On discourse between the Lefts and the Rights

Found here is a note from Ann Althouse, a blogger whose writings I have become attached to in the past week or so. I can't think of a better way to put the difficulties of discourse into written format. In my experience, being a conservative in most ways, I have never found it easy to have a plain discussion with a liberal. Especially in college, from whence I have just been freed. At the earliest levels of college, I was hit with all sorts of ideals opposite to my beliefs (and we're not talking religious here). It is unfortunate that my first class at the university was one run by a communist professor who believed in free speech as long as you agreed with him. More than once discussion was stifled in that environment. Sadly, because of that, I learned to back off from letting my own conservative views be known. The atmosphere on campus was always negatively charged towards those against the liberal policies of the academics. Almost every professor's office had political cartoons or statements taped to the doors. The political science building had a floor that housed a bulletin board stretching past six feet, infested with political comments (mostly in the form of cartoons), all eschewing the same liberal ideals. I thought many times about posting something conservative in hopes of watching a hazard team scramble to erase any offending material.
I had always believed that universities were places to go to expand your conciousness, to meet and discuss with individuals different from yourself. However, what I found was if you were different from the "individuals" you suffered, both academically and philisophically. Without a strong will to remain an individual, you would be broken down into an unthinking automaton. Universities are built on this premise. Think about it. Rip the children away from their parents, throw them into dorms where they can be indoctrinated outside of classes. Parents have no access to academic and health records. At a time when parents are a much needed support, a wall is built to attach the children to the academic system. This is a heavier continuance of the work of the schools the children have attended prior to college. I wonder what the difference in coping is between children coming from public and private schools (and the types of private schools), also factoring in the types of universities and colleges attended.

And I have ended up on a tangent to the subject orignally brought up. Because I cannot think of anything else to say, I'll end this for now.

NEXT DAY THOUGHTS: Having been brought up in not just a conservative family, but one that was deeply rooted in discussion and philosophy, I can say that my background led me to believe that all people were open to discussing both sides of an argument. However, as I grew older and began to interact with more and more people (not just my peers but adults as well), I began to find it difficult to have a calm and rational discussion with most persons. In fact, I have found this true of people regardless of their ideaologies. Having found interaction mostly in the school system, I can say that (whether you choose to believe my statements or not) the majority of people I have talked to were liberal. It is only now that I have started to find other conservatives. For a long time, I have felt alone as a young conservative. I will say that yes, I am conservative and not a moderate, as I used to describe myself. As a new voter, I am registered as an independant, but that is mainly because I refuse to fomrally identify my Republican-ness... mostly because of an irrational fear of being sought out. I did temporarily identify myself as a Republican to vote in the Primaries. It was the least I could do for my first voting experience.
Last night's State of the Union made me proud to say "That's my President. I voted for him." Four years ago, I was unable to stand up and claim the President as my own. Now, I have and I am proud of my choice. Yes, it is personal. Being American is personal to me. Never have I felt more alive than when I cast my vote for the President of the United States of America. It was as if I had been finally freed to add my voice to the many that I had not heard before that year. For the first time in my life, I had a feeling that I was not alone. Wait. Back up. It was not when I voted that I felt like this, but when I attended a rally for the President after one of the Presidential Debates. He came to our town and we sat in a large area amongst our peers. Republicans filled the seats and watched the debate as it unfolded. So many people were there. Thousands of people sat together in support of our President. They were not old and they were not young. These people came from varied backgrounds, some old and some young, many families and friends gathered in that structure. When the President arrived you could feel the strength of the people around you. The evening was a positive experience, with the support of others. You knew that you probably didn't agree with everyone there on everything, but you also knew that you wouldn't get shunned for disagreeing. That was the first time I realized that I ( and my family) was not alone.

This is in contrast to another event, one where I felt increasingly at risk. During my Freshman or Sophmore year, David Horowitz was scheduled to conduct a talk on various issues (I cannot remember the topic, I am sorry for this). Having read much of Mr. Horowitz's work, I wanted to attend, and so I made plans to clear my evening for this event. I was suprised that the university administration was allowing Mr. Horowitz to give his talk, but at the same time, I didn't expect them to deny his visit. It did not surprise me that a group of professors decided to hold a protest "teach-in" at the same time of Mr. Horowitz's talk. Furor and outrage stormed over the campus as the eventful day approached. Finally, it was time to attend the talk. I walked into the room with two other people, finding the hall packed from wall to wall with visitors. The room was obviously divided between two groups, the smaller number of conservatives and the liberals. Then, Mr. Horowitz was introduced. As he began to talk, a student from the left side of the room (and it was the left/left side) began to argue the smallest points. Shouting and screaming came from these liberals, drowning out anything Mr. Horowitz could say. Yet, he remained calm through the rage. He tried to reason, to discuss the issues with the liberals, the one student in particular. The issue picked out by this one individual (and subsequently the room) was reparations for Black citizens. At least, I think that's what it was. The people went into such a strong rage was so strong that the room became heated with their fury. The conservatives wanted to listen while the liberals wanted to shout out the speaker. Deeper and deeper did they delve into mindless argument, until Mr. Horowitz decided it was time to leave. He got up and left the argumentative people to stew in their own frantic juices. The tension was so thick it choked the life out of the room. It was that event that made me fear exposure as a conservative. I felt that letting my views be known would result in punishment and retaliation. I saw that I was outnumbered, seemingly alone in my environment. The conservatives that day were not my peers. My peers were the ones who sought to choke the discussion until it died. In a way, they were successful.

Althouse writes:

"Sissy Willis responds.
She thinks there is something inherent in left and right positions that produces
this different behavior. I am trying to reach out to the left and say:
Behave better! Engage me! But I read her as telling me that's
hopeless."

To this, I can relate. I feel as though my life has been devoted to this, but I have realized the hopelessness of the situation. I can only hope that the hopelessness is only an illusion and that maybe there is a glimmer of hope for discussion. True, rational discussion: We are all capabale of it, we just don't always use it.

On food, particularly in the form of Lunch

You know it's a bad day when you're trying to get a spoonful of white rice out of your lunch bowl but all you can find is white rice soaked in something pretending to be teriyaki sauce. It would have been far better to push for your favorite asian food restaurant instead. Such is the difference between the overpriced Pei Wei and the moderately (not cheap) priced Panda Express. I have found that I prefer my chicken to have some taste and texture that doesn't include "flat and crunchy" in personal description. Lettuce is for salads, not to be wiltingly draped across a platform of rice soggy with sauce. In addition, it is nice to have a lunch that does not leave an acidic, highly bitter aftertaste in your mouth. To be blunt, Panda Express is like Heaven for tastebuds craving asian food. Pei Wei, on the other hand, is like walking into a back alley and ordering week old (uncovered) bread for two hundred dollars (what that has to do with anything is anyone's guess).

(Note - if you don't get it: The positives are Panda and the negatives are Pei Wei.)

(much later update in 2008: Panda Express is no longer a viable lunch option, having made several people at the office sick multiple times.)

On Iraq, media coverage, and the elections...

There is nothing like a grown man quietly crying to himself in a dusty corner as several voters walk past to excercise their newfound freedoms. Geraldo Rivera (Jerry Rivers), you have gained at least a day's worth of respect from myself. Of course, you had to ruin the moment by making a show out of some poor woman's body lying in the back of a truck. Which is the true Geraldo, I wonder. I can only hope that the true Geraldo is the one crying at the overwhelming goodness that has happened in Iraq, and not the bloodthirsty man whose rabid nature revels in the death of innocents.

CNN was hopeless, as usual. It has come to the point that I cannot watch the channel without getting upset. What does CNN stand for, anyway? (I mean, really... I don't know)
I know it's commonly referred to as the Communist News Network, but wouldn't the Commonly Negative News be more appropriate? I cannot remember the last time I heard anything positive from that station. The price of Orange Juice would go down and these people would find something wrong with it. Ok, bad example. I don't have any good examples.

I was surprised to find that I actually agreed with Joe Lieberman on something. Unfortunately, I have forgotten what it was... except it was a positive statement on upholding Democracy and Freedom... I think. I'll remember later, I'm sure. Anyway, wow.

Blame is the name

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144922,00.html

Scrolling down to the end of this article, I came across this:

"As protesters awaited for sympathizer Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., to join
them, Michael Berg, father of Nicholas Berg, who was beheaded last year by terrorists in Iraq, blamed Bush for his son's death. Other demonstrations were planned throughout the downtown area."

(bolded for emphasis)

My thought was: "Yeah, that's right. Blame the president for the murder of your son at the hands of terrorists." Are people so clueless as to not follow logic? Also, would this man have blamed Clinton if the act had occured under his rule? I highly doubt it.
How would Bush be to blame for this man's death? Did he kill him? No. Berg was murdered by terrorists. Blame them. The sole blame should be visited upon those who perpetrated this despicable act. The father's anger should be directed not at the president who is trying to ensure against this acts, but at those who commit the acts.


No, I don't get all of my news from FoxNews, but it seems as though I find a lot inside their articles:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145062,00.html

Is it just me, or does it seem like this is just a little too trivial? Who cares? Different cultures, different signs. Seems like a pretty uptight group of people over there. (Oh, and that hand signal doesn't mean a sports team to me... just means bull* - as in cut the bull* - see... a different interpretation and I'm American... fancy that.)

On the issue of the use of "fetus"...

In relation to this story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141836,00.html

The story itself is horrifying and worth reading to get a feel of how depraved and ruthless people can be, and that's just the reporters. That someone would kill a woman and take her child is beyond comprehension. Taking the discussion onto another level, though, I have to wonder why they're still saying "fetus" and referring to the child as a "live child." How about saying, "It is most likely that the child is still alive," instead of "we probably would have a live child if we could find it" (attributed to Nodaway County Sheriff Ben Espey by the FOX News article). Maybe I'm a little sensitive, but the statement suggests that children are not considered alive until born at or after term. It sounds like if they expected the child not to have survived the attack and forcible extrication from it's (possibly her) mother's womb, they would be saying "we expect to find a fetus sometime." More distancing from the "possibility" that children could be considered human before birth.
Away from the "fetus" issue, I am surprised to find almost no mention of the woman's husband. The only mention is from the neighbor at the end of the article, referring to "they." Does this mean something? Is the husband suspected? Did the husband die or was he wounded in the attack on the mother? Where are the mentions of who the husband and wife were? It sounds like the media were unable to talk to or see the husband. What's going on there?

Christianity where? I don't remember that.

In relation to the last post on Freedom of Religion:

It looks like I'm not the only one to have come up with this theory.

The ACLU continues to be one of the many banes of the free world.

On freedom of religion

As the holiday known as Christmas begins to draw closer, I cannot help but take notice of the blatant disregard of our freedom of religion shown by the educational and governmental systems of the United States. More and more, I see the mention of "G-d" pushed out of any public place. However, it is only in reference to Christianity that G-d is shunned. It seems to me that the seperation of church and state has been taken too far by people such as the ACLU. From where I stand, I see a large discriminatatory campaign being taken up and no one is willing or able to put a stop to it. The point has come where there is a great push to outlaw Christianity. As I see it, were this action to be taken against the followers of Isalm or those of Jewish faith, there would be a grand uproar from the same people who are against those of Christian faith.
Why are they so afraid? I must ask this question because I cannot find the answer by myself. There is now an attempt to erase from knowledge that of Christianity and G-d. Why? What is so terrifying that these people would go to these lengths to not just create a seperation of church and state but to create just the state? Is it because they want total control and see Christianity as the starting point for attack? Once they are finished erasing Christianity, what will they start on next? There has already been a grand moral shift that erased most of the good and polite from this country, if not the world. Now that has been taken care of, so the next natural step would be to go after religion, which promotes upstanding moral behaviour, right?

News Post #1

First item that I read today, found via http://www.drudgereport.com:
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/3967448/detail.html
It would be nice to see writers stop calling Lacey Peterson's child a fetus. It has been determined that the child was murdered as well. Child. Not "fetus." The child even had a name, Connor. Fetus is a scientific term that is overused by the mainstream media to support pro-choice views (ie: supporting abortion).

Second item to catch my attention comes from http://www.tonguetied.us :
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, made the assumption that an "african-american" student in athletic gear was a football player. This, of course, resulted in an uproar from the class he was addressing, with the result of a letter to Sheriff Arpaio signed by all but one of the attendees. Who wrote the letter? Not surprisingly, the professor wrote the letter and then had his students sign the article. The letter expresses the outrage and indignation of the students and the professor at how "race insensitive" the sheriff is. Basically, they accused Sheriff Arpaio of racism. Now, Sheriff Arpaio is going to go back to the class to "discuss" the event with the students.
I would post the link to the school's article, but it doesn't have the most fair of views. The link is on the Tonguetied site.
I've been to Arizona, and I've visited Arizona State University. My experience is that there is a low population of "african-americans" in Arizona and especially at the univesity. Also, having been an avid football fan, I can say that most players of football, in and out of college level, are "african-american." I don't find it particularly egregious for someone to make the assumption that an "afican-american" student wearing athletic attire is on a sports team. Looking at a picture of the student in question, I'm surprised that the sheriff didn't refer to him as "the basketball player." If the student had been wearing a suit or a t-shirt and jeans, I highly doubt he would have been called "the football player." Besides, why is being called a football player so highly racist? According to the professor, it is because it's automatically assumed that "african-americans" can only get into college based on athletic rides and not on merit. However, Sheriff Arpaio never made a statement saying this. He only referred to the student as a football player, nothing else attached. To me, it looks like it is the professor and his students who made the assumption that football players are all "african-americans" on athletic rides, not the sheriff.

It begins. (Or does it end?)

The last class of my university career went out with a tiny whimper and without any bang.

Now what?

Introduction.

It is the eve of a critical event in my young life. Tomorrow night marks the last class I will have to attend at the state university before receiving a bachelor's degree. At this stage in life, I do not know what is next. This is the time when most graduating students go out into the world to pursue the perfect job. What do you do when you cannot figure out what you want to do?
I envy my classmates for knowing where they want to go. They are pursuing careers by putting effort into going out and interviewing for jobs at companies where they want to work. For the past two years, I have not been able to find something to catch my interest, even though I have been searching for answers. I feel like I have lost something important: my identity. Who am I? I think I wanted to be something, but now I seem to want only to sleep. There is something lurking beneath the surface, something that I have been unable to find.
For this reason, I feel like my four years at the university have been a waste. The only thing that I learned from the academic community is that I don't belong. I suppose you could sum up my experience as learning this: Free thought cannot exisit in an environment that strives to constrict the mind (the environment being the education system). Somewhere within this culture, I have lost my self and I am trying to recover the important parts. This is my log.

Somehow, it has started.

I don't know exactly when I decided to start this log, but it's about time I started to write.