skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!
By Nicholas Meyeres
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Plain and simple. To the point. No reason for debate, right? We win. You lose. Guns for everyone!
Sadly, it is never that easy when you are talking to people who want to take freedoms away rather than give even more to the people.
One rhetorical argument given by gun control advocates is that outlawing gun ownership will reduce crime. However, enforcing gun control requires criminal behavior on an even more massive scale: in order to disarm gun owners and regulate gun producers, the government themselves must commit crimes against the people by first violating the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. That is, the government must forcibly expropriate the property of gun owners against their will. Therefore, gun control cannot reduce crime when enforcing gun control is a crime in and of itself. So, the whole idea of gun control for reducing crime is patently absurd in my opinion.
In fact, gun control actually increases crime on other levels, too. Criminals are deterred by armed victims, but gun control disarms law-abiding citizens. After all, a criminal will always find a way to obtain a gun. In essence, unarmed citizens make easy victims- it’s that simple.
Also, an armed populace is a strong check against government gone awry. After all, Thomas Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government." Guns simply provide many more designations aside from protecting yourself from home invasion or for the purpose of hunting.
Besides, the gun control debate has long been plagued by systematic bias, emotionalism, and most of all- shocking ignorance. Take the right to self-ownership for example. It entails (in part) a right to own weapons that can be used in a purely defensive manner. Weapons that can be used only aggressively are incompatible with self-ownership. Hence, nuclear weapons (as many gun control rights advocates ridiculously say everyone will want to have if not kept in check) are illegitimate. But weapon ownership of any other kind for one’s own protection (even hypothetical protection from tyranny of Big Government) is perfectly justified here in America.
Another argument often cited by gun control advocates is that “guns kill people” therefore we should endeavor to eradicate every one of them from the hands of any and all Americans. There is so much wrong with that statement, I don’t know where to begin. I suppose the most obvious place to start would be to say, yes, guns indeed do kill people- if they are in the wrong hands. But, you could say the same thing about a hammer, a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, a drinking straw or any other object that could be construed as a weapon. Should we ban all of those items, too? After all, a gun is impotent while it sits on a counter, unloaded. It only gains power when a bullet is added to the chamber and the trigger is pulled. In essence, the statement is misleading at best.
The bottom line is guns don’t kill people, people kill people…. that is to say, when individuals utilize them in an improper manner, of course.
So where does that leave us in the day's end about gun control here in America? In the clearest place imaginable if you ask me. Gun control is simply immoral, unnecessary, violates our rights as American citizens and just plain doesn’t work. Period!
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!
By Nicholas Meyeres
First of all, for the sake of complete disclosure, I have never done a recreational drug in my life. I don’t smoke, I don’t drink alcohol, I don’t even consume caffeine and I am a vegan. Therefore, I would be just fine on a personal level if all of these things I don’t engage in ceased to exist altogether. Still, it generally isn’t my right or especially the government’s right to dictate what we choose to do to ourselves no matter how harmful it may be, or what we decide to put into our own bodies.
Having said that, if your bad behaviors impede on my well being and welfare or the wellbeing and welfare of others around you, I feel that the government DOES have the right to at least impose restrictions and mandates to those that engage in drug use of any kind. In other words, you shouldn’t be allowed to drive while drinking because others can and often are injured and even killed. Nor should you be allowed to smoke cigarettes in any public setting around anyone else because second hand smoke is not only proven harmful, but it infringes on a person's right to self ownership when they aren't allowed to breath free away from another person's vices.
You should, however, be allowed to smoke in a private business if that business deems it appropriate, and you should be allowed to smoke in the privacy of your own home as long as children are not present. An adult, after all, can choose to leave such a setting, but a child is at the mercy of the person who has ultimate authority over them, and if that person is a smoker, the child is forced to be a party to that behavior.
Furthermore, reality dictates that for a multitude of scientific reasons and otherwise, alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking are far more addictive and deadlier than marijuana use for instance. Therefore, the hypocrisy and costliness of the drug war needs to be ended immediately; that, or ALL drugs should be banned entirely. And since the latter is highly unlikely given how lucrative the industry is these days, all drugs should be legal within the context of strict (realistic) rules, regulations and punishments put on them all, all the way across the board.
Besides, we have spent nearly five hundred billion dollars on the War on Drugs since the 1970s, and no one in their right mind would say that this was anything short of a complete failure on nearly every single level. Indeed, failures of that magnitude must always be reevaluated gravely in any situation.
HOWEVER, if the sum total of your entire argument is just to end enforcement of all things harmful, that also is a failure of logic in and of itself in my world. After all, nearly 3,000 Americans died as a result of drunk driving in 2009 alone. Meanwhile, around 16,000 Americans are murdered each year, and 1.3 million American women, and 800,000 American men are assaulted by a significant other annually. Most of which are commited while under the influence of some sort of drug or another.
These grim figures have not yet resulted in a chorus of people demanding that drunk driving, murder, and domestic violence be legalized. Indeed, if anything, a spike in the incidence of a certain crime typically leads to demands for a crackdown, and ultimately stiffer penalties for the convicted. So why, then, do Drug War opponents like to point to that aforementioned "failure” of criminalized drug use as an argument for legalization of all drugs?
We simply need a new approach. Legalization on the whole is a poor option, and prohibition is as well. There has to be another way of looking at this issue with fresh eyes.
Perhaps we should start with decriminalizing drugs completely at the FEDERAL LEVEL only. The Feds should have no control over the states in this regard anyway- that’s why the Constitution’s there. In other words, if California wants to legalize medicinal marijuana, that should be allowed. If New York wants to hand out medical crack cocaine, all the power to them. Conversely, if Utah or Kansas want to ban all drugs of any kind- they should have that right as well without the federal government stepping in and stepping on their toes.
It’s not a perfect plan, but it’s a start- and frankly, it has to be better than the current path we’re on.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!
By Nicholas Meyeres
I've always been of the assumption that conservatives conserve. So, why are so many conservatives today not more conservationist-minded and therefore good stewards of the earth and her environment? After all, what is more conservative than producing less waste and responsibly disposing of said waste? It seems to me that purveyors of a wasteful and unnecessarily filthy earth would be the liberals of today, not the conservatives.
After all, a conservative strives to hold onto traditional attitudes and values about things in life, and as a result is cautious about most change. Similarly, if a conservationist wishes to protect the earth from harm or destruction- wouldn't it makes sense for conservatives to be the ones who want the environment to remain unharmed or unchanged by unneeded and unnecessary things that are indeed in our control? Not the few things out of our control, clearly, but those things we can affect in our own everyday lives?
Of course, as with everything, public perception changes the narrative and thus the reality of any one thing when it is distorted for personal or political gain. But I never personally understood popular conservative opinion when it came to the environment. Sure, some people go too far with their rhetoric and what they propose to do to fix the issue, but at the end of the day it is all the same for every one of us. In my mind this shouldn't even be a political or partisan issue since it effects us all the very same way.
Having said that, people that take it to the sometimes illogical extreme like some Global Warming alarmists of the day do tend to get under my skin, as well. I don't do well with the obvious hypocrisy of that level of person, or others who try to tell me that if I don't do exactly as they think I should the universe will implode. Like many Americans, if I am confronted with most ultimatums- especially ultimatums built from lies, half truths and fear mongering- I will generally go the other way even if I agree with what the end result may be. Still, it perplexes me at a fundemental level that it isn't ingrained into all conservatives to police themselves and their own back yards and communities thereby ensuring a safe and clean environment- not to mention a much more fiscally sound one!
In fact, the GOP's own online party platform in regard to Energy and the Environment states in part that we must:
•increase energy efficiency
•develop alternative fuels, particularly cellulosic ethanol, and vehicles that run on biofuels and electricity
•create permanent tax incentives for renewable energy technologies like wind, solar, geothermal and hydro- power.
•develop new technology to burn coal and liquefy it for use in power plants and vehicles that don't pollute.
•enact a "Climate Prize" for scientists who identify solutions to global warming
The platform even goes one step further by stating, "While the scope and longterm consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment." So, that being the case, why don't we see more republicans who tow the party line require more from themselves in regard to the earth and the environment?
In truth, we CAN— and we probably should— address the risk of climate change based on sound science without succumbing to the no-growth radicalism that treats climate questions as dogma rather than as situations to be managed responsibly. But truth be told, this is all about personal responsibility and intergrity, not the other. And if modern day republicans want to be seen in that much more positive light, they need to be consistant all the way across the board- not just in parts.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!
By Nicholas Meyeres
More often than not, Americans have the tendency to want to say that “freedom isn’t free”, or talk about the "cost of freedom" as justification for sacrificing some liberties. But they couldn’t be more wrong.
Take faith for instance. No government should prohibit you or prevent you from ever practicing the faith of your choosing. Having said that, by that very same principle, it shouldn't mandate that you accept or practice one religion over another, either. Too many other countries do as much.
The Islamic doctrine in Iran for instance became law right around the time I was born. In essence, it proposes to steamroll everyone in the country to embrace only one religion, regardless of any individual’s personal belief system or morality. Incidentally, that also includes mandatory prayer in a public school setting- something a lot of Christian Americans call for very loudly these days. But that’s why we aren’t Iran, and that's the very reason we have an establishment clause to the First Amendment of our Constitution.
It is the charge of no government to force religion upon its citizens, regardless of whether that religion is Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or lack thereof. In fact, just as important as the right to free speech in this country, freedom of religion and the establishment clause is GUARANTIED by that First Amendment of the Constitution, and should always be honored. That’s why we should endeavor to recognize faith for what it is- a private and very personal choice for each and every individual. After all, isn't that the basic definition of freedom- the power to act, speak, or think as one wishes to without hindrance or restraint from anyone, including one’s own government?
But there is still opposition to this way of thinking. Sadly it is from the one group of individuals whom you would think would champion that cause more than any other- from none other than the church itself. To my mind every church in the free world should be thanking those of us who are willing to stand up and fight for separation of church and state, not against us. After all, wasn’t it England who was run by the church and who burned heretics alive before we seceded from that country to form our own?
As a result, our founders and framers decided to not repeat that monstrous mismanagement of justice by subjugating its people with a state sponsored religion. They knew that religion never elevates the state, but that the state somehow does seem to always demean the religion. That's why every theocracy in recorded human history has become a tyranny.
Still, many Christian Americans say that it isn't fair that the church doesn't have a true say in how the government is owned and operated. Don’t THEY have the right to free speech, as well? Not in so many words exactly.
Individual voters pay taxes, and in exchange, we are allowed the right to inform the government on how it should be run. But in return for not being able to do the same, the church doesn't have to pay taxes and is therefore exempt from most Federal and State laws. It’s an adequate exchange I think, even though it is true that IF churches did pay taxes, our National deficit would most likely be wiped out almost overnight.
But yet, because no one church has a vested power in the government, every religion and denomination is afforded the right to flourish and prosper in this great country of ours, which is the very reason there are more churches here in the United States than anywhere else in the entire world. All thanks to "separation of church and state".
Unfortunately, some church leaders I am sure feel that if they ran the government, it would be run much better and smoother, not to mention much more “moral” than it currently is. They would also have you believe that there is in reality no such thing as separation of church and state, and that the First Amendment applies mainly to their religion and not my lack of one. I say, “If you want a voice in how the government is to be run, then you should pay your fair share of taxes just like every other American citizen.” However, more often than not these same church leaders will run to their separate houses of god yelling, “You can't tax the church, it's against separation of church and state!”
Ironic or not, you can’t have it both ways. In fact, the bottom line is: If you want the same rights each and every American citizen is guaranteed in order to shape the government as they see fit, you have to pay that same burden as a citizen. That's simply how it works.
So, yes- separation of church and state is indeed the church's best friend regardless of what they would have us believe. Besides, it's all that stands between them and their absolute worst nightmare: Finding out that some OTHER religion has the power to tell THEM what to do.
And freedom? As opposed to what you may have been told- it IS free. Every bit of it. After all, in the long run, it doesn't cost you nearly as much as you gain. And that's why it’s "FREE"!
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!
By Nicholas Meyeres
Both terms- "pro-life" & "pro-choice"- are completely loaded terms in my opinion. “Pro-life” advocates are typically also pro-death penalty, pro-military action and war even if it results in the death of innocents, not vegetarians or vegans, and against other life-saving research like adult stem-cell research. “Pro-choice” advocates similarly are generally not for the choice of the father to have a say even though he was clearly involved, or the fetus who will eventually have a voice if left to grow. These individuals are, in essence, “pro-women-only-having-a-say” no matter what the cost because they claim that it is their “right”- simply put, because it is their body.
What they fail to understand is that what is in their body does not solely belong to them anymore because it is “co-owned” (for lack of a better term) by the man who helped to create it. At that stage they are simply a temporary vessel until the baby is born and takes its first few breaths. Call me old school, but that’s how I think. Essentially, this shouldn’t be debated except in cases of incest and rape. And though there are still questions about where life begins, the point is a point of one person’s rights VS another person’s rights and should probably be considered on a case by case scenario mainly. For instance- if the mother’s life is in danger- the mother should be saved without question. That is to say, if the baby will likely not survive, as well.
To use abortion as a means of birth control is simply unacceptable. For the government to mandate that tax payers fund abortion is also equally unacceptable. But the Morning After Pill should be allowed, and perhaps abortion should even be available before a beating heart is heard. Still having said that, sexual education is key, and we should be free to teach it in conjunction with abstinence programs and proper birth control usage. Both sides need a say in this issue, but we need to be realistic that human beings have sexual urges and desires that are often difficult to suppress, if at all. For that reason, while I feel personally that abortion is a poor choice- it is currently a choice. The law doesn’t necessarily need to be repealed, but it surely needs to be amended greatly.
But, regardless of where one stands on abortion, it is none of the Federal government’s business. If you stab someone to death, it is murder. You are typically charged with a STATE offense of murder. So, the Federal government does not need to be involved. And if it is not murder, then they don’t need to be involved because no crime is ever committed.
However, as the Declaration of Independence states, we all have “certain unalienable rights, among these is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” in which case we have a right to live no matter what. Which leads me to say that even the unborn have a right to live. Of course, the debate is open-ended since we have yet to come to a consensus of what “life” even is in this country.
Either way, the essence of the issue for me is one of hypocrisy first and foremost. The terms need to be changed to reflect a more realistic and less propagandist connotation before the debate can ever continue in an honest and straight forward fashion. “Pro-life” should become “anti-abortion” only; and the term “pro-choice” should simply become “pro-abortion”. You are either for it or against it with few exceptions. Only at that point can the conversation continue honestly.
However, as for assisted suicide- while I agree up to a point on the issue (after all, I would probably wouldn't want to live like that, either)- I disagree on the procedure as a whole for the sake of my own personal integrity. After all, I am truly "pro-life" all the way across the board- but, assisted suicide is a different sort of animal altogether.
Fetuses have no say in their death. Animals don't, either. Nor do inmates on death row who may or may not be innocent and who may be able to yet be rehabilitated. But a competent, sane person with the ability to make proper choices does. And while I feel it is supremely arrogant and selfish to commit suicide in any instance, it is also one's "right" to do so to echo many people’s sentiment.
However, to put that burden on anyone else but the person wanting to die- whether that person be a doctor or a family member- is simply beyond the pale of what anyone should ever ask of another person. In other words, if you can't do the deed yourself, you probably shouldn't ask anyone else to do your dirty work for you. In the cases of folks that can't do it themselves because of some debilitating disease- I hate to sound cruel- but they usually know what's coming, and should probably have ended their own lives before they ever get to that point if that is really what they choose to do.
In other words- that all being the case, I likely fall on the side its illegality. Sanctioned murder should never be allowed in a civilized society. And no matter what we decide to call it- that is exactly what it is.
Which brings me to stem cells research. This is a relatively controversial topic today because it is a relatively new issue and because it is a very misunderstood issue. Stem cell research and pro-abortion do not necessarily go hand in hand as some have contended. After all, fetal stem cells are not the only stem cells available to science- all humans (fetal to adult) contain stem cells that may be harvested for research.
Embryonic stem cells are taken from a developing embryo at the “blastocyst stage”, destroying the embryo- a developing human life anti-abortionists contend. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Besides, embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction (the death of some of the heart tissue).
The choice is clear on this point of view. When you have an adult who is capable of making proper choices about the usage of their bodies vs a life form that is not (much like vivisection), there should be no debate at all. Adult stem cell usage should be pursued. Embryonic stem cells should not.
And the death penalty? In a nut shell, capital punishment does not deter crime, and the death penalty is uncivilized in theory and unfair and inequitable in practice. While the debate of where life begins is still in question, death is exact. And when the state has control over a person’s very life-force they MUST be certain of all the facts. Sadly, they rarely are. People are fallible and corrupt by nature, and even if one innocent person is put to death on death row it is one too many. The government should hold no dominion over the life or death of ANYONE without their consent no matter what the context.
Furthermore, capital punishment is cruel and unusual, and murder demonstrates a lack of respect for human life- period. For this very reason, murder is abhorrent on any level, and any policy of state-authorized killings is therefore immoral government-sanctioned murder. Not to mention, capital punishment denies due process of law, and also violates the constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of those laws. Besides, executions send society the unmistakable message that human life no longer deserves respect when it is useful to take it and that homicide is legitimate when deemed justified by pragmatic means.
After all, reliance on the death penalty obscures the true causes of crime and distracts attention from the social measures that effectively contribute to its control. Plus, capital punishment simply wastes resources. It squanders the time and energy of courts, prosecuting attorneys, defense counsel, juries, and courtroom and correctional personnel- not to mention it is much more expensive than to put a prisoner in prison. And frankly, if you are in favor of “true” punishment- the death penalty let’s a murderer off the hook with much more ease than without suffering for their crime.
Simply put, a decent and humane society does not deliberately kill ANY living being no matter who pulls the proverbial trigger, or for whatever reason. Life is life, plain and simple. And if you indeed choose to call yourself such, you must live that principle all the way across the board lest you prove your hypocrisy true. You simply can NOT pick and choose your convictions like candy from a candy store, and expect to remain credible in society's eyes.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!
By Nicholas Meyeres
Let's try an experiment, shall we?
I'm a leftist-leaning democrat who voted for Barack Obama in 2008. And anyone who didn’t is a tea-bagging racist.
See how that worked? Half of you just mumbled something about me being a typical liberal. And the other half cheered out loud. And still, it was about as subtle as a sledgehammer and as divisive as a militant atheist at a Catholics-only convention.
It was certainly straight forward, but was it the truth?
Not if you really delve into the complexities of both major parties, it isn't. Democrats aren't just democrats anymore. Republicans aren't just republicans. And most of us would rather be somewhere in the middle if we really had our way about it, as opposed to most of the other political groups out there who are just too small to matter in the country club that is the political machine today.
After all, let's just be frank, the Libertarian Party (which is probably the largest of all the third parties in the United States today) is essentially a politically-impotent movement for the most part and likely always will be. Sure, some will raise up arms in protest by saying it is solely because of the Republican and Democrat Party's ability to overshadow any other movement like the libertarian movement, but that wouldn’t be entirely true, or intellectually honest. For the sake of argument, though, even if it were the case, and even if you buy into the philosophy that your party can be emasculated by any other party by the simple nature of their existence, you are (in essence) saying your own party is filled with so many weak-willed and inept members that you are either so easily swayed into another camp or can't mobilize your own troops well enough to make any real difference anyway.
Don't get me wrong. I understand, and even celebrate the side of me that is overtly libertarian in nature. But I am what you may call a "developing libertarian". After all, the exact term "libertarian" isn't entirely true to who I am, but then again, neither is “republican” or democrat”. I like most of the core ideals of the Libertarian Party, but not the sometimes wild ideas of what is right and what is not so right morally that often come from many party members- much like the Republican and Democrat Parties. I suppose I am best described by some as a "libertarian-leaning conservative", which isn't to say I don't share some of the ideals that liberals in America do today, because I do. Still, does that make me a republican or a libertarian, or even a democrat in the most general of definitions?
Let's take state's rights for starters. Unlike most liberals, I am for state's rights almost to a fault. I also feel that individual states do have a right to institute universal health care if they choose to; to hand out free cars if they want, ban drug and alcohol, or even to force people to eat red lollipops and crap sunshine if the citizens of that state want it that way. But only if it doesn’t violate the United States Constitution in any way, shape or form.
The federal government is essentially barred from such actions, but the states are not for the most part. And guess what? If a state also wants to have a collective mad-on hate for “queers”, “wetbacks”, “niggers”, “cowboys” or “car salesmen”- so be it. It is their right to institute a vote to make it an insane venture for any Hispanic, gay or lesbian, African-American, or pony-riding hick to live there. You can't force these people out of your state by law, or out-rightly discriminate against them, but you can make it near impossible for them to WANT to be there- and I am frankly ok with that. Not the racism that would surely ensue, but the rights of the citizens of that state to decide for themselves what they want within the confines of Federal discrimination laws.
If you don't like Arizona, then move to California. If you don't like California, then head on down to Mexico. If you don’t like Mexico, then I couldn’t blame you at all.
But personally, I am no more a libertarian then I am a republican; or for that matter, even democrat. I have a little bit of each party within me, and I feel that's what makes me the free thinker I believe I am today. I don't pander, and I am no partisan hack for any side. Frankly, anyone who identifies with any party 100% should be institutionalized for bat-shit craziness right out of the gate, and have the key thrown away forever. To be that much behind your party without any reservation makes you an automaton at best, and no better than the other side you choose to attack.
What I believe is different about me is my personal perspective- not my political persuasion. Most libertarians eschew the culture wars, think drugs and pornography should be legal, favor an isolationist foreign policy for the most part and generally believe in shrinking the government to about the size of a walnut- all of which appalls most mainstream conservatives. On these matters, I am a fairly typical conservative republican for all intents and purposes.
Sure, I think Federal government should have much less power than it does today, but to shrink it so small that it has virtually no power at all is sheer lunacy, and also wildly dangerous in this day and age. And to bring all of our troops home right now would be a great idea and one I am all for, but also equally dangerous if not extremely naïve to do all in one fell swoop. But so many libertarians I know of would love these ideas to be made a reality. Not me. Not in the slightest. I am no anarchist or isolationist. I guess I am no “true” libertarian.
Generally, I am in favor of a strong military and am not afraid of our government using it within the confines of our Constitution (which it currently doesn’t anyway). I also reject the idea of immediately pulling American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and many other places for a multitude of different reasons which places me directly at odds with the Libertarian Party. But like many libertarians, I feel that preemption in war is about as wrong as it gets on nearly every single level, and war in general is a very, very bad idea.
However, in the post-911 world we live in today, if you aren't at least somewhat vigilant and don't say you won't retaliate against aggression when it happens to you, you are either a fool who might as well choose to live in a fantasy world where nothing bad ever really happens, or close the door to our country and never let anyone in ever again. Essentially, if you come after my country first and do harm to my people, we have the right and we WILL pound you into squirrel snot given the chance to do so. Otherwise, we're minding our own business for the most part.
Yet, for whatever reason, libertarians are seemingly in favor of completely open borders with no restrictions, and want every illegal alien, criminal, and terrorist to flood our country like never before. I can't even touch on this idea without my head exploding. In this regard, I am COMPLETELY the opposite of a libertarian!
So, does that make me a conservative republican? Not unless you think the terms "militant atheist" or “bleeding heart vegan” are synonymous with republicanism, it doesn't.
I identify with the republican party on a great many levels, but not all- including the religious right who seems to rule the direction the party is headed today.
Take capital punishment for example. I am against it on every level possible. And I am just fine with gays and lesbians getting married and divorced and even joining the military given the chance to do so. And abortion? I actually understand it when some people decide to go that route, believe it or not- but I still think it is personally one of the worst choices you could ever make. So, does that make me a democrat in conservative’s clothing, or someone trying his best to pretend not to be what others’ believe him to be?
I am also against the welfare state to an almost vitriolic degree- including welfare for veterans, corporations, and the elderly- not just the poor, the lazy, or the inept. I feel unions have way outlived their usefulness. I believe that redistribution of any sort of wealth at all is the birth of the downfall of this great country we live in. I am completely for making drugs of any kind extremely hard to get, if not completely illegal- including cigarettes AND alcohol. And while I am not at all behind the Patriot Act, I am also just fine with a little water boarding every now and then if it gets the job done. I am just not so sure I want to know about it when it happens. Oh, and I love my guns and country, too.
So, that must bring me back to being a jingoistic republican, right?
After all, the most common belief republicans have is fiscal conservatism- specifically, advocating for lower taxes at every level of government, a reduction in the level of spending in the federal budget, easing the burden of federal regulations on business interests, the reform of the entitlement system, and ending or making significant cuts to the welfare state. Additionally, they claim to oppose budget deficits and deficit spending, and work to minimize it as much as possible. Too bad that is only in theory. Republicans have become just as diametrically opposite to this way of thinking as the democrats have.
And the Constitution?
Come on, libertarians aren't the only ones who have the market cornered on the Constitution and the rights it affords to all American citizens. Republicans do, as well- again in theory, that is. And I bet I can even find one or two Blue Dog Democrats that would stand behind the greatest document ever written if I look hard enough. But to be clear, these concepts are not exclusively mutual to just the Libertarian Party. Because, while the United States Constitution may have been birthed by forming a multitude of different concepts throughout the history of the world, and from different civilizations and societies and countries over time- it is wholly American, as well. However, the birth of the libertarian movement is predominantly a French concept, not an American one.
Let me repeat that in case you missed it the first time: The birth of the libertarian movement was French!
Wikipedia says, "The use of the word 'libertarian' to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, 'Libertaire', which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the classical liberalism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Hence the term 'libertaire' has been used as a synonym for left wing anarchism or libertarian socialism since the 1890s."
“Libertarian communist?!”
Now, I'm not saying the French are all bad, or had only bad ideas, but... come on, they're French!
And the Democratic Party? It "evolved from Anti-Federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s" also according to Wikipedia. So, it is truly an American concept, as well, as opposed to libertarianism. And in its inception, the party favored states' rights and a strict adherence to the Constitution; while opposing a national bank and wealthy, moneyed interests much like the Libertarian and Republican Parties do today.
And finally, there's the Republican Party, which is also a 100% American-created and born institution with one of the greatest men to ever be elected to the high office of the Presidency- Abraham Lincoln- as its first. Bottom line, you don't get any more "American" than the Republican Party.
So, that must mean I am one even though I sound libertarian by libertarian standards today even though libertarians were formed out of communist and socialist roots which is what most people accuse the Democrat Party of being today... is anyone else confused yet?
Bottom line, the Republican and Democrat Parties today are not the Republican and Democrat Parties of days gone by, and that concerns me. I am often called a RINO, or "Republican in Name Only", or even the opposite extreme- a neo-conservative- by people who claim to know me. But is that truly fair to me, and does it even matter if I am not EXACTLY the embodiment of one party of another? After all, republicans don't act or talk or think at all like the republicans of the past, nor do democrats, nor do libertarians for that matter.
So...
"Where do I stand?"
"Who do I most closely align myself with?"
"What party best represents ‘me’?"
If I call myself a republican, I am automatically aligned with the religious right and George W. Bush whom I did not vote for. If I say I am a democrat, I am a born again socialist who dreams of communist sheep jumping over Marxist revolutionaries wearing brown SS shirts who voted for Barack Obama- whom I also did not vote for. Independents are nothing more than the bi-sexuals in the political spectrum who vacillate from side to side when it is convenient for them to do so, but never seem to want to really commit themselves to any actual cause or side. And the renewed interest in libertarianism via the Tea Party movement over the last couple of years only seems to me a knee-jerk reaction to conservative republicans losing to our current president in 2008. It seems like it is more of an anti-democrat and anti-liberal movement rather than a pro-liberty or constitutional one.
So, where do I stand?
Perhaps, I am a "diet libertarian", or perhaps even "libertarian light". In other words, I think nearly exactly as most libertarians do, but because I live in Utah and can't vote in the primaries as anything other than a democrat or a republican, I chose the lesser of two evils and am a registered “little (r)”. Just don’t try telling all the other conservatives out there in Mormonland that I am an atheist who supports gay marriage, and who is also against the death penalty. They’ll take my card away, and never give it back.
Perhaps I am with all of these groups and perhaps I am with none of them. That is about as clear as it gets for me… for right now at least or maybe even forever. Maybe that's where it should choose to even stay. Maybe I am more than just the label I am forced to be given, or the mantel I choose to wear. Maybe I am more than the sum of my political parts. Maybe just being called an "American" is more than enough in the world we live in today.
Maybe Superman had the right idea. Maybe "truth, justice, and the American way" is all there really is to believe in when it’s all said and done. Maybe we should form a new political party altogether. Maybe.
Raise your hands if you're for the newly formed "Truth, Justice and the American Way Party"! Now, that's something I could get behind. Up, up, and away, America! It’s time to move beyond the labels we are given by others, and make our own way in the world for ourselves, and for liberty.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!
By Nicholas Meyeres
The Theory of Evolution is just that: a theory. There are holes in it, to be sure. But make no mistake about it, even having said that- evolution is clearly the best explanation we have by far, and it leaves very little room for doubt. In fact, the little doubt that does remain is so astronomically small that it makes one wonder why even have a discussion about it at all. But that is the point of science, and as with all good science, it will remain the best explanation as long as all other scientific disciplines agree with it- which they do for now. Of course, that isn't to say that this won't change. This is because science is ever evolving itself, and leaves no stone unturned. I personally trust that approach in life far more readily than any blind, benighted view that is dictated and never adjusted as we learn and grow over time.
Thus, creationism is neither a science nor a discipline from this standpoint- to say otherwise is deceiving at best. Nor is it terribly rational. It is magic, and we all know magic does not exist. Sure, it’s common knowledge that I don't personally believe in any version of a higher power, but it's not because any scientist told me not to, or for that matter, because I believe in evolution on its own. It is an idea born simply out of reality, and what I see as lending itself to rational and critical thinking. But does that mean that if one believes in creationism their scientific or rational knowledge is severely lacking? Not necessarily.
After all, like I said before, it is a theory- it is not the PROOF of Evolution. But to say that there is no basis for it being a more rational "truth" than, say, a view that a cosmic Zombie Jewish carpenter who was somehow conceived without a father, but who is in some way his own celestial father born of flesh and blood to a virgin; who can also make you live forever only if you symbolically eat his skin and telepathically tell him every night before bedtime that you accept his claim as lord and master over everything in creation; so he can mystically remove the invisible evil force living inside of you like an undetectable tumor all because a woman wearing a fig leaf who was born from a bone fragment and who was convinced by a talking snake to eat a magical fruit from a forbidden tree in a lush, tropical, beautiful garden somewhere in the Middle Eastern desert is laughable.
But is it more laughable than humans evolving from apes? Considering that we have nearly identical DNA as some apes I would say that evolution from this standpoint is much more believable than the other, yes. Is it perfect? Not in the slightest. But we already know (and can see with our own two eyes) that evolution exists all around us without having to take anyone's word for it, and that makes all the difference in the world.
We can see many animals around us that have adapted to their surroundings. We know the Earth has done it's fair share of adaptation, as well. We are aware that plants evolve to suit their circumstances and needs. So, why is it such a leap to believe that we, too, have evolved as a species?
After all, no one knows how old the Earth really is, but geologists were beginning to make estimates that the earth was considerably older than explained by biblical creation long ago. Geologists were learning more about the layers formed by successive periods of the deposition of sediments centuries ago. This suggested a time sequence, with younger layers overlying older layers.
And discoveries of fossils were accumulating during the 18th and 19th centuries. At first naturalists thought they were finding remains of unknown but still living species. As fossil finds continued, however, it became apparent that nothing like giant dinosaurs was known from anywhere on the planet. Furthermore, as early as 1800, scientists pointed out that the deeper the layer of earth, the less similar fossils were to existing species.
And further, we know the world to not be flat today, and that the Earth is not the center of the solar system all thanks to science. But in centuries past we believed it to be so. Again, all thanks to science, we now know the error of our thinking. As a result, I know very few people today that would deny that much, but yet those same few people would deny evolution and the date of the Earth given scientific evidence. Why?
The answer seems to be a simple one for me- willful ignorance. Evidence is something that adds weight to an argument or theory. Proof is absolutely undeniable. Is there proof of evolution? Not in exact terms, no, but there is an abundance of evidence for it. Consequently, there is neither proof NOR evidence for creationism at all. Therefore, in order to believe in creationism all you need is “faith” in your theory, and a healthy dose of skepticism for anything but your point of view and it becomes true in your mind. Willful ignorance.
So, will we ever prove evolution correct without any shred of doubt? Not likely, since that isn't how science really works. Put another way, Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling aptly described science as “the search for truth”. Plainly put, there is always doubt. But it is far more likely that evolution will be proven much more true than creationism ever will be considering the overwhelming evidence that already exists for evolution and the lack of any shred of evidence for creationism.
In other words, science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and rejects implausible explanations. In this way, scientific knowledge and understanding grow over time. Religious explanations for the order of things are not science because they are based primarily on faith and do not subject themselves to be objectively falsified.
So, when scientists speak of evolution as a theory they do not mean that it is a mere speculation. It is a theory in the same sense as the propositions that the earth is round rather than flat or that our bodies are made of atoms are theories. Most people would consider such fundamental theories to be sufficiently tested by empirical evidence to conclude that they are indeed facts. As a result of the massive amount of evidence for biological evolution accumulated over the last two centuries, we can safely conclude that evolution has occurred and continues to occur to this day.
Having said that, do I believe in evolution hook, line and sinker? Not in the slightest. I just recognize that it is the most palpable theory out there today. If something more reasonable is presented, including proof of creationism, I will gladly and gleefully entertain the idea just as I have entertained the Theory of Evolution. After all, as Thomas Jefferson said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
