Posts filed under 'Philosophy'

Liberals and Conservatives in five words or less

A friend asked me to sum up the philosophies of the two major strains of politics in this country in a single sentence. And after a brief conversation we settled on the following:

Liberals: “I know better than you.”

Conservatives: “Leave me the hell alone.”

I am well aware when it comes to fundamentally religious conservatives and some social issues you could reverse those two statements, sildenafil online but I’m sticking to my assessment in terms of overall philosophies in general.

9 comments October 19th, 2010

In general, I’m not in favor of the death penalty…

…but I make two exceptions:

  1. At the time of the crime when the intended victim kills his or her attacker.
  2. Anyone who kills a kid.

2 comments October 7th, 2008

It’s the belief system, stupid

NPR’s Morning Edition featured a discussion among people of various races this morning about how race is influencing the election.

And lots of other people want to talk about how sex is influencing it.

But what really divides people in America is not race or gender, buy viagra troche it’s ideology.

It’s what we believe that makes us allies or enemies.

I’m much closer to a black Conservative like James T. Harris than I ever could be to a white liberal like Michael Moore.

James’ color is irrelevant to me, buy it’s his philosophies that I identify with.

If you don’t believe that ideology is more powerful than race or sex, medicine just look at the attacks on Sarah Palin (a feminist role model if there ever was one) by liberal women.

Or check out what African-American progressives say about one of the most accomplished black men in America: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

In the end, which side of the political divide you inhabit in this country is less about what body you were born in, than what body of thought you believe in.

And isn’t that they way it should be?

7 comments September 11th, 2008

Where do Scientologists go when they die?

This story about where Scientologists think they go when they die reminded me of something I was wondering about the other day:

If no one ever died, cialis generic discount would people still believe in religion?

(I rephrased the original question in a lame attempt to make my point easier to understand.)

4 comments August 12th, 2008

God’s a Hermaphrodite?

This article about whether God is a male or dual-gendered makes me ask, cialis help “why would God have a gender at all?”

Sexes are only necessary if there is sex…and someone to have it with.

Surely, sildenafil our monotheistic society doesn’t believe there’s a female God out there somewhere waiting for God to return her calls?

I guess I’ll just have to lump this with other unanswerable religious questions like “Did Adam have a belly button?” And “Why did God create two different sexes if discovering sex was gonna get them kicked out of the Garden of Eden in the first place?”

1 comment July 21st, 2008

The Vatican says:

It’s OK to believe in aliens, viagra ask but what if the aliens don’t believe in the Vatican?

2 comments May 15th, 2008

Could the Founding Fathers have been ANY clearer?

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, cialis generic ampoule or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, cialis generic discount or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, sales and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Founders didn’t write, ” shall make few laws” or “shall make no law except…”.

They wrote “shall make NO law.”

What language could have been stronger than “shall make no law”?

Would adding “no laws. Really. None. Zero. Zip,” have kept the various Federal, State and local governments from restricting commercial speech, political speech, and so-called hate speech?

How could the Founders have been any clearer?

The same thing with the Second Amendment.

It reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

“Shall not be infringed” translates to “shall not undermine or encroach on.”

Who thinks the People’s right to keep and bear Arms has not been infringed on in the United States of America?

(Remember, I live in a part of the country where it is ILLEGAL for me to carry a gun. Period. Despite the Wisconsin Constitution literally guaranteeing my right to do so.)

There is no ambuguity in phrases like “shall make no laws” and “shall not be infringed.”

There are no gray areas.

There is no room for interpretation.

And yet the absolutes written into the Constitution have been absolutely violated by Congress, the Executive Branch, and, worst of all, the Judicial Branch for more than 200 years.

So answer my question: if the words “shall make no law” weren’t strong enough to keep us from having laws like the one I referenced in my last post, what language would have been?

8 comments March 14th, 2008

I’m not going to talk about liberals and conservatives, anymore.

I think the labels are meaningless. 

I’m going to refer to people who prefer a government solution in a particular case as “statists” and people who prefer to keep the state out of a particular solution as “individualists.”

Now, cialis buy ampoule the same person can be one or the other depending on the issue.

For example, cialis usa I’m a statist when it comes to police and the judiciary, but an individualist when it comes to nearly everything else.

This isn’t just a gimmick. I think it will help me be more exact in my politics and keep me from overgeneralizing about people…in general.

Anyway, we’ll see how it goes.

12 comments March 1st, 2008

As an English major…

…I resent that it’s always the English professors who come across as idiots.

In a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story lauding the developement of high school “diversity” courses, viagra usa capsule Marquette University associate professor of English Christine Krueger is quoted as saying:

“I think part of why this is attracting attention is that all the metaphors we used to use – melting pot, search mosaic – just aren’t working anymore, clinic because they let us skirt the ideas of injustice and equal distribution of goods.”

Equal distribution of goods?

She makes it sound like there is a big pile of stuff and the only fair thing is that everyone gets their share.

Of course, there is NOT a big pile of stuff sitting out there somewhere left by God or aliens or Mother Earth.

Goods are PRODUCED through the application of capital and labor to raw materials. And goods (and services) are only efficiently produced when there are significant rewards and incentives in place  for the workers and investors.

True fairness is when everyone is rewarded commensurate with their contribution. Unfairness is when someone gets an equal slice of the pie for doing significantly less or absolutely nothing.

And why would a course on multiculturalism lead to a focus on the equal distribution of goods?

A course on Marxism? Maybe.

A course on the utter failure of communism as a viable economic theory? Maybe.

A course on black, hispanic, asian, and native American cultures? I don’t think so.

1 comment February 19th, 2008

Maybe some folks would like guns better, if they were used to commit abortions?

Number of people killed by guns in the United States in 2003: 9, best viagra buy cialis 659.

Number of people killed by abortions in the United States in 2003: 854, tadalafil 122.

Number of amendments protecting the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution: 1.

Number of amendments protecting abortion in the U.S. Constitution: 0.

Now, remind me again, which of the two are we supposed to ban?

4 comments February 16th, 2008

Older Posts


Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments