Thanks to my morality class at my Catholic school, I have determined that Catholics, or at least ones that exactly follow Church teachings, are statists. It could be that it’s only the writers of my textbook and my teacher who are statists, but I don’t really think so.
Aside from anti-life “Catholics” like Pelosi and Biden, the statist ones are my least favorite. I also like to lump the statist ones with Catholics who complain about economic inequality and push for social justice (socialism) while ignoring the issue of abortion. Because really, at least my understanding is that protecting human life is one of the Church’s main goals. And when Catholics show no interest in being pro-life, it makes me wonder if statism isn’t their real goal. This isn’t that unlikely, considering the Church’s former power. But I think it’s more likely that most Catholics never read Atlas Shrugged, and this promote the “common good” while ignoring the value of freedom.
In conclusion, Catholics are okay, as long as they are only focused on eliminating abortion, and not working for the “common good”.
I finished reading it, and I guess it was pretty good. There were a lot of attacks on religion during Galt’s speech, which is sort of ironic considering that most conservative Christians these days seem to favor capitalism, but I could be wrong. Anyway, I now declare myself to be a Christian hedonist, which is apparently possible.
Purchases help the economy. That must be part of the reasoning behind “stimulus” packages, but the problem is that no one wants to spend money during a recession. So any “free money” just gets put into savings and doesn’t do very much.
I had a Martin Luther King Jr. assembly at school yesterday. And while I could complain that much of it was simply a celebration of the black race, I’d rather talk about Joe the Plumber.
During the assembly, among the frequent references to Obama >.<, a black preacher spoke, and he said something about Joe the Plumber that really bugged me. I don’t remember exactly, but it was something like, "He needs to get a job." In the interest of keeping this blog civil, I will say, what the heck?
Frankly, Joe the Plumber (or possibly Joe the Reporter) is a good example of the ideal American voter, and liberals have no good reason to criticize him. Remember the video? All he did was ask Obama a valid question about his tax policy. But apparently liberals thought he was declaring his intention to run for president, and decided he need to be checked out more thoroughly than Obama himself. And they discovered that he was not qualified to run for president, or even participate in the democratic process.
After the assembly, I heard my teacher make a remark like Joe "is not an economist." And again, what the heck? He never claimed to be an economist, nor did he say anything that qualifies as something a professional or amateur economist would say.
All he did was ask a political candidate a question about his policy, and he had been a target of liberal hatred ever since. Just another example of liberal arrogance and intolerance for differing opinions.
So today I got flipped off the first time since I started driving.
I was coming home from school around 1:00 since we had an early-dismissal, and I was in the far left lane next to the carpool lane. I was going about 65 mph, which I didn’t think was too ridiculously slow since it was faster than the other cars and the speed limit is 60. So anyway this guy comes up behind me pretty fast, but after a second of tailgating me he dropped back and went over a few lanes to get around some cars. Then he sped up, turned his head and flipped me off, and drove off.
This didn’t really bother me because I had done nothing wrong. But what made me laugh a little was his bumper sticker, which said “Obama 08″. Good times.
This election is really not that bad for conservativism if you think in terms of the big picture.
First, what happens if we lose? Well, we lost a battle against Bush, the liberal media, and a politician who “trancends race” while taking full advantge of the fact that he is black.
Although I do not think that it has been too large of a factor, President Bush’s unpopularity has certainly not helped McCain. More important is conservativism’s constant struggle against the media, who constantly point out the inadequacies of McCain/Palin while either making the problems with Obama/Biden seem unimportant or just leaving them unmentioned. There are too many examples of this to even start a list. Finally, Obama has received a ludicrous amount of support seemingly just because he is black. (If only black people in the coal industry payed more attention to politics than just the color of a politician’s skin.
But don’t think that I am just whining about how this is so unfair until you realize what it means if McCain wins.
If McCain wins, it means that he beat Bush, the media, and Obama’s racial advantage. That would be a tremendous achievement, possibly greater than in any other election (although I am too young to know of any others). It would be a victory for conservative ideology, since that is one of the few advantages that McCain has.
Just the thought of a victory like that sends a shiver up my leg.
I think that a lot of people are confused about what greed is. Personally, I think that greed is when someone wants more so much that they completely disregard other people to get it. But from reading things on the internet, I see people who think that greed is just wanting anything for oneself. However, it is not wrong to want something, whether an object or fame or success. That desire becomes greed when the person takes advantage of another person.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this while reading Atlas Shrugged. In the book, politicians pass “anti-greed” laws, which basically just serve to restrict businesses.
And that brings me to another point, which is the relationship between greed and capitalism. Some people on the internet seem to think that capitalism is based on greed. Sure it is, if you have the wrong definition of greed. But if you have the right definition, then capitalism is just based on a desire for success.
My definition of greed is a little different from Ayn Rand’s, though. According to her book, people are not obligated to care for anyone else. That is only my interpretation, because the major characters certainly do help others by employing them, but that is usually only to attain their own goals. Anyway, I believe that people are morally obligated to help others, because it is part of my religion. Ayn Rand, on the other hand, is an atheist, so she does not have a moral guide like the teachings of Jesus to follow. So I can see where she’s coming from, although I respectfully dissagree.
In conclusion:
Wanting more =/= greed.
Not caring about other people at all = greed.
I got the idea since Neo is “The One”. The only difference between them is that Obama lets Zion be destroyed, and he tries to have a tough, direct negotiation without preconditions with Smith but dies.
Please read my easy and simple policy for reuse of my images on the About page.
It really bugs me when I hear about how this election is historical. Obviously it is, since just about everything is at some point. And since one of the candidates happens to be black. It’s just that every time I hear about how it’s historical, it’s like the person is saying, “Don’t you want to be able to look back on 2008 and say, ‘Cool, I’m a part of history since I helped to elect the first black president.’?” And the worst part is… some people have answered yes to that.
There are much better ways to be a part of history. Like voting against the candidate who will try to lead the United States to socialism.
I’m not planning to watch it, so just read Michelle Malkin’s thoughts and assume that I agree with them.
Anyway, just wanted to say that everyone had better get used to Obama being on your TV. Because you can’t turn off your telescreen unless you’re an inner party member.
Oh, and “government can’t solve all our problems”? I’m not thinking that too many libertarian-types will be fooled by this pandering, but I could be wrong.
Right now I’m reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and it’s pretty good. I’m about a third of the way through. It makes me dislike Obama’s policies even more though. I wouldn’t be surprised to see something like the Equalization of Opportunity Bill get passed under him, at the very least.
I think this video is absolutely right, except for one thing. I don’t think that it is anyone’s duty to vote, but if they want to be a good citizen, then they should be informed about politics and vote. A much greater threat to the well-being of the nation is not people who do not vote, but rather people who shouldn’t be voting because they are not very informed about politics. That’s why I dislike these campaigns that just push to get people to vote, especially the ones directed towards young people. What they should really be doing is trying to get them interested and politically informed, and then they can decide if they want to vote or not. Otherwise, we will end up with presidents who wear the latest fashions, or talk like a college student (no offense to America’s youth intended).
This subject reminds me of a part of Bradley’s Fahrenheit 451 when the fireman’s wife wants to talk about politics, and she says she voted for the young man because he was better looking, or something like that. If only people could apply this lesson to our modern day…
Why do atheists constantly have to remind others that God does not exists, and that there is no way to prove his existence?
In the U.K. there are ads on buses that are supposed to support atheists. That’s fine, except for that apparently the only way to do it is to attack religion. Now, I don’t claim to know a lot of facts, but I’m pretty sure that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. That’s why believers have faith. In any case, atheists like to point out that it is impossible to prove God’s existence while conveniently leaving out the fact that it is impossible to disprove it.
Frankly, it seems like the only reason that people choose to be atheists is because they absolutely hate religion. Sure, many religions have done evil things in the past, but today those religions are generally very generous, noble organizations. Maybe someday Islam will be too.
The bus ad linked to above tells people to “enjoy your life.” Personally, I really can’t enjoy something if I know that something bad is going to happen afterwards, or if I don’t know what is going to happen. Why is it such a problem for me to at least have faith that there is something good after this life? I’m guessing the “enjoy your life” idea could be interpreted to condone reckless behavior that could endanger other people. Where in Christianity does it say that other people should be put at risk because of one’s own need for pleasure. I would not want to live in a society where everyone lives to please themselves because “Hey, its the only life I’ve got.”
Although I didn’t bother to look up the exact definition of humanism, I’m guessing it promotes placing a lot of value on humanity. It probably encourages caring for the underprivileged in society. Hmm, that sounds a lot like many religions. Since it appears that people of faith and people against faith have a little more in common that people against faith think, why can’t they leave the “delusional” people alone a go back to their religion of anti-faith, and worship their god of non-existence?
Now that I look back on this post, it looks sort of like a rant, but that’s what I was in the mood for.
Posted by Lars 
Posted by Lars 
Posted by Lars 
