Dems Dont Want What!?!?

In what has become perhaps the biggest event of hubris in the American governmental tradition, the State of the Union Address took place tonight with the usual scene: AIDS, Sudan, "safe troops," "strong economy," "good education for our children" evoke a standing ovation, while other, more partisan comments are met with an icy silence as each politician in the room jockeys for a camera-shot on television. Dick Cheney sat there as most business men would - looking in contempt at the self-congratulatory and inefficient process while Speaker Pelosi licked her lips nervously throughout the night, hoping that the average couch potato at home would ignore her botox-filled face and instead focus on her "symbolic value" as a women leader. The CNN commentators discussed how she was "poking through the cement (not glass) ceiling" of the American political system, for instance. I saw tokenism.



Seeing as we sit there watching this disgusting spectacle of power-hungry politicians anyway, it was interesting to watch just what people clapped at and what they didnt. The following are a list of things the dems DID NOT clap at which I found a little outragous. I was most struck 2, 4, and 6, with 2 and 4 showing an utter contempt for private enterprise and a basic separation from reality, while 6 shows an equally intense contempt for our culture.

1. Balance the Budget
2. Agree with the statement "for most citizens, private health insurance best meets their needs"
3. Expand health savings accounts
4. association health plans for small businesses
5. medical liability reform to protect good doctors from junk lawsuits
6. "assimilate immigrants"
7. "clean, safe, nuclear power"

Since the very first politicians in Greece and Rome, there has been a distrust for politicians, believing that they only work for their own needs and hold contempt for those they "represent." I have come to see that this is indeed the case, siding with the oft dismissed folk wisdom that the two types of people not to trust are politicans and lawyers. We should therefore hold double the distrust for the politicans, as they are often lawyers themselves.

-burke

The Wonders of Cuba's Free Health Care

In what has to be one of the greatest ironies, Cuba's dictator, Fidel Castro underwent surgery in his communist paradise which, if you listen to our Spanish department, boasts free, quality care for its citizens. The surgery has been said to be botched, and Castro is said to be in critical condition. Yet the progressives in this country still wish to implement a universal health care system despite its notoriously long waiting lines, minimal freedom of health care services,and as Castro's case has demonstrated to us, poor quality of care.

"It's not a good story. Too bad they didn't send him to Miami for surgery," said Dr. Charles Gerson, a clinical professor of medicine in the gastroenterology division of New York's Mt. Sinai School of Medicine.

Yes, too bad indeed.

-burke

New Democratic Intelligence Committee Chairperson Doesn't Know Squat

As if we needed any more proof that Democrats are incompetent in matters related to intelligence, Rep. Reyes (D-TX), who was chosen by Nancy Pelosi as House Intelligence Committee Chair, doesnt even know basic facts about Al Qaeda. Courtesy of CNN...
(http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/incoming-house-intelligence-chief.html)

When asked by CQ National Security Editor Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda is one or the other of the two major branches of Islam -- Sunni or Shiite -- Reyes answered "they are probably both," then ventured "Predominantly -- probably Shiite."

That is wrong. Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden as a Sunni organization and views Shiites as heretics.

Reyes could also not answer questions put by Stein about Hezbollah, a Shiite group on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations that is based in Southern Lebanon.

Wow, now I really feel like we are in good hands with our new Democratic majority.

-burke

Europeans....

Once in a while I feel very thankful that our country has left the Euros in the dust for the last hundred years economically and culturally. However, I find it amusing that the Euros feel more comfortable working with the Dems. According to the Danish Prime Minister

"We are not anti-American, we want the real America, your America"

Right...lets ask the question. Who was it that made this country great: Limited government, religious individualists or welfare-state secular collectivists?

- burke

Another Comment on the Mess Critique

I to some extent agree with de Tocqueville: expecting a conservative newspaper to not espouse conservative views is extremely hypocritical. She wants diversity, but automatically disregards those conservative opinions which she deems objectionable. That is like saying we want cultural diversity, and then not allowing those of different cultures express themselves culturally. I also have to disagree with de Tocqueville as to the proper medium for encouraging bipartisan dialog. The Counterweight decided to consolidate many of the conservative writers on campus because of our getting drowned out by the other three liberal opinions that would appear in the same paper. Now we have a cohesive voice. The Mess does not have the burden of promoting bipartisan dialog, it is each and every one of us in our actions, interactions, and reactions to others on campus. The Mess needs writers desparately...I'm sure Andrea Horbinski gets sick of having to write something a little out there every week because they need to fill space. Because only liberals write in, they are the ones on the opinion pages of the Mess. We have the Counterweight for our views.

However, I do take a less extreme view on the point of the paper. The paper is supposed to indirectly encourage bipartisan dialog by providing a forum for the conservative voice to express itself in an honest, logical manner.

I agree with some of her critiques of the paper: the definition of news is problematic for us. It seems that the paper can be one of two mediums: a journal of conservative thought or a newspaper. Because we are interested in those things that occur on campus and because we do report on them (from our perspective of course), I do think it is appropriate to call us a newspaper. We could focus a bit more on the news aspect, and that is indeed room for improvement.

I also take issue with her selective quoting. Her quoting Chase's article about women and minorities left out the previous statements he made about the feelings of entitlement from rich white kids. In addition, she cites our Mission Statement and says that some of our commentary w/in the articles is problematic. Perhaps this is the case, but relative to some of the seething articles written weekly in the Mess, we pale in comparison.

In general, I think she made some good arguments. We do occasionally stick a sarcastic line in there when perhaps we shouldn't. We do make a very good, and I believe successful effort to avoid ad hominem attacks on others or on other organizations. We try to be constructive, and if a little shot of reality every once in a while is called for, I don't necessarily think it wrong to take it. If you want to read cheap shots, read the Sex Column in the Mess. He takes every chance he gets to slander conservatives and traditionalists. When we say something sarcastic or a little edgy, at least we back it up. Also, her point about the "news" is well taken, and is an issue we have been trying to collectively deal with. Hopefully you will see some improvement in this area soon. However, I do think she went too far in saying that the Counterweight is too extreme and that it is too controversial. In general, on an intolerant campus espousing conservative ideas is controversial in and of itself. We do not go out of our way to be, we just say what about a quarter of this campus wishes it could say but doesnt in order to avoid the kinds of reactions we get. I for one appreciate a little criticism every once in a while, and if we as a paper decide to take a little and leave a little, I think the paper will be better off for it

- burke

Mess Piece: Are they serious

I was just sitting and thinking about the Counterweight critique in the last issue of the Mess. The main point made was that the Counterweight should really serve as a forum for bi-partisan dialouge instead of the bastion of ultra-right wing idealogy it has become. I just don't understand how this is logical. We are a conservative newspaper who is going to talk about conservative things. Don't you think the main school newspaper (the Mess) would be a much better place for bi-partisan dialouge. To think that there is a place of bi-partisan dialouge on this campus is a laughable assumption, and I feel it is a great idea. But to place responsibility for this lack of consensus building on the conservative students newspaper? I feel that this is sorely misplaced. If the mess wants to point out that we are to the right, (which we come out and say) isn't it very hypocritical for them as the "representative, journalistic paper" to be even slightly left (which they obviously are). I think they could do a lot more to encourage bi-partisan dialouge and alienating the few conservative students on campus with great editorials like this isn't a good start.

-de Tocqueville

Conservatives are More Generous

This should come to no surprise to most conservatives, but a recent study from a liberal has shown that conservatives outgive secular liberals in terms of philanthropy, regardless of income and other potential confounding variables. This is not just in money. Conservatives give more blood and volunteer time as well.

In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

It appears as though the values voter does have a point when also voting for lower taxes. Like the article in October's issue of the Counterweight about Christianity and tax policy indicated, religious conservatives would rather give money to charities out of their own free will than to have the government forcefully take it away from them. So what remains here is the question of why liberals aren't as generous. Is it because they are lazy and would rather have a big, impersonal government make them feel good about themselves because of the socialist economic policies they enact that supposedly help the poor? Probably not. The conclusion is probably what is quoted above: the values taught in church and the structure of traditional families creates the most stable context in which an individual can grow up in and learn how to lead a life in accordance with God, in service to others and not to some impersonal centralized government.

- burke

Finally, Other People Are Starting to Get It!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061113/ap_on_re_us/citizenship_test

It appears as though the immigration department is going to change its citizenship test to include more questions that are more conceptual and more meaningful: What is a democracy? What is the purpose of voting?

"The idea is not to toss up roadblocks, it's to make sure people who apply for citizenship and want to become citizens understand and adhere to the values we have as a society, the values that are part of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

In a American society that seems to be drifting more and more towards relativism, assigning virtues to the differences between cultures to even those cultures whose values run contrary to American values, this is a step in the right direction. If America is going to remain a powerful force in the next century, we need to consolidate our values and our identity. We need to refocus on the commonalities between us as Americans and to focus on the history of this country, specifically on the values, attitudes, and philosophies that made this country great: the rights of the people, the role of government, etc. If we do not, we will succumb to the pressures of multiculturalism wherein we will no longer have a cohesive identity, and we will be a weaker country because of it. We will fall like the Roman Empire did, and like Europe is right now. Nationalism gets a bad rap...we should be proud of who we are. We should learn from our mistakes and move on.

By making individuals who want to be citizens learn those basic values that we hold dear, this awareness will make us a better country. New citizens will probably know more than the average high school graduate who, educated in our multicultural education system could probably not tell you what the concept of federalism is, but could of course tell you all about Muslim culture.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22834&only

If we do not know who we are and where we come from as a country, we will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Multiculturalism will not bring us all together as Americans, but a common American identity will.

- burke

The Irony is a Killer

As much as I hate to laugh at others' misfortunes, I can't help but notice the irony in the food poisoning issue on campus last week. That it occured at a College Democrat event after the election is just priceless. For those who suffered, I apologize for my insensitivity, but hey, you have to admit that it is a little bit funny.

- burke