On the N-Word

As you may have noted from my post a couple of days ago, I have few qualms about openly using the word "nigger."  I know this can be surprising to some people, so I would just like to take a couple of minutes and/or paragraphs to explain this for the future.

Personally, I find the word itself to not be offensive at all.  Offense comes from its intended usage and context.  In my post about the vitriol hurled at Mia Love, I used it purely in an "academic" context, in that I used it to explain something rather than to insult or offend. 

I remember a professor of mine who really enjoys nineteenth-century American literature.  Of course, the problem with this literature (for example, Frederick Douglass's My Bondage and My Freedom) is that it is a commonly used word.  Unfortunately, my professor (and no offense intended to him by this remark), rather than be bold enough to just say the word in our classroom discussions, tended to twist and dodge around using the word.

Not that I blame him, mind you, yet at the same time, it would not be a word used to offend, but rather used purely for the sake of understanding.

There are only two times I find the word offensive.  One is obviously when it is intended to insult people, as in the case of Mia Love.  The other is when it is used in total ignorance, as it is used in hip-hop culture and by so many black youth in general (at least, as far as my personal experiences have shown me).

I fail to see how it is uplifting for black people to call each other "nigga" or "nigger."  You can't take back a word that was never originally yours to begin with, now can you?

It is my hope that, one day, the word "nigger," along with so many other racial slurs, will only be heard in classrooms as relics of a bygone era.

On Real Racism

Something my (many) liberal friends tend to ask me is, “Wait, you're black and you're a Republican?” I suppose when you grow up in the liberal bubble, that would be odd. However, it's also a question that is also borne out of ignorance and one I find rather offensive. Of course, not nearly as offensive as what I read last night.

 

 You see, last night, a mayor and congressional candidate from Utah gave a short speech at the Republican National Convention. Her name is Mia Love, a black conservative, whose articulate delivery of conservative ideals leads many to see her as a possible rising star within the party. The left, of course, the side that always wants to see black people and other minorities succeed in this country, embraced the idea of a conservative black woman with—

Okay, I can't finish that. Instead, let's take a look at some of the hatred and racist invective hurled at her on Twitter.

Or better yet, let's look at this screenshot of vandalism of her Wikipedia entry:

Yeah, I'm feeling the love.  (Note: the changes have since been removed).

I find that Wikipedia edit particularly infuriating, not because of its “house nigger” crack, but because of the words “she is a total sell-out.”

A “sell-out?”

A “traitor?”

This is why people use slavery analogies when referring to the black vote and the Democratic party. When we “stray” from the Democratic plantation, we aren't just seen as independent thinkers. We are seen as traitors, like the Democrats are owed something by black people. As though Democrats have somehow earned our vote.

I don't owe the Democrats my vote.

If anything, they are owed my eternal ire and hatred for being the party of slavery and Jim Crow.

Besides, I'd much rather be on the side of someone as articulate and passionate as this.

Look at that clip and answer me this: Does that look like a “house nigger” to you?

On My Beliefs

Something I feel I should clear up before I get into the weeds of certain issues (particularly the less palatable, moral ones) is just what governs my beliefs. After all, I didn't become a conservative because I come from a family of them or because it was “inevitable.” On the contrary, about ten years ago, as I was entering my teenage years, I was becoming increasingly liberal. At the very least, I was on track to become “moderate.” Then something happened which arrested that development.

My family had always been christian, but more in the sense that we believed God existed, but never gave Him much thought. However, as we entered a period of hardship, my parents turned to Jesus and brought me along for the ride. From that point forward, I was evangelical and went the opposite direction of most of my friends and became increasingly conservative.

“Wait a minute,” you might ask, “So that means your one of those “Jesus freak” types who actually believes all that stuff about the cross and blood and whatever?”

That wasn't a terribly flattering way to phrase it, but yes. I don't think you can really call yourself Christian if you don't believe that, considering it is central to the faith. Without it, we're just blasphemous Jews.

“And you believe that the rest of Bible is the literal truth and God's Word and that all those people and stories actually happened?”

Of course.

“And that all those miracles and speaking in tongues are actually real and happen today?”

Definitely.

“And that sex before marriage and abortion and all those other issues are wrong and immoral?”

Yup.

“And that—”

Okay, okay, I'll stop. I think I got the point across. It's just a fair warning so I don't surprise any readers with just how conservative I am. I'll let you guess what else I believe as my postings slowly clarify my beliefs.

A Tale of Two Armstrongs

...What? You were expecting some sort of Dickens-eqsue parody? I haven't even read “A Tale of Two Cities.”

Anyway....

This weekend, America lost two great Armstrongs, one to death, the other to his own hubris.

America's finest.

Let's take each in turn. Yesterday, we learned of the death of Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. He is universally regarded as one of humanity's greatest pioneers, literally the first to walk on an alien world. He is considered a man to look up to, whose accomplishments show that with the dreams and the drive, one's potential is almost limitless. Not only that, but his accomplishments were coupled with a great sense of humility, as he was a man who never sought the spotlight and indeed commonly went unrecognized.

I admit, it's not the most flattering picture.

On Friday, we learned of Lance Armstrong surrendering his fight over doping allegations. Armstrong was, of course, the famous bicyclist who earned seven Tour de France titles despite battling cancer. His story inspired millions, until he was accused of doping several years ago, tarnishing his record. In giving up his fight against the allegations, it seems a tacit admission of wrongdoing, no matter what he says to the contrary.

Now personally, I feel like too much weight is put on sports figures, even in the cases of major, record-breaking ones like Lance Armstrong used to be. However, some people see them as heroes, as they should, for accomplishment in sports, coaching or playing, still requires hard work and dedication.

However, in recent years, more names have been tarnished and ruined, from allegations of cheating (Marion Jones) to acts that are flat out evil (Joe Paterno, who abetted Jerry Sandusky's perversions). Both names are now stained and defined by their footnotes instead of their accomplishments.

Neil Armstrong, to me, seems to hearken back to a day when we could look back at our heroes, in sports or otherwise, and not have to worry if they would be tarnished by self-inflicted scandal. It feels like, in this modern day, we can not find people of integrity who we can look up to and emulate without finding some dark blot in their past.

One day, I hope we can again find those people like Neil Armstrong, who can be a shining example of excellence. The kind of people whom we don't preemptively fear will reveal a darker side of themselves.

On Today's Shooting

Not much to say today. Just a small comment.

Well, there's been another shooting and something I've come to expect is people wondering if this is evidence that we require stricter gun control laws. Considering that it appears the NYPD inflicted more casualties taking down the gunman, I'm not sure we want to get into the weeds of that argument.

Honestly, the calls for stricter gun control every time there's a shooting is starting to get really boring. This time around, such calls are ironic, considering the shooting occurred despite some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.

Remember something people: if someone wants to commit a gun crime, no amount of legal wrangling is going to stop them. Particularly if they have no prior criminal record. It seems far wiser to put guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, giving them a chance to protect themselves from gun-wielding nutcases and perhaps stop them before much, if any, harm can be done.

On Racist Voter ID Laws

Considering this has been in the news lately, I figure it's pertinent to discuss voter ID laws.

However, before we discuss it, let's take a little time to contextualize. What exactly do you need photo identification for?

• You need photo ID to buy a house.
• You need it to open a bank account.
• You need it to buy prescription drugs.
• Generally speaking, you need it to enter office buildings, particularly those of large corporations and the government.
• You need it to buy cigarettes.
• You need it to buy alcohol or enter a bar.
• You need it to drive.
• And, naturally, you need it to disenfranchise black voters.

After all, the need to identify yourself is not important at all when choosing the nation's leaders. There is no need to verify your identity to ensure that every vote is fairly counted and that the system is defrauded. It isn't widespread, after all, and why bother stamping out a crime if it isn't widespread? I mean, it's not like someone proved how easy it is to commit voter fraud by pretending to be the Attorney General of the United States.

It's obviously just an attempt by racist Republicans to reinstate the poll taxes. The same taxes originally created by the racist Democratic party. After all, nothing has changed since 1950. Black people are still a bunch of uneducated rubes, suppressed by a system of “Jim Crow” that prevents them from advancing in life. I myself could never tell you that James Madison is credited with drafting the constitution, a fact that is very important to know to get a state ID card.

It's also highly unfair to minorities to ask them to take a very basic, extra step to ensure they are who they say they are, particularly when almost any form of photo ID is valid. The burden only increases when you realize that these laws allow people to vote on election days and get ID cards afterward.

Talk about an undue burden.

Now, if you'll pardon me, I have a voter registration form to fill out. Let's see....

 

Last Name: Rooney

First Name: Andy

 

Conservative Musings: Times Two!

Since I'm currently cooking up another article, but want to avoid going too long before I make another post, I figured I would instead post a couple of articles I read today. In so doing, I will also introduce you, the reader, to a couple more conservative columnists.

The first is by Walter E. Williams. An economics professor, Williams brings a very insightful view of the world, particularly on issues involving race. Often, his observations go to the very heart of problems in that area and are always worth a read.

This (or last, rather) week's article deals with an executive order issued by the president intended to improve education for black children. Articles dealing with the deficiencies of education in this country always remind me that the left fails to understand the reason for these problems. They always seem to think that not enough money is being spent or certain students are treated “unfairly” or that academic standards are too high or what have you. Ultimately, it all assumes that the problems can always be fixed by external, governmental influence. In this article, Williams deals with the heart of the issue.

You can read that article here: Obama'sEducational Excellence Initiative.

On a lighter note, we have an article written by Derek Hunter. I don't read him nearly as much as I do some other pundits and columnists, but normally when I do, he has a solid point. In his article from this week, he addresses Vice President Joe Biden and his recent (and not so recent) gaffes. Some of these I didn't even know about until today.

That's not to say that not every politician makes silly mistakes; they all do.  George W. Bush was continuously mocked for his penchant to be a bit of a goof, but rarely, if ever, did he do anything like Biden's “Indian accent” comment or lie about law school. This is a man who has no impulse control and is next in line to become president of the United States.

Yeah.

Ya'll.

And before you get yourself all worked up about Biden's “put ya'll back in chains” remark, keep in mind, I don't think it was some pre-planned comment to evoke images of racism and slavery. What I do think is that Joe Biden, in his head, thought, “Hey, we're doing this whole unchaining the banks thing, maybe I can make some sort chaining of the American people metaphor. And hey, the crowd is full of black people!  If anyone will understand, it's them!”

You never know.

Read the article here: Our Idiot Vice President.

On the FRC Shooting

It is hard to begin with this one. There are a lot of aspects here worth discussing, but most of them would trigger entirely different debates. However, what I would like to address my general observations of reactions by many on the left.

Now, keep in mind, I'm not, nor will I ever say that the actions of a few, or some, or many ever represent all. However, when I see a pattern, I will use generalities just the same as liberals will generalize conservatives.

That being said, something I've tended to note on the left is how they react differently to different types of violent incidents. I cite three examples for one type of reaction. In the Tuscon, Arizona shooting, and the more recent Aurora, Colorado and Sikh temple shootings, the left always automatically looked to conservatives and “conservative speech” as the main causes for the violent acts. They acted sympathetic while demonizing people who just happen to disagree with them.

Of course, in all three cases, the right was vindicated (like anyone besides the perpetrators actually needed to be absolved from guilt when they decided to unleash their hatred and insecurity). Jared Lee Loughner of Tuscon, while recently cleared to stand trial, was still clearly deranged and found to hold no particular beliefs that could connect him to the right or the left. He did hold leftist beliefs, but those beliefs were meshed with contradictory philosophies.

In the Aurora case, we still lack clear evidence as to the motivating factor of the alleged shooter, but again, it seems highly unlikely that it was conservative philosophy that drove him to act as he did. It requires a mind detached from reality and human reason to open fire on a movie theater while resembling a Batman villain.

For the Sikh temple shooting, it became obvious very early that the man was a Neo-Nazi. For the ignorant, this was a smoking gun, because at some point, Nazi's became associated with the right, regardless of the side of the Atlantic you were on. However, when one realizes the left and the right in this country are about the size of government, it changes the debate, as fascists are squarely on the left. Personally, I have no idea where Neo-Nazi's actually fall on the scale, as the majority are anarchists. Anarchy seems to fall right off the scale, considering they don't believe there should be a scale to begin with.

Now compare that to the attempted shooting Wednesday morning. In the near-mass shooting at the FRC, many on the left either tried to ignore what happened, pushing off talking about it for as long as possible or attempted to justify it. Sure, they uttered a few words of condolence, but many just couldn't seem to help but get a dig in at the “hatefulness” of the FRC (I'll discuss the issue of hate another time), as though the hatred of others justified shooting a man.

Then, compare that reaction to those by people on the right. Can a hate-filled heart really pray for the well-being and salvation of a man who attempted to kill just hours before? Doesn't it take a hate-filled heart to try and justify the actions of that same man?

I think the answer to both questions is obvious.

On Stupid, Ignorant Americans

Being a gamer, (something that I know some conservatives will dismiss, sometimes with valid reason), I have often had opportunity to speak with people who I might have otherwise never met from all across this great nation. Perhaps even more interestingly are the people who I know from lands across the Atlantic, hailing from various European nations. From these, I've gained a different perspective (albeit, in a limited fashion, as I game to relax) of the thoughts and feelings from those on the other side of the Atlantic.

Much as our president touts here, I hear many of my EU friends tout the universal university education provided by their countries. To many, it seems to be a be-all, end-all arrangement.  To them higher education is virtually guaranteed to afford better opportunities, something which is often true, to a point. Often, these conversations will at some point lead into a little America-bashing, where my countrymen are mocked for the perception that they are ignorant.

Recently, it occurred to me just how arrogant this mentality is. Ironically, arrogance is the very thing many Europeans will accuse Americans of. While it is true there are many ignorant people in the United States, why would this not hold true of Europe as well? The only reason it is obvious in America is that we, as a nation, attract the most attention.

However, it also begs the following question: what exactly is intelligence? There is, of course, “head knowledge,” which I believe is what many people consider when they think of intelligence. This is the information you learn in school and in universities, ranging from understanding geography to understanding the basics of grammar. Often, people are mocked for being unable to locate France on an unmarked map or identify the man on the ten dollar bill.

But is this indicative of stupidity? Or is it, as I believe, indicative of differing priorities?

I apologize to the Poles.

After all, how is it bad or a waste of a good mind if the plumber who is fixing my sink can not find France on a map? Who would want to? It's France.

French-bashing aside, why would it matter to the plumber? He is there to fix my sink, not teach me the map of the world. If he's making $100,000 yearly by being a practical, useful human being, why would knowing where France is help him in his job? It wouldn't. Why would the man seeking to do well so he can feed a family sit down and figure out that Alexander Hamilton graces the bills I paid him for a job well done?

Ultimately, I believe that it boils down to the unspoken conceit caused by believing universal college is important. That conceit is two-fold.

For one, in propping up universities and universities alone, it causes people to place undue importance on higher education over other careers. People who go to college often grow too big for their britches, feeling that they are, in some way, superior to people who have not.  Many of those people are blissfully unaware of their ignorance. That is not to say there is no need a need for scientists, historians and linguists, but these fields also do not teach much in the way of practical skills which one could use in a normal job.

Additionally, it implies that other careers and jobs are somehow not fulfilling.  That is not to say that it's glamorous to pick up trash, but it's also a job that needs doing, regardless of one's level of education.  And I'm sure there are some who get a sense of fulfillment out of the dirty, gritty jobs that academics would never do.

The other problem lies in the fact that “college for everyone” assumes that everyone is made for college to begin with. Being a university student requires a certain type of person. One who hungers and thirsts for knowledge is a must. It requires a focused mind as book-learning can become quite tedious. To assume that everyone can do this sort of thing is just silly, not because some people are inherently superior to others, but because people are different. Some people absorb knowledge early, while others take time. Some have the patience to read large textbooks while others do not. Some have the ability to memorize maps of the world and do complex algebra in their heads while others cannot. It's not necessarily because some are stupid and lazy while others are not; our brains are just wired differently.

This sort of thinking also trivializes other kinds of knowledge and intelligence. Why does one need to attend university when he or she is perfectly capable of starting a business without the education? Learning the nuances of business, struggling to turn a profit and make payroll, and succeeding or failing on one's own merits is learning as well and no less useful than understanding the ins and outs of the American Civil War. Both have their place and both aid those who know them.

I say none of this to suggest we should discourage people from attending university.  What I am saying is that it is not bad to attend university, attend a trade school, join a company and work your way through the ranks or start your own business.  All are equally good.

On a final note, what is one pattern that is consistently seen when people like Jay Leno go out and embarrass people on the street?

They are often young people. While people learn information in their youth, as they try to make their way in their teens and twenties, their priorities are often different than learning everything they can. If you were to see them in their forties, I believe they would be far more likely to know what they are derided for not knowing now. As they grow older and their tumultuous early adulthood slows down, they have the time to absorb those random facts that get tucked away in the back of the mind, like where France is on an unmarked map. And if they still don't know, who cares?

Maybe they just didn't have the time trying to live their lives.

On Paul Ryan

Earlier today, Mitt Romney ended the suspense and finally announced his running mate: Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan. Prior to Friday night, many just floated his name cautiously, not really considering him a serious contender for the position. Some believed it would be former governor Tim Pawlenty, a strong Romney surrogate and certainly qualified for the number two slot. Others threw out the name of Ohio Senator Rob Portman, who was a safe, albeit uninteresting, choice. The name everyone looked to, however, was Marco Rubio, the freshman senator from Florida, as Romney's “bold” choice.

Now we'll only ever mention Senator Rubio again.

On to the real question: Is Congressman Ryan a good choice?

He is most certainly a bold choice. As someone who has seemed content running a “safe” campaign, Romney's selection of Paul Ryan introduces new variables into the campaign. The Ryan budgets of the past two years have been slandered and defamed. A political ad even showed a Ryan look-alike tossing an elderly woman over a cliff.

Many liberals I heard today practically slobbered with glee over the idea that the Ryan pick will push numbers from minorities, women and seniors all in Barack Obama's favor. Perhaps there is some merit to this line of thinking with the senior citizens, considering the apparent success of “Medi-scare,” of which the look-alike was a part. When you believe that an evil, heartless bogeyman from Wisconsin is about to take away your Medicare, regardless of the truth, it can be unsettling.

Otherwise, the assertion that it will hurt Romney among minorities and women is blatantly absurd. The chances of Romney not picking a very conservative running mate, who believed that abortion is wrong and that we should not fund people's sex lives, was slim. Also, how it would affect minorities, who are often strongly Democratic regardless, is beyond me.

However, by adding Ryan to the ticket, Mitt Romney also adds a set of credentials that are hard to beat on Capitol Hill. Paul Ryan's understanding of budgets is considered second-to-none among his colleagues. His serious approach to tackling the nation's soon-to-explode deficit due to open-ended entitlement spending, is admirable. Additionally, he adds likability to a ticket where the lead figure comes across as robotic from time to time.

However, most importantly, I believe that choosing Ryan may change the conversation of this election from a slew of lies and innuendos about Mitt Romney to a slew of lies and innuendo about Paul Ryan.

On a serious note, I believe it does shift this election to more of a battle of ideas than men. Congressman Ryan brings a strong, unwavering conservative voice to the debate. The addition of this voice will change the conversation from “Is Mitt Romney an evil businessman who seeks to destroy the middle class?” to “Whose vision for the future of America is superior: Mitt Romney's or Barack Obama's?”

I won't discuss those arguments here, but I will say that I believe that Paul Ryan is ultimately a good choice by Mitt Romney. It is up to the latter to utilize this choice wisely.

Conservative Musings: Judge Napolitano

Something I wish to do with this page is point readers to other conservative and like-minded thinkers, men and women who have been at this longer than me and are, thus, wiser and more knowledgeable than I am. Something many liberals and left-leaning independents do not seem to be aware of is that conservatives are in fact thinking people and those ignorant of this fact are often content to believe the caricature that we're intellectually lazy.

Fortunately, that's something easily disproven.

Ironically, my inaugural post of this nature is not showcasing a conservative writer, but a libertarian one. I once heard libertarians described as social liberals with a streak of fiscal conservatism, or something to that effect. My observations generally find this to be true. Normally, listening to libertarians, I find I agree with them wholeheartedly on certain issues and find them hilariously naïve with their reasoning regarding others. However, if there is one libertarian I trust in his understanding of liberty and freedom, it is Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Judge Napolitano is a former supreme court justice of New Jersey and currently works at Fox News Channel as a judicial analyst and hosts his own program on Fox Business Network, “Freedom Watch.” Due to being a former judge, Napolitano has a firm grasp on the constitution and its wording, using that knowledge to keep a close eye on the political scene, particularly the onerous decision and policy-making of the current presidential administration.

In his column this week, the Judge (as I will endearingly call him from this point forward) addresses a concern he has repeatedly brought up in recent years, including those of the Bush administration, of the secrets kept from us, the citizens of the United States, by our government.

Interestingly, what strikes me more than the main story of the article is just how far we've gone from the intentions of the constitution. We forget that the government works for us, not the other way around. And until we realize this reality, the government will continue on its path to greater power, one step at a time.

So that I don't spoil more of the article, click here and see what the Judge has to say.

Republicans vs. Conservatives

Something I hear constantly when I answer people who ask about my politics is, “Oh, so you're a Republican,” with varying levels of surprise and/or thinly veiled condescension, depending on who it is and how that person feels about conservatives. Normally, I correct these people. Yet, sometimes, those who I have corrected insist on calling me a Republican. However, to me, the distinction between me being a conservative and me being a Republican is vitally important as being one or the other defines what motivates my beliefs and my actions.

For example, say it was true that I was a Republican. What does that suggest/mean?

By saying I am a Republican, it says that I am voting for a party. It says that I vote for Republicans simply for the sake of voting for Republicans; my reason is driven purely out of party loyalty. The irony of saying that I'm Republican is that I think party loyalty (as a method of voting) is a shallow, unthinking way to approach elections (something I intend to discuss later). It does not take complex thought to flip a lever or press a button merely because you see that it is in the Republican (or Democrat) column.

No, I vote Republican because I am one, but because I am a conservative. I have thought out opinions and feelings on issues independent of party affiliation. I vote Republican because it is the conservative party. It is the party most in line with my opinions and my way of thinking. I in no way believe it or its members are perfect or correct all of the time, but it is the party most likely to espouse and lobby for what I believe is good and right for the country. Voting Republican for any other reason does not cross my mind.

For another, visual example, take these two men:

 

For the uninitiated, the man on the left is Arizona Senator John McCain, a Republican, while the man on the right is Charles Krauthammer, a conservative columnist. What makes these two men different? In many ways, they are similar. They hold conservative opinions on some issues and liberal opinions on others. However, McCain is an entrenched incumbent, whose positions are about as flexible as the gymnasts you have been watching on NBC. Mr. Krauthammer, on the other hand, holds his opinions based on his principles and experience.

In essence, the difference is that Republicans are politicians while conservatives are true believers.

The former can just as easily be swayed by party posturing and a desire to be re-elected as they can by their conservative constituents. Conservatives, on the other hand, are not governed by the sway of politics or a particular political party, but rather by the convictions they hold in their hearts.

The conservative backlash against the weaknesses of the Republican party in 2010, where the Tea Party unseated incumbents in favor of running strong conservatives in races, is a prime example of this difference. Not every candidate won his or her race, but they stuck by their principles during the race regardless of the difficulty caused by such convictions. A Republican, on the other hand, would have changed and shifted to best fit the opinions of his/her possible constituents and thus have no grounded feelings or opinions.

So, before you call your conservative friends “Republicans,” remember this article and consider: how would you feel if someone called you a “Democrat” instead of a “liberal?”

An Introduction

Three cheers for the one thing we all need: yet another blog focused on social and political issues!

Yes, you need this. We all need this.

It's not because politics or social issues are some be all, end all for our lives. If that were the case, I'd probably be curled up in the fetal position in a corner somewhere, crying that life is trying to destroy my sanity. It still is, but I'm allowing it to happen by choice.

While I may find politics and social issues to be mind-numbingly complex and irritating, they are also important. How these are shaped today will affect our tomorrow. The parties and people in power influence our lives, as do the values we hold and embrace as a society. In our age, as in ages past, there is a great debate: which path will allow our country to continue to thrive and grow? What path will better us as a society? What path will preserve the “American Dream?”

However, unlike generations past, this question is far more pressing and immediate than it ever has been. Today, the United States of America stands on the precipice of two diametrically opposed worldviews, each of which seek a dramatically different path for the country than we have today.

The question is, which of those paths do I, your fresh-faced, naïve blogger, unexposed to the dangers and horrors of the world, follow?

I am unabashedly conservative and a Christian, a fact which I'm sure shocks and continues to shock many of my friends. After all, as the old saying goes, “If you aren't liberal at twenty, you don't have a heart. If you aren't conservative at forty, you don't have a brain.” Or something to that effect. It's not like I care; I think it's a bunch of poppycock, anyway. If being liberal at twenty means I'm brainless, then I take that as a sign that I'm wasting my time. At the very least, I know that being conservative at twenty has not made me heartless.

Having now piqued your interest (or driven you away in a rage, either/or), the question is, what will this, my little corner of the internet, be about?

My intention is to be conservative and a Christian, simply for the purpose of presenting that perspective to people. I will post thoughts on the world as it flies by us, watching the news cycle as it delivers information to us (at a volume far greater than we mere mortals can cope with) and comment on it. I will post about the big concepts and ideas that drive the ideologies that I believe in, for I most certainly know and understand what it means to discuss such ideals with people who hold incorrect, condescending, and even slanderous preconceptions about conservatism and Biblical beliefs. I will point you, my (hopefully) readers to the thoughts and musings of other conservatives, more famous and articulate, than me, as a way to show that conservatism isn't for knuckle-dragging neanderthals, but, just as liberal and progressivism, is a complex set of ideals that deserves just as much respect in the public discourse.

Ultimately, whether you stay or go is up to you. I can not force you to take action either way. What I do ask is that you stick around, just for a little while, and see what you think. I care not whether you agree or disagree with me; as long you're respectful (more or less, we all say mean and/or stupid things when angry), your thoughts and opinions are welcome.

Now that my little intro is done, what say we get this show on the road?