at a minimum while ensuring that big business will still be limited as well. Big government must be stopped before it becomes unstoppable.
Thanks for reading. I am excited to see four views for my blog, including one from Saudi Arabia. I hope to write another blog soon. Have a nice day.
Today's topic is big government versus big business. Buy in large, liberals are strictly opposed to big business and ally with big government, while conservatives are strictly opposed to big government and ally with big business. Each side believes that their opponent is bigger and needs to be brought down.
So I was thinking the other day about big government and big business and I thought to myself, "Big government by its very definition must be greater than big business." No matter how small the government of a country is, it is still capable of bringing down business through regulating procedures or products, outlawing said items, and, at extreme cases, arresting the leaders of the business and directly seizing the business. When a business is able to counter these assaults by the government and become greater than the government, big business would not be greater than the government. Big business would be the government. At this point the debate between big business and big government is obsolete.
In America, I personally believe that big government is far greater than big business. The American people have already seen the United States government take over businesses (General Motors), enact and enforce regulations, and tax corporations. The United States government has authority. Big business does not. The United States government has a military. Big business does not. The United States government can enact laws and has the final say in interpreting them. Big business cannot and does not, respectively.
Besides, governments often owe little to no allegiance to its people. Dictatorships, for example, do not care about the plights of their people. Businesses, however, must appeal to a consumer base in order to make a profit and survive. Very often this consumer base is ordinary citizens, either in a country or around the world. We see in the American government how unelected officials are gaining more and more power.
So my opinion is that the American people should tackle big government first and perhaps big business later. Big government is the problem as well as a source of power in America. Limiting big government would ensure that power is kept at a minimum while ensuring that big business will still be limited as well. Big government must be stopped before it becomes unstoppable.
Thanks for reading. I am excited to see four views for my blog, including one from Saudi Arabia. I hope to write another blog soon. Have a nice day.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Remember June 26th... as Plaustrum20's First Post!
Salvete. My name is Trygve Plaustrum (pseudonym), and I am into politics. I am a Christian Republican conservative in the state of California, and I look forward to sharing my views with the world (hopefully) through this blog.
First on the list: Today, the Supreme Court has ruled same-sex marriage legal in my home state. Being in California, I found that many of my friends were quite happy with this ruling. Now, I personally do not believe that same-sex marriage is biblically or ethically correct. But, ethics aside, I believe that the government has no authority to interfere with marriage. I am concerned, however, about whether or not the government will become actively involved in what defines marriage and potentially force churches and other religious institutions to marry same-sex couples against their will. Sooner or later, anyone who is opposed to same-sex marriage will be shouted down by either the public or the government. The law will be to actively support and promote same-sex marriage or face the social and legal consequences.
To Whom It May Concern:
You do not have the right to my support. You should not feel that your policies and beliefs are automatically entitled to the approval of myself, my family, my church, my community, and, above all, my God. I do not care whether or not same-sex marriage is legal (and this goes for any ruling, law, or policy). I will obey the law to the maximum extent, but I choose whether or not I agree with the law. You cannot force my opinion or take away my right to think independently. Not even God, worthy as He is, forces us to think like He does. Who are you, then, to harass someone to think like you do?
Sincerely,
Trygve Plaustrum
That wraps up my first post. I hope that you enjoyed reading, and expect another tomorrow.
First on the list: Today, the Supreme Court has ruled same-sex marriage legal in my home state. Being in California, I found that many of my friends were quite happy with this ruling. Now, I personally do not believe that same-sex marriage is biblically or ethically correct. But, ethics aside, I believe that the government has no authority to interfere with marriage. I am concerned, however, about whether or not the government will become actively involved in what defines marriage and potentially force churches and other religious institutions to marry same-sex couples against their will. Sooner or later, anyone who is opposed to same-sex marriage will be shouted down by either the public or the government. The law will be to actively support and promote same-sex marriage or face the social and legal consequences.
To Whom It May Concern:
You do not have the right to my support. You should not feel that your policies and beliefs are automatically entitled to the approval of myself, my family, my church, my community, and, above all, my God. I do not care whether or not same-sex marriage is legal (and this goes for any ruling, law, or policy). I will obey the law to the maximum extent, but I choose whether or not I agree with the law. You cannot force my opinion or take away my right to think independently. Not even God, worthy as He is, forces us to think like He does. Who are you, then, to harass someone to think like you do?
Sincerely,
Trygve Plaustrum
That wraps up my first post. I hope that you enjoyed reading, and expect another tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)