The two sides of the political spectrum are not "liberal" and "conservative" but "liberal" and "libertarian". It's pretty simple once you think about it.
You have the Constitution as it was written. There are only two ways to go from the Constitution:
1) If you support giving government MORE power than it Constitutionally is delegated, you are a LIBERAL.
2) If you support giving government LESS power than it Constitutionally is delegated, you are a LIBERTARIAN.
Conservatism is, BY DEFINITION, a belief in the status quo of the Constitution. Whether a specific candidate who CLAIMS to be conservative actually IS, is the subject for another time.
The EXTREMES on those two directions are that LIBERALS turn into TOTALITARIANS and LIBERTARIANS turn into ANARCHISTS. Here's a small chart that explains it: [LINK]
BTW, these stances are possibly regardless of support of a specific claim. For instance, if abortion was literally a Constitutional Right, then the Conservative position would be a Pro-Choice one.
![[LINK]](http://www.destroyerclub.com/images/polchart.jpg){kind=link}
Welcome to America
This year's election of Barack Obama was not welcomed by me. I supported Palin/McCain (yes, I stated that correctly). But the political aftershocks of Obama's election sprout some good fruit.
I'm not a big Whoopi Goldberg fan. Politics aside, she's not really that funny, though I loved her role in Star Trek: The Next Generation. But after the election, she said, "I've always been proud to be an American, now I feel like I can unpack my bags." For a lot of Americans, the statement was kind of a shock, especially after her insulting and disingenuous question to John McCain asking if she were supposed to be worried about becoming a slave.
Though Ms. Goldberg came from humble origins, she can afford to live where she wants (which apparently is a multi-million dollar mansion, nice digs for a slave if you can get them), but some blacks truly believe this because they've been told their entire life that they are victims. I truly hope that, if nothing else, this election removes that stigma of victimhood. After all, it's pretty good if you can be elected to the most powerful office on Earth.
So, you who feel you have been disenfranchised: Welcome to America. Let's sit down and talk about the rest...
I'm not a big Whoopi Goldberg fan. Politics aside, she's not really that funny, though I loved her role in Star Trek: The Next Generation. But after the election, she said, "I've always been proud to be an American, now I feel like I can unpack my bags." For a lot of Americans, the statement was kind of a shock, especially after her insulting and disingenuous question to John McCain asking if she were supposed to be worried about becoming a slave.
Though Ms. Goldberg came from humble origins, she can afford to live where she wants (which apparently is a multi-million dollar mansion, nice digs for a slave if you can get them), but some blacks truly believe this because they've been told their entire life that they are victims. I truly hope that, if nothing else, this election removes that stigma of victimhood. After all, it's pretty good if you can be elected to the most powerful office on Earth.
So, you who feel you have been disenfranchised: Welcome to America. Let's sit down and talk about the rest...
Fun Topics to Debate: Time Travel
I enjoy a serious political debate just as much as the next person, but every once in awhile I like taking on something more akin to science fiction. Today, I will argue against the popular belief that someone couldn't go to the past and kill their grandfather; or, if they did, they would cease to exist.
I believe that if time travel were possible, that I could not only go to the past and kill my grandfather, I would still live after doing so, because time is linear.
As such, my Time Theory is simple: Past Actions > Present Actions > Future Actions
Let's look at the famous example of a man going to the past to kill his grandfather, using my theory. If someone went to the past and killed their own grandfather, the grandfather would indeed be dead, but the grandson would still exist (more on this aspect later).
Basically, the action of killing the grandfather in the past takes precedence over even the birth of the grandson in the present or future. And the grandson would not disappear. Why? Because he exists in the past and therefore his existence in the past takes precedence over the future repercussions of his actions, even his non-birth.
Even if he were to return to the future, he still would not cease to exist. After all, why would he? His presence in the past proved his existence. Therefore, his moving forward in time would not negate that fact. His moving through time, in fact, guarantees his existence during any time period that he travels to!
The only problem would be that when he traveled to the future again, no one would know him, since in that Time/Space continuum he was never born, never met his friends, never got the job he had, never married his wife, etc.
TIME TRAVEL RULE #1: If you travel to the past, make sure you have a DVD of home movies showing your wedding, stuff at work and movies of all your friends. Why? Because you would paradoxically, but quite literally be a man (from a parallel universe that no longer exists anywhere but in his memory) without mother, father or even BIRTH.
End result?
Again, my Time/Space Theory: Past Actions > Current Actions > Future Actions
"Parallel Universe" is the description of a Time/Space continuum that no longer exists outside the memory of a person or persons. Time is linear. It cannot be used in any other context. Even if you believe in "anti-time" (effect and cause instead of cause and effect) it works.
The traditional view of parallel universes states that any time a divergent action is caused other than normally what happened in the past (Joe walked on the left side of the street instead of the right), then an alternate or "parallel universe" is created. That is not correct.
"Parallel universe" is simply the description of a Time/Space continuum that no longer exists outside the memory of a person or persons. It is human vanity to believe that one person manipulating an event in the past or present can create a copy of the entire universe.
Think about it: the proposition of this theory requires you to somehow believe that if you go to the past, changing one thing would literally create (down to the molecular level) another universe, with another exact set of STARS, PLANETS, PEOPLE, etc???
As any scientist knows, such creation would require a near beyond belief expenditure of energy and there is nothing in the "Parallel Universe" theory that explains :
1) Where this energy comes from
2) How it is expended and
3) Why / how it precisely duplicates the known universe with the exception of one event (and therefore, the resultant consequences)
"Ah," one of you says, "The energy that transported you to the past is what makes the change."
That adds even MORE problems:
1) There is not enough energy in such a transfer (There is not enough energy on Earth to duplicate the entire universe)
2) The energy transference is not linked directly to changing a past event. (i.e., the energy isn't related to the fact that Johnny walked on the left side of the street instead of the right and even IF it were, how would that cause said energy to duplicate the universe?)
"Parallel Universe" therefore can only be recognized as a term used to describe the memory of how the universe used to be, no more.
That all being said, I make no claims to be a physicist and would not be insulted if a physicist were to prove me wrong. Don't forget; comments are welcome.
I believe that if time travel were possible, that I could not only go to the past and kill my grandfather, I would still live after doing so, because time is linear.
As such, my Time Theory is simple: Past Actions > Present Actions > Future Actions
Let's look at the famous example of a man going to the past to kill his grandfather, using my theory. If someone went to the past and killed their own grandfather, the grandfather would indeed be dead, but the grandson would still exist (more on this aspect later).
Basically, the action of killing the grandfather in the past takes precedence over even the birth of the grandson in the present or future. And the grandson would not disappear. Why? Because he exists in the past and therefore his existence in the past takes precedence over the future repercussions of his actions, even his non-birth.
Even if he were to return to the future, he still would not cease to exist. After all, why would he? His presence in the past proved his existence. Therefore, his moving forward in time would not negate that fact. His moving through time, in fact, guarantees his existence during any time period that he travels to!
The only problem would be that when he traveled to the future again, no one would know him, since in that Time/Space continuum he was never born, never met his friends, never got the job he had, never married his wife, etc.
TIME TRAVEL RULE #1: If you travel to the past, make sure you have a DVD of home movies showing your wedding, stuff at work and movies of all your friends. Why? Because you would paradoxically, but quite literally be a man (from a parallel universe that no longer exists anywhere but in his memory) without mother, father or even BIRTH.
End result?
Again, my Time/Space Theory: Past Actions > Current Actions > Future Actions
"Parallel Universe" is the description of a Time/Space continuum that no longer exists outside the memory of a person or persons. Time is linear. It cannot be used in any other context. Even if you believe in "anti-time" (effect and cause instead of cause and effect) it works.
The traditional view of parallel universes states that any time a divergent action is caused other than normally what happened in the past (Joe walked on the left side of the street instead of the right), then an alternate or "parallel universe" is created. That is not correct.
"Parallel universe" is simply the description of a Time/Space continuum that no longer exists outside the memory of a person or persons. It is human vanity to believe that one person manipulating an event in the past or present can create a copy of the entire universe.
Think about it: the proposition of this theory requires you to somehow believe that if you go to the past, changing one thing would literally create (down to the molecular level) another universe, with another exact set of STARS, PLANETS, PEOPLE, etc???
As any scientist knows, such creation would require a near beyond belief expenditure of energy and there is nothing in the "Parallel Universe" theory that explains :
1) Where this energy comes from
2) How it is expended and
3) Why / how it precisely duplicates the known universe with the exception of one event (and therefore, the resultant consequences)
"Ah," one of you says, "The energy that transported you to the past is what makes the change."
That adds even MORE problems:
1) There is not enough energy in such a transfer (There is not enough energy on Earth to duplicate the entire universe)
2) The energy transference is not linked directly to changing a past event. (i.e., the energy isn't related to the fact that Johnny walked on the left side of the street instead of the right and even IF it were, how would that cause said energy to duplicate the universe?)
"Parallel Universe" therefore can only be recognized as a term used to describe the memory of how the universe used to be, no more.
That all being said, I make no claims to be a physicist and would not be insulted if a physicist were to prove me wrong. Don't forget; comments are welcome.
Alan Colmes is Leaving
I just found out that Alan Colmes is leaving the #1 rated "Hannity and Colmes" and on Hannity.com they have a poll asking who should replace him. I chose Susan Estrich because she has done a good job in the past. Also, she's not rabid; she can convey her viewpoints quite well. If not her, then perhaps Juan Williams of NPR. Another person I disagree with but can do so agreeably.
Good luck, Alan! I wish you the best in your future.
Good luck, Alan! I wish you the best in your future.
Blu-Ray
I waited until the war was over to invest in high definition electronics. As a casualty of the VHS/Beta war and the Amiga/PC wars, I learned the hard way that the best format doesn't always win. So when HD finally gave up the ghost, I bought a 42" LCD screen and a Playstation 3 (a console and Blu-Ray player for the same price) and a cool Bose 3-2-1 system (worth every penny!).
So I started playing my normal DVD's in the system and compared it to the single Blu-Ray disk I owned at the time, Spider-Man 3. Wow. Okay, so my DVD's had gone the way of the dinosaur when I hadn't been watching.
The smart thing to do when building a collection is wait for crazy sales or buy them slowly. So I've been buying a Blu-Ray movie every payday and on a whim, I went to a local pawnshop that I knew had lots of movies. They have about thirty Blu-Ray movies but they're selling them 3/$20 so I bought three (I-Robot, 300 and Fifth Element).
Next paycheck I'm heading back. I can afford three a paycheck like that, but I'm not going to buy one just to buy it.
So I started playing my normal DVD's in the system and compared it to the single Blu-Ray disk I owned at the time, Spider-Man 3. Wow. Okay, so my DVD's had gone the way of the dinosaur when I hadn't been watching.
The smart thing to do when building a collection is wait for crazy sales or buy them slowly. So I've been buying a Blu-Ray movie every payday and on a whim, I went to a local pawnshop that I knew had lots of movies. They have about thirty Blu-Ray movies but they're selling them 3/$20 so I bought three (I-Robot, 300 and Fifth Element).
Next paycheck I'm heading back. I can afford three a paycheck like that, but I'm not going to buy one just to buy it.
Politics and Religion
Thanksgiving is almost here and that means that most of us will unite with friends and family over a large dinner, taking the day off to feast and have fun, being sure to stray from the dynamite topics of politics and religion.
But why?
Why do we silence the two most important subjects in our existence? Someone could possibly get angry, true but this is my point; if we only talk about these subjects with people who agree with us, then we become more excluded from discussion and more "extreme".
One of my favorite things to do is debate - not argue; arguments get you nowhere - and my favorite thing about debating is not "beating" someone; (there really is no such thing on the internet) it's the fact that I learn more about myself...what I truly believe...and why I believe it. Because people will be questioning and challenging my beliefs from viewpoints I could never conceive.
This is a good thing.
Look at my links to the right. Camille Paglia and I probably have nothing but human DNA in common, but she is my favorite blogger. She presents her case in such a professional manner that I can't help but love her columns. Again, I disagree with most of what she says, but Camille's my idol when it comes to blogs. She is my example of what blogging should be. She is my example of what political discourse should be.
So this Thursday, eat some Turkey and dressing, watch the football game (talk about serious arguments!) and see what you can politely discuss concerning your and everyone else's rights. You might be surprised at what you find out about yourself.
But why?
Why do we silence the two most important subjects in our existence? Someone could possibly get angry, true but this is my point; if we only talk about these subjects with people who agree with us, then we become more excluded from discussion and more "extreme".
One of my favorite things to do is debate - not argue; arguments get you nowhere - and my favorite thing about debating is not "beating" someone; (there really is no such thing on the internet) it's the fact that I learn more about myself...what I truly believe...and why I believe it. Because people will be questioning and challenging my beliefs from viewpoints I could never conceive.
This is a good thing.
Look at my links to the right. Camille Paglia and I probably have nothing but human DNA in common, but she is my favorite blogger. She presents her case in such a professional manner that I can't help but love her columns. Again, I disagree with most of what she says, but Camille's my idol when it comes to blogs. She is my example of what blogging should be. She is my example of what political discourse should be.
So this Thursday, eat some Turkey and dressing, watch the football game (talk about serious arguments!) and see what you can politely discuss concerning your and everyone else's rights. You might be surprised at what you find out about yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)