when naive optimism becomes deadly

In response to North Korea's missile launch, Obama came up with a brilliant plan. "Let's all hold hands, sing together, and convince Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran to get rid of their nuclear arms. But since no one wants to do it, we'll do it first! We can change the world. Yes we can!"

Honestly, this news pushed me over the edge. It means one of three possible things:

1. Obama is truly a naive or arrogant idiot who believes that countries with people who wish to destroy us will voluntarily give up their weapons;
2. Obama has some sort of scheme wherein he says "hey, we don't have any weapons" when in fact the US will retain some, which would never work because everyone else will likely do the same; or
3. Obama wants to destroy the U.S.

The end is near.

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
--Romans 13:1-7

all eyes on you

There are one of two things you probably want to do right now. You either want to:

1. get drunk and celebrate; or
   
2. get drunk and forget.
   

Obama won, get over it. But the question becomes, "what now?" I'm sorry to break it to you, but come January 2009, not very much will change. The sky won't rain gold, but it won't fall down either. Once this popularity contest settles down, the two extremes -- I hope -- will come back to the middle. Then the real fun begins -- we'll finally get to see what our new president actually stands for.

The problem today is that we put our faith in people. We have shifted from putting our faith in things above to putting our faith in those among us who promise the world. As I saw all the young liberals in Obama's crowd who were moved to tears by Obama's win, I couldn't help but think of how naive and bright-eyed they must be. They are convinced that "change" is right around the corner. They hold hopelessly optimistic dreams -- that health care will be free to everyone; that poverty will disappear; that liberty will be given the highest priority. These educated but inexperienced young people have so much heart and passion. Too bad they can't see that it's often not in the right place.

clearly ambiguous

As the election draws near, I have been thinking a lot about my own position. Yet the more I think of it, the more torn I am. The problem with the bipartisan system is that you must necessarily choose one or the other. One must force himself into either a square or a rhombus hole, even if you happen to be a triangular peg. Even more difficult is that Christianity doesn't fit easily into either. In my opinion, if Christianity were to become its own political party, it would be right-leaning on social/moral issues and left-leaning on economic and taxation issues.

Social conservatism and Christianity strongly overlap; the two are mostly in agreement with respect to marriage, divorce, homosexuality and abortion. But not the whole of conservatism is in agreement with Christianity. When it comes to taxation, the conservative tends to take the view of "every man for himself." The conservative says "I worked hard for my money, so why should I have to give it back?" Thus, the safety nets like health insurance are to be kept to a bare minimum. But this is a tricky issue. In an ideal world, people should be giving anyway. Unfortunately, they don't. In a secular society, then, there has to be some way to ensure that those who need assistance get it (with limitations on abuse, of course).

Likewise, conservatives believe that the market economy should be kept free and government regulation kept to a minimum. The problem, of course, is greed. Without regulation and enforcement, greed is bound to take hold of major corporations whose sole purpose it is to increase its wealth and size. This focus on profits necessarily leads to a disregard of morality. Even Greenspan - a strong advocate of free markets - has conceded his grave error.

In short, certain aspects of conservatism work in an ideal world - where people willingly give to the poor, use guns only for self-protection, and corporate greed is nonexistant. But such idealism is a fantasy and is downright dangerous.

why america's youth love obama

Here's an important question: if one were to run an ad that encouraged the youth to vote, whose cause would it help? It is becoming increasingly clear that the liberals will overwhelmingly reap the benefits of a youthful vote.

Today's youth is bombarded with ultra-liberal views from a pre-pubescent age. I would have no problem with it if people were actually given a neutral set of choices, debated and discussed it, and chose a stance. Instead what we see are children being taught from a very young age that one's rights are more important than what's right. If it feels right, do it, so long as it comports with some vague societal standard that shifts from one generation to the next. The problem with blind liberalism, then, is not simply that there's no moral compass, it is that most adherents can't see why they even need one in the first place.

Liberalism is concerned with rights at the cost of morality. The liberal is constantly worried about his rights being infringed upon, never for a moment examining whether enforcing his right is the moral thing to do. He'll do anything to get what's fair, but maybe that's not what he really needs. Besides, who's moral values, and what moral values are we supposed to enforce in a secular society? The religious person is ready with an answer, but I often wonder what the agnostic/atheist has to say about morality. I would tell that person to look within himself to find the answer, but I'd be afraid that they have never thought about it seriously enough to give an answer.

The problem, then, is that these people often give the appearance of intelligence, societal progressivism, and elitism. Yet it's all an empty shell; nothing is holding up those beliefs other than self-interest. A conservative is criticized for being stagnant and for going against social progress. True, some conservatives may be very close-minded. But a true conservative will do not what is popular by today's standards, but by what is right under some form of objective moral guidepost that won't change in 10 years.

I pray that those well-educated conservatives can offer their views upon today's increasingly one-sided society so that at the very least, liberals can be given the chance to make an educated decision between at least two viable alternatives.

electioneering

say the right thing when electioneering
'i trust i can rely on your vote'
it's just business

I have to say that I am one of the many people who simply are unhappy with either candidate right now. Obama's ultra-liberal views have never quite meshed with mine, and I therefore can't imagine myself voting for him. But to make matters worse, I feel like he tries so hard to say the "right things" depending on who's listening. Even worse, he resorts to unprofessional remarks [like this] that really make me question his character.

On the other hand, we have McCain, whose somewhat more conservative social views I tend to agree with. Yet because he is a politician, he bothers me just as well. After having Daddy Yankee endorse him, a Republican, as a "fighter" for the Hispanic community, it's hard to take him seriously anymore. But even more than him, it is his party that I have an issue casting my vote for.

The corruption of the Republican party is not, in my opinion, offset by their conservative social views. While some may not see it, today's dire economic circumstances are deeply rooted in greed and moral depravity. McCain has stated that he's "always for less regulation" when it comes to the economy. Great - look where that got us today. What possible good was he trying to further here, besides his party's own pecuniary interests? To make matters worse, he supported all those government bailouts that put the burden on the middle class. Essentially, the corrupt Republican wants to privatize the profits and socialize the losses. Instead of putting the burden on those who caused this mess, he shifts it to the responsible taxpayer. Oh, and he refuses to raise taxes for the upper class, who in all likelihood were profiting when the markets were up at our expense.

How about the 2005 Bankruptcy code amendments which Bush and his Grand Ol' Party passed? There is no doubt that the credit card companies really won this one. Yes, the reckless banks who were lending money by the shipload to people who make no income, charging them 30% interest, then pillaging them for all they have once they can't even afford to file for bankruptcy due to the new code's protections to the credit card companies. It is total disregard for morality at its finest.

I know how I feel about both candidates. I wouldn't vote for either of them if I had an actual choice. But I don't. It's one or the other. A vote for an independent would not only be a waste, but it would actually be a vote against either McCain or Obama. If Obama wins, I would have furthered that win by not voting for McCain (bracketing for a moment the extreme unlikelihood that my vote even matters in an uber-democratic state). Even if I could find an independent candidate that I 100% agreed with, a vote for him would be a vote for Obama.

Thus, I will be forced to choose the lesser of two evils. It is a shame that it has come down to this.