Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Hollywood: "Commie, Homo-loving Sons of Guns"

Milk, the story of the first openly homosexual man in a significant political office, appeared at the same time that Proposition 8 was gaining notoriety in California. It won two Oscars, and in both acceptance speeches, Dustin Lance Black and Sean Penn respectively spoke about gay rights and the future of equality in America.

Sean Penn, famous for his liaisons with Fidel Castro and other extremists, had some extreme things to say about this issue. He addressed the audience as "you commie, homo-loving sons of guns," and said, "I think it is a good time for those who voted for the ban on gay marriages to sit and reflect and anticipate their shame and disgrace in their grandchildren's eyes if they continue in this way to support."

Those who oppose Proposition 8 assume that Christians are filled with hatred and bigotry because they will not accept homosexual lifestyles. They are quick to cite a few quotes from Christ about love, but love to ignore the rest. Either side will not tolerate the other, but the difference is that Hollywood labels Christians as bigots and liberals as heroes. Clearly, Hollywood cannot tolerate the conservative and deserve their own appellations.

Christians may legally and unabashedly vote their moral conscience because the individual and society are inseparably connected: what one person does always affects another.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Racist Profiteering

On February 18th the New York Post printed a political cartoon that depicted a monkey being shot by police officers (a reference to the chimp attack in Connecticut) with one of the officers saying: "They'll have to find someone else to write the new stimulus bill." Immediately following, activists lobbied the Post for a retraction and an apology, stating that it was an obvious racist reference to President Obama (Fox News article).

Although I agree that the cartoon is inappropriate and probably a racial attack, I do agree with the Post on one issue: some people will exploit racial conflicts to the detriment of achieving racial equality. Activists such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made a considerable living as hatemongers; they have incited riots, looting, and murder in the name of racial equality.

For example, after an incident in which medical services treated a Jew preferentially over a Caribbean-American, many people protested this discrimination. The protests soon escalated into violence after Al Sharpton shouted at a demonstration, "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house" (Newsday article). Fueled by untrue rumors from hatemongers like Al Sharpton, riots ensued and finally a Jewish student was captured and killed by a mob, which was shouting "kill the jew" (Gothan Gazette article). Al Sharpton undoubtedly wants to better his race, but is his goal racial equality if he consistently incites hatred towards other races?

These hatemongers even oppose members of their own race that don’t conform to a specific racial identity, such as President Obama. After an episode in which police arrested six black youth, Jesse Jackson criticized then-Senator Obama’s reaction and accused him of “acting like he’s white” (CNN article). Worse than the Post’s monkey cartoon was what a microphone caught an unwitting Jesse Jackson saying: “See, Barack's been talking down to black people . . . I want to cut his nuts off” (CNN article). In my opinion, these kind of remarks represent a kind of racism much worse than the Post’s: an unveiled hatred of anyone not belonging to a specific racial identity.

This hatred is sold under the guise of improving equality, but it only fuels racial hatred. Still, activists need to take steps to oppose racial injustices, such as ignoring due process and hate crimes. Until then, activists may either peacefully protest true injustices or selfishly incite more hatred in order to fill their own pockets and achieve notoriety.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Conservatives and Liberals

Dividing political beliefs into "conservative" and "liberal" reinforces a lot of assumptions. It's easy to compare modern conservatives to every force in the past that has ever tried to maintain social norms or deny another class its natural rights. Similarly, it's easy to think that modern liberals share all the same qualities as notable freethinkers who opposed tyrannical governments.

I personally want to change many things. I think I want more change in our government than many liberals. Am I, then, a conservative?

Monday, November 24, 2008

The Right to Bare Arms

Growing up, I never felt strongly about the Second Amendment. We lived in suburbia, my dad kept a baseball bat under his bed, and his childhood BB gun was enough to scare off bothersome animals around the yard.

Now, I think it's one of our most important rights. Our forefathers were worried about an oppressive government, so what were the first rights they chose to establish? The freedom of thought and the ability to defend yourself. In the atomic age, it is not likely that we will be invaded. After all, we're surrounded by Canada, Mexico, and about a million square miles of ocean.

The most likely scenario that threatens national security is our own government. Thomas Jefferson said, "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or home defense. I doubt the forefathers thought those rights would be restricted. They were worried about their own future government disarming citizens. After all, that's how Hitler and Stalin were able to turn their countries into police states.

Many socialized countries are setting themselves up for future dictatorships as we speak. The only thing missing is an economic catalyst on the scale of the Great Depression to turn a socialized state into a totalitarian state. Unfortunately, we're currently gravitating towards the worst recession in decades. We've spent more money than we have, just like in the "Roaring 20s." What are we doing to fix it? We're not cutting spending, we're bailing out failing businesses and incurring more debt. If our credit score was calculated at a national level, we wouldn't be able to buy a car, much less the car industry.

Stay out of debt, store food, be honest, and practice your marksmanship.

"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done." -Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008


I believe in personal responsibility. Governments do not have the obligation to assume responsibility for people's decision. Are you the kind of person that believes that the government should mandate a certain lifestyle and provide everyone with one regardless to personal effort or even luck?

Health care is not an impossible option for anyone. People choose to be financially irresponsible and spend thousands of dollars every year on restaurants, entertainment, and toys. They believe that it is their right to enjoy such things. They don't believe they have the responsibility to pay for their health. Why? Because it's a gamble. If you're healthy, why pay insurance when you can spend it on a new car? A decent private insurance plan for a family runs about $4,000 a year, which is affordable for everyone.

Sex is a physical contract in which you accept responsibility for potential children. If you cannot afford children, do not have them. Marriage is an institution that protects children because it provides an atmosphere in which the child can be provided for by two parents. Anything less than this is unfair to children. If you made a mistake and cannot afford your child, adoption is always better than death.

When the state begins to take away responsibilities, our rights will soon follow.

Friday, November 14, 2008

English Education

I'm dissatisfied with the way English is taught in America. Teachers and professors emphasize literature to the detriment of other equally-important aspects of English: language and writing.

Because English is a risky career decision, the majority of English majors are women, who culturally worry less about providing for a family and historically brought about the rise of the novel. Students also choose English because it is an easy major. Your assignments are to read works of fiction that you would probably be reading any way. You don't learn any practical skills, like you would in a science, engineering, or nursing major. In short, it is an academic, and not a professional degree.

These hordes of English majors usually find themselves teaching English, where their love of literature and ignorance of language and writing reflect in what new students are taught. This is why, when I taught English overseas, students frequently scrutinized my lessons and questioned whether or not a principle was British English or American English. To them, Americans notoriously spoke and wrote their own language poorly.

Additionally, my English classes invariably study works of fiction. Much can be learned from these books, but more is left unknown because we never study historical documents, biographies, or any other kind of real text. Instead, we take a piece of fiction and debate endlessly over the existence of phallic symbols in it. Wouldn't it be nice to read about what our forefathers said about America, or what Queen Elizabeth said about the Spanish Armada? I care more about the history of the English language than I do about penises.

I propose that English programs be changed to reflect an equal division between language, literature, and writing. Language to know how to accurately express yourself and understand others, literature to learn how other's have expressed their thoughts, and writing so you can and do express your thoughts. This focus on literature is crippling our ability to communicate.

Friday, November 7, 2008


Marxists hate capitalism and see it as the exploitation of their work. To some degree, they’re correct.

Organization is a natural instinct. We organize chairs into rows, hair to one side or the other, and food into cereals, fruits, and so forth. Social Darwinism organizes people into varying degrees of productivity. As humans, we have a natural instinct of compassion, or a sense of humanity. We do not allow other humans to suffer when they are unproductive because we naturally assign inestimable value to human life.

Do people suffer when they must work 40-hour weeks to pay for life’s necessities? Of course not. People do not have a right to work. They choose to exchange their labor for money. Money is not evil, but a representation of how much people value labor. Everyone values labor. Any single person, with the exception of those suffering from debilitating physical or mental handicaps, can sell their labor. Anyone can pursue the labor they are best at or love most. If they are good enough at what they do, they can become a leader. In this way, the most able people rise and lead.

Exceptions exist. Some businesses hire leaders who have expensive education or powerful friends but little talent. These businesses will eventually fail because of ineptitude, while the more talented businesses will succeed. These successful businesses will attract the most talented employees by offering better benefits. They can afford to do so because superior labor yields more value. This competition results in a better quality of life for everyone.

A former exception is access to education. Today, anyone with desire and effort can attend college, and even have someone else pay for it. If you’re not a white male, your chances are even better. Information is free, primarily because the internet is largely unregulated (which is a wonderful example of capitalism itself). People are willing to spend money to find talented people and help them be successful.

Inequality will always exist. It is impossible for two people to have equal intelligence, ingenuity, strength, or any other asset that we value. If we limit the amount we value a skill like ingenuity to a certain level, people will only produce enough of that skill to reach that level. This is because humans react based on incentives: how healthy will I be if I spend the time to exercise; how happy will I be if I marry this person. To be equal, we eliminate incentives and promote mediocrity.

I oppose Marxism because it limits people. Everyone should be rewarded for the effort they make and talents they have. If one person becomes wealthy because he is both hardworking and talented, his wealth shouldn’t be taken away from him. Marxism rewards the mediocre as much as the producer, and that is unfair.