Hard Being Right

Sitting down with the wife (yep I got married, part of the reason I haven’t posted in forever) she who is a fiscal conservative exclaimed, “how can Obama win and prop pass in a liberal state like california?”

Reasons abound I came to few that really sparked what I think happened. There are ALOT of Catholic and liberal minded Christians in California. That while on paper like the idea of helping out the little guy and the down-trodden get ahead and on the straight and narrow. They however have no support for those who have a much different family and social belief then there own. Insert gay marriage. If you are a person of devout faith, then the bible really does govern a percentage of your life. Mainly how you treat gay people. To some, its easy to acknowledge gay people and leave it at this. However, having gay marriage in society would be a form of acknowledgment. Many my say “but shouldn’t these people keep their religion and politics apart?” and while not being particularly religious I would in instinctively say yes. However the opposite is true. Their very values come from the religion they follow and the people of that religion they look to as examples either in the church, community and family, whom more often then not share the same values. Since these values are inseparable from them as people they can only see politics in the same light. This is not a bad thing, in fact its many of those same values that were used by the founding fathers to build this country.

Prop 8 passed not because people are bigoted, which I have heard repeated (from the left) as to why Prop 8 passed. It passed because gay marriage isn’t about equal rights, its about what the majority of this country or state wants to view as equal to the relationship between a man an a woman. To the country, its beneficial to have marriage between man and woman. Please accept I’m not speaking in facts that I can prove. I’m speaking in beliefs. It just so happens the voting majority across the country feels the same as I do.

Also, a sizable amount of Obama supporters were really just looking for the “Not Bush Party” candidate.

I had a fight this morning with my fiance. I had a valid issue, but chose some poor words to express it and now instead of hearing my point she became defensive and now we’re at odds. In my case, had I used a different way to express myself, or talk about it later in the day when I would be more composed it could have been avoided. Oh well, I’ll apologize and charge the mountain again later. But it got me thinking about people who disagree completely.

In my travels and time spent meeting new people and discussions with friends, I have confirmed -for myself at least over and over that a change in beliefs (political, religion) is entirely personal. For two peers of similar mental ability and skills in communications with what they both believe to be correct and “right”. When discussing issues there is almost a zero percent chance at either swaying the other to their stance. Even if the argument becomes one-sided and one party looks to be completely inaccurate or wrong. They’ll just believe that the competent, or winning party was a “jerk” or “wrong”. Or begin personal attacks during the discussion. My most influential debates with others have been when I give them ample time to get all their beliefs out. In fact I take time and ask questions that further their point, because I am interested in understanding them. Doing this in a way that doesn’t seem condescending is difficult, especially when they know you disagree. During the conversation as I understand their points and stances I ask short, concise questions that are absolutist in argument. For example.

I had a conversation with a global warming fanatic (a recent fan of “An Inconvenient Truth”). It became obvious in our discussions that the person didn’t understand the scientific method nor did he have a grasp of why speaking about science in absolutist terms was a bad idea. So I let him fully congeal a point. Then I asked point blank, “Do you believe global warming was directly caused by humans and the pollution they create?” The answer of course was yes. So now with a point we disagree in and to prevent a shutdown on communication I asked have you heard of the little ice age? And defined in detail what I knew about the phenomena and that it happened during and after the industrial revolution. I also brought forth the argument that few decades ago everyone was concerned with global cooling and that at the time, “the science was irrefutable” was touted as well.

The point isn’t to say “trust me, I’m right.” its to plant the seeds of a differing opinion that isn’t extreme or delivered with anger and aggression. I give two to three historical references and if the person would like to learn about it they can on their own time. The second thing I’m going after is for the person to go on a private learning expedition that isn’t tainted by Al Gore, Fox News, NPR or any other MEDIA that has its own agenda. I revile some things that are stated by Fox News (so called conservative reporting) as much as I hate that of the overtly liberal New York Times. Media has its fault, but bellying up the trough never makes a sound conversationalist.

“Trust, but verify.”

Over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.  Its a good read and goes more importantly gets science back on track.  The scientific process is built upon constant dissent.  Nothing is proven, but has not be dis-proved.

Fear the scientist who uses absolutist terms and politicians backed by such scientists.

Check out EndOfMen for the whole story.

I put special in quotes because his comments are borderline short bus special. Crass comment I know, but it does cover completely his inept and loosely connected (if at all) points.

All this vitriol for the president was spurned by his interview with Politico. Two questions in particular have received the highest scrutiny. The first was a yes or no question asked to the president in regards to him not playing golf and if that was related to the war. The president first said, “Yes” then defined, I’m summarizing his answer by saying he doesn’t feel its right to be seen playing golf and has stopped playing as much in solidarity of the troops.

The second question and the one that seems to be taken WAY out of context was

“Mr. President, turning to the biggest issue of all, Iraq. I wonder if you — various people and various candidates talk about pulling out next year. If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what’s the worst that could happen, what’s the doomsday scenario?”

DOOMSDAY is emphasized here for a particular reason. The president was asked a question based on the worst case scenario. His reply was well put together and thought out:

Doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States.

The biggest issue we face is — it’s bigger than Iraq — it’s this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives. Iraq just happens to be a part of this global war. Iraq is the place where al Qaeda and other extremists have made their stand — and they will be defeated. They’ll be defeated through military action, but they’ll also be defeated as this young democracy takes hold. They can’t stand to live in a free society, that’s why they try to fight free societies.

The United States pulling out of Iraq or pulling out of the Middle East or not maintaining a forward presence would send all kinds of signals throughout the Middle East. And it would shake everybody’s nerves, and it would embolden the very same people that we’re trying to defeat.

I post this, because over on the other side of the fence Keith Olbermann said and I quote:

Mr. Bush has predicted that the election of a Democratic president could “eventually lead to another attack on the United States…”

In the above reply to the question where did the president predict anything? He was asked, point blank what he thought would happen if we pulled out of Iraq and he gave his opinion. Am I missing something here? So the logic leap thats going on here is:

Because Hillary and Barack both oppose the war and favor leaving. The president saying leaving will embolden the terrorists and lead to an attack (IN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO). It must mean that the president is saying anyone who wants to leave Iraq (the dems) will cause another attack on America?

I’m sorry, but what else is the president suppose to say? If McCain wanted to leave Iraq the president still believes leaving would embolden the terrorists. So really whats happening here is Keith not really having a requirement to maintain any illusion of balance in his op-ed show is lying to make a blog and another rediculous “Special Comment” to throw on the pile of garbage that comes from him mouth.

Go read the transcripts at Politico, then if you’re a Nielson family turn off MSNBC and never turn it on again.

My fiance has been inundated with email complaints about the gas price. She decided to take a minute and silence this faceless email mass with one fell swoop.

To answer your question JoAnn, gas companies actually don’t charge so much. The profit margin for the major retailers like Chevron Texaco is only around 9%. That’s the average profit margin for discount stores that most consumers consider cheap, like Walmart, too. Compare that to other companies that usually have a 15%-30% margin for base consumer goods on average.

The reason gas prices go up is not because the gas companies are gouging us, oil is a question of supply and demand. When political issues arise in countries that are major suppliers of the US or the world’s oil happen, like when Venezuela basically said they wouldn’t sell oil to the US anymore because we are NOT a communist country, prices go up.

Keep in mind that as other countries in the world begin to industrialize, their consumption of oil increases increasing the world’s demand for oil. Of note right now is China’s massive consumption of oil as they become a world wide production leader.

But really what you’re looking at being responsible for the rise of $0.20+ in the past two weeks is a result of the weakening dollar. One dollar is only worth about half a Euro right now when it used to be worth 75% of a Euro. Economically speaking, we’re having to increase how much we pay just to compete with the actual worldwide value of gas.

But if you’re looking to get upset about something, like the fact that in many states of the US you have to pay more as a result of fees and taxes that environmentalists lobbied to get tacked onto the consumer price of gas. It’s about $0.20 more per gallon because of these fees and additional costs and the gas companies have no control over it because the government implemented these requirements based on environmental lobbyists.

And if you need another reason to get mad at the high gas prices, keep in mind that the US has it’s own oil reserves on in North Dakota, Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico totaling billions of barrels of high quality crude oil that no company is allowed to touch in order to lower the cost of gas because the Democratic senators, like Ed Markey, don’t want us drilling for oil in the undeveloped areas of the US. WTF.

Wonderfully done babe

So, I’m again in Salt Lake City, Weeee!

NOW, there are people in this town. One person I met happened to be from Iowa, he told me something in our short time talking about family, kids and politics. He said “My dad told me, When you speak take your time and when you say something mean it. Mean it enough that you defend it.”

With that said, given the stories about Hillary and what may or DIDN’T happen in Bosnia you have to ask. Whats the deal here? The second thing he said was “I don’t want to sound like a Hic’ here, but I’d vote for a John Wayne or our time. A guy who won’t say much and when he does speak, it may piss some people off but its true and he meant he and would stand by it.”

I think we can all agree that none of the candidates this round fill the John Wayne quota, but I have to ask who agree with him? I mean I’d like a straight shooter. Its a few and far between thing in this country.

This is a sorta-live-blog where I joke on what I hear on this Larry King.

Medved make the point that “McCain has always been the underdog.  However he has Stature.”

Carville is pretty much a tool saying “I made a point, that the press, bloggers and talk radio all rallied around my point.”

Dyson loves Obama (I’m secretly scared of Obama.  Mostly, because idk wth he actually PLANS on doing.)

Conway shares my fear of Obama.

Larry King, is shill.

Carville is commenting on a Hillary comeback.  (not likely, but I still like the raggin Cajun.)

Conway smacks a HOME RUN,  identifying that WHITE modderates will decide this election.

Its my first time in Salt Lake City and I have to say being a business destination for me, its a decent place to stop.  While the street layout is RIDICULOUS.  Its still super easy to navigate.  All I got to ask is, how many damn Temple streets do they need in one twelve square mile radius?  It seems like a pretty friendly place as well.

About the less important Romney to McCain support I have to again remark how classy I think Romney is.  He’s lining up with the party.  Which by and large has always elected the candidate on a turn system.  Its McCain’s turn and AGAIN I say we go out and support him.  Do not be swayed by those who would compare McCain to Democrats.  He still has an 80% conservative voting record and thats over 20 years of service.  sign up, line and get out there and spread the positive word that the republican party is strong and is ready to roll in 2008!

The Democrats have an interesting sociological experiment going on. What does the party have more of? Secretly sexist voters or secretly racist members? Gov. Ed Rendell thinks its the later of the two. As quoted.

“You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate,”

What I’m confused about is if this is a comment against Democrats or Republicans? I don’t get the conservative reference. Furthermore I would hope that any conservative minded person in PA. would be voting Republican.

Is he saying that self titled party of peace and fairness has a secret race issue with some of its white members?

Its does raise the question:

“If the whole country had to choose between either a white woman or a black man for president, how would they choose?”

Its and interesting question to raise at parties at least (if your goal is to make yourself a social leper). One could say the smart way to answer it this is: “Race and sex are not a factor to me, tell me about the individuals and their moral beliefs.”

An interesting thought from my friend when I asked him the question above was:

“I’d let history decide for me. Black men received the right to vote after the end of the civil war, although it wasn’t equal to white conterparts, it was still ratified. Woman however were only give then right in 1920. I’d vote for the black individual.”

What would you choose? Is this a fair question?

Barack Obama campaign headquarters now feature a flag with the haunting face of none other than Che Guevara.

Sometimes I just don’t get my fellow American’s I’m sure I should know better than to assume that most people would at least have the decency to do a little background research before putting that flag up. Or god forbid the young college students who where shirts with Che’s iconic face on it. I guess I am just constantly surprised by people. Is that a good thing?

Here is a quick review of some of Che’s “Accomplishments”

1. Che was responsible for the execution of thousands of political prisoners in Cuba (most of them purely for their opposition to Castro’s communist policies or for no reason at all).

2. Che enjoyed torturing and abusing the prisoners, including children.

3. Che was instrumental in setting up the Castro regime’s massive forced labor camps and secret police apparatus.

4. Che tried to organize campaigns of terrorism against civilians in the US and elsewhere (though he largely failed in these efforts).

5. Far from being merely a Third World nationalist or pragmatic leftist, he was a committed, hard-line Stalinist, even going so far as to call himself “Stalin II” early in his career.

I’d like to go out on a limb here and say like so many before me have. That the liberal party is the party that turns a blind eye to horrible violence. Most often its the acts of cruelty surrounding communism, but it certainly doesn’t end there. Many a conservative speaker has had violent protests break out during his speach. Its even happens for liberals. We can all remember the “Don’t taze me bro” kid.

Take an objective look at the parties here. If a conservative hated the words being said by a liberal are they more or less likely to rise up in anger and violence against that person? Or would it be the other way around with the liberal striking out against the conservative.

Update: Check out the Captains Quarters on the unfolding events.