tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57718624855999068342024-03-12T18:56:42.309-07:00Our Sacred HonorOur fathers pledged everything. Will we?Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-57310049592057013482016-08-18T23:17:00.002-07:002016-08-18T23:44:37.690-07:00America in 2016: Is Democracy Broken? <div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-small;">Disclaimer: I apologize in advance for
the length of this post. It has been a long time since I have had ample time to
organize my thoughts on any political issues and as such, I may tend to ramble
a bit more in this post than I had intended. However, I feel that the issue discussed
here is something that is certainly worth at least a cursory glance and
consideration. I hope my attempts to express my thoughts are at least mildly
stimulating, albeit exhaustive. – Evan</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1blA36417BFwQ8-bd851SyxV2UtpIxrekQxlrLu4SCjOOHbD9zO7rQxkZEhkHv328nO-emzMLmnLdOvmvjeUKPvTkH-a9HSquplF2FTy9IS43NyLp9FVjLu-4M7yoUDbSclhBSyhsIyC_/s1600/160302005451-trump-and-hillary-exlarge-169.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1blA36417BFwQ8-bd851SyxV2UtpIxrekQxlrLu4SCjOOHbD9zO7rQxkZEhkHv328nO-emzMLmnLdOvmvjeUKPvTkH-a9HSquplF2FTy9IS43NyLp9FVjLu-4M7yoUDbSclhBSyhsIyC_/s320/160302005451-trump-and-hillary-exlarge-169.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">PC: CNN</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"> </span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; line-height: 1.38; white-space: pre-wrap;">Every election year has its share of challenges and disappointments. I want to make sure I am clear on that point before I go any further, because I feel it is something that many individuals tend to forget in the midst of the bloodbath that arises as we enter Q3 of a general election year. Elections are messy. They’re brutal. They’re full of misdirection, lies, and attack ads. Good ideas are discussed. Bad ideas are discussed. Democrats blame Republicans for our nation’s problems and Republicans blame Democrats. The media chooses favorites and feeds the horse race, not only in the primary but also in the general election. None of this is new.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; line-height: 1.38; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span id="docs-internal-guid-3a6a29f1-a16b-3d0a-fcd8-47dfeff70ec3"></span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span id="docs-internal-guid-3a6a29f1-a16b-3d0a-fcd8-47dfeff70ec3"><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But something about 2016 is different than past elections – at least the ones that I can clearly remember. I admit that my own memory is rather foggy. Honestly, I can recall only vague details about the 2000 race between Gore and Bush. Most of what I know of elections, historically, is from my studies in college rather than from firsthand experience. Still, I find that I am not alone is calling 2016 a litmus test year for our nation.</span></span></div>
<span id="docs-internal-guid-3a6a29f1-a16b-3d0a-fcd8-47dfeff70ec3">
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Only last year the GOP was positioned extraordinarily well - walking into this year secure in <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWM0M9V3QxzzvNM8JmIDmXNZGwnEAZR_0_6oUHV1fFRNlhoLi8Csu5Uqtl63rhgviqQivxfcGaYEMc7ZZOwNe8AfrNWTNt8ICO2cUmbYLSptC7ZO9q0bznp3vFsvlirnJ9lPfXEbTVW_YB/s1600/150807_gop_debate_gty_1160.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWM0M9V3QxzzvNM8JmIDmXNZGwnEAZR_0_6oUHV1fFRNlhoLi8Csu5Uqtl63rhgviqQivxfcGaYEMc7ZZOwNe8AfrNWTNt8ICO2cUmbYLSptC7ZO9q0bznp3vFsvlirnJ9lPfXEbTVW_YB/s320/150807_gop_debate_gty_1160.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">PC: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
the knowledge that Obama’s approval ratings were plummeting. Republican legislators had swept the House and Senate in the last midterm election, and we had strong Republican figures positioning themselves for the White House race. Jeb Bush, the clear establishment favorite – ideally groomed for the position and riding off of the success of not only a father but also a brother who had served in our nation’s highest office. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina joined Jeb as key figures that seemed to grasp the importance of winning. As Marco Rubio put it in an early GOP debate, “People are starting to understand very clearly that this election is going to be a turning point. That 2016 is not just a choice between Republican or Democrat, it is a referendum on our identity as a nation and as a people…we’re going to bring this party together and we are going to defeat Hillary Clinton.” I was optimistic. I liked the majority of the candidates on the stage. Oh. Except One.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Donald Trump. It’s funny to think back to last fall. I honestly am stunned by how far he’s come. Sure, he was leading in the polls from the beginning, but that’s normal. Plenty of commentators expected Jeb or Rubio to rise up as the “real” candidate once the novelty of the brash and offensive business tycoon died down. The problem was – that never happened.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnOgjLe1Hb-s-ltbfmpIRaK1NkPm_T59TI-KNeX7gvPIMR2ZKkD2VsITQ-QaTHZEe-71dczOdGAaP-GkKCjYGxScAISw_SCmX4fmtGNKy7R2wBfXqxQR7qXfDVhWWusl41ZkhcN4ejJoWl/s1600/berniesanders.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnOgjLe1Hb-s-ltbfmpIRaK1NkPm_T59TI-KNeX7gvPIMR2ZKkD2VsITQ-QaTHZEe-71dczOdGAaP-GkKCjYGxScAISw_SCmX4fmtGNKy7R2wBfXqxQR7qXfDVhWWusl41ZkhcN4ejJoWl/s320/berniesanders.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">PC: Michael Dwyer/AP</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Donald Trump swept the rug out from beneath the Republican Party. He rose on a tide not dissimilar from the momentum seen in the Democratic Party, with a relatively unknown and open socialist, Bernie Sanders. Donald, like Bernie, appealed to the frustrations of the American people with the duplicity of politics. They didn’t speak the same language as the other candidates in either party. They called out political correctness. They pointed out the problems that existed: rising cost of living paired with more and more minimum wage earning adults. Rampant illegal immigration. Apparent discrimination against LGBT communities. Debt. International terrorism. “The System is Broken,” they cried. And Americans rallied behind them.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now, as much as I would love to explore the factors that led to a choice of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as our two front running candidates, I will refrain. There are plenty of fantastic political commentators who have analyzed the specifics of this election cycle in more detail and provided far better data than I could ever hope to present. But I want to look at one particular topic that I continue to hear echoed among my peers – that </span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">the system is broken.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It’s not unique to Trump or Bernie. It’s a common message this year all around. Earlier in the election, candidates like Cruz and Rubio condemned the established party leadership as an obstacle to true conservative reform. Democrats also point to a broken system – rigged by powerful corporations and businessmen and special interest groups that fight for profit at the expense of “everyday Americans.” Honestly, I thought for a while that this was just the candidates attacking competitors (Jeb was an establishment candidate, Trump is a powerful businessman, etc…). Then about a month ago, I was chatting with a friend on social media, and I heard that phrase again – </span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">the system is broken</span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The only thought that I can offer is – </span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Really? </span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Is “the system” really to blame for this election year? For the political issues that exist in our nation and around the world? I would seriously question that premise. In fact, I would argue that our system is as near to flawless as sinful man is capable of crafting.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgs5z8voBduymIDP2xDcS5gFYrxi467qWwP1hNbQARXBOnfOIepwbZ2lLzT4L9_paTnEqIZfiacOkpIotaCWf7BFu3wEH0EbWOe3KeXInyyyLIIJx6VfohO4WsGC1gnYGkSEMnyUlXWcGb6/s1600/1b83686d-452a-4dfb-87ed-1062f09418ac_560_420.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgs5z8voBduymIDP2xDcS5gFYrxi467qWwP1hNbQARXBOnfOIepwbZ2lLzT4L9_paTnEqIZfiacOkpIotaCWf7BFu3wEH0EbWOe3KeXInyyyLIIJx6VfohO4WsGC1gnYGkSEMnyUlXWcGb6/s320/1b83686d-452a-4dfb-87ed-1062f09418ac_560_420.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
</span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Our Founding Fathers crafted a system of government that combined the best of all worlds, as near as they could find. They rejected the authoritarian monarchy of Great Britain and looked instead to classical political concepts from the Greco-Roman world. They crafted a constitutional republican democracy where the American people have the ability choose representatives who would tackle the difficult issues of their communities at local, state, and national levels. The constitution was crafted as a way to prevent the expanse of government regulation from strangling the liberties of the American people. However, nothing about this era was particularly pure or perfect. There were many issues that presented themselves for representatives to debate. One of our earliest presidents pushed for radical legislation known as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which garnered massive opposition and support. In addition, there was the looming issue of slavery that would later erupt into violence less than a century later.</span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> However, the founding fathers were clever enough to plan for all eventualities. The three branches of government, vying over conflicting interests, slow the gears of government action to a crawl to ensure that bad policies are exposed and stopped before they can root themselves in established jurisprudence and legal code. Government in the United States was designed to be inefficient, messy, and overly complicated – it’s the entire purpose of constitutional “checks and balances,” which most Americans will recognize as a good thing for our nation. Unfortunately, the </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrEtlzFWXQ181J2A7nRS2r0B7-yedvvuRtUY8O7SNFp-BPTiSh7WG004NZRHHbITE4Fb7xeUTHBgARFC1bLj6BmpusYVjY0pPCHLBynuj8lZdYicWhaWMxpsvD_gXlbQIoBCia8nyicBbf/s1600/web-spacey.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrEtlzFWXQ181J2A7nRS2r0B7-yedvvuRtUY8O7SNFp-BPTiSh7WG004NZRHHbITE4Fb7xeUTHBgARFC1bLj6BmpusYVjY0pPCHLBynuj8lZdYicWhaWMxpsvD_gXlbQIoBCia8nyicBbf/s200/web-spacey.jpg" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">structure of American society is only as strong as its foundation – the American people themselves. This is the “problem” with democracy. When voters abdicate their role, political elites reign supreme. Parties coalesce and build up their own members. Healthy compromise between ideas turns into <span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">quid pro quo</span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> exchanges between lawmakers seeking to create their own careers and legacies.</span></span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I think this is why many Americans see the system as broken. It’s normal and natural and all democracies eventually reach this point, throughout history. But the issue really isn’t the system, here. It’s the American people refusing to engage in the process. Whether through party alienation, indignation at corruption, or just plain apathy.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If a clock stops working, it doesn’t mean that it’s broken. It just means that no one has wound it for a while. The clock is not to blame – it’s only natural for the gears to stop turning eventually. All it needs is for a person to come and wind it up again and it will work just as well as before. The same is true with the American system of government. It isn’t broken. The gears have just lost momentum and have bogged down from the complexity of the mechanism. However, if the American people step up and engage in the political process, the momentum will return and the “clock” will start telling time again.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-8hfMSXw0M8ujDzJYjafRO1V3ZlWE2_hC6Le7bDVXinilEOOiv5XQ4q6lpnG8QLdQtVehhyZ1BNDf-jniuDrCHSJDisE5UJlywdVwbYSaXrlAMsXHdo8YO38sR_nx2ieB-8ZYE68SdK3x/s1600/mechanical-clock_104259.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-8hfMSXw0M8ujDzJYjafRO1V3ZlWE2_hC6Le7bDVXinilEOOiv5XQ4q6lpnG8QLdQtVehhyZ1BNDf-jniuDrCHSJDisE5UJlywdVwbYSaXrlAMsXHdo8YO38sR_nx2ieB-8ZYE68SdK3x/s320/mechanical-clock_104259.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now, you might object and say that “I haven’t disengaged. I’m not a part of the problem.” Well good for you. If you’re communicating regularly with your representatives on how you want them to vote, walking precincts, engaging in civil political debate of ideas, and making an informed decision at the ballot box, good for you! Most of us, however, are busy with our day to day lives. I’m a political junkie – I love to discuss American politics, weigh ideas, and consider alternatives. I try to remain an informed voter. But I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve contacted my representatives and urged their vote on a political issue this year. However, as responsible adults and voters, we cannot continue to lie to ourselves and shift responsibility onto “the system,” when we refuse to even participate. It’s time that we take responsibility for our own failure and take steps to repair the damage we have done.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Come on, America! We’re better than Trump and Hillary. Let’s be optimists again. Let’s fight for our nation, instead of tearing it down. Let’s be that shining City on a Hill that shows the world that Democracy works, when you hold each other accountable. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Let’s </span><b><i>actually</i></b> Make America Great Again. <o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRZxAEn8zdiyIuAevakCrSSqb0KKXp92ltsTP0tJUY2jXoJvQ7Zn_nam1vO8m7WwcLn4Ospepu-5nPpcVH_taxgW09TJJlm1Eeq0_imib79SsFGsrZDJtl_vCHj4KtnHJ2jPPBpEXommta/s1600/2DECC0B000000578-3296078-image-a-55_1446169070909.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRZxAEn8zdiyIuAevakCrSSqb0KKXp92ltsTP0tJUY2jXoJvQ7Zn_nam1vO8m7WwcLn4Ospepu-5nPpcVH_taxgW09TJJlm1Eeq0_imib79SsFGsrZDJtl_vCHj4KtnHJ2jPPBpEXommta/s200/2DECC0B000000578-3296078-image-a-55_1446169070909.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span id="goog_977787184"></span><span id="goog_977787185"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"> ~ </span><!--[endif]-->Evan Gillespie, copyright 2016. <o:p></o:p></div>
Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-82914609093257507472015-11-11T18:10:00.002-08:002015-11-11T18:20:07.608-08:00The Land of the Free<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2oYrYns_FV-iSJkqhYm3l25xw2OAkDHplFdh1Y6leTVSvT3WKOBZHXHVcULqsK3oXYEg9i0IugF9xkhILmH5NMvN6lxouA1hH2ZUlQQR3sSmpjk5Pcf_DX8O74d86UYEqT9I-CTCd85nY/s1600/American-Flag-Eagle.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="285" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2oYrYns_FV-iSJkqhYm3l25xw2OAkDHplFdh1Y6leTVSvT3WKOBZHXHVcULqsK3oXYEg9i0IugF9xkhILmH5NMvN6lxouA1hH2ZUlQQR3sSmpjk5Pcf_DX8O74d86UYEqT9I-CTCd85nY/s400/American-Flag-Eagle.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Veterans Day provides a special opportunity in our nation. It's a time for us to take a moment and thank the veterans of the United States Armed Forces and the service that they have offered in defense our nation and the American way of life.<br />
<br />
As I sit here today, I find myself reflecting on the sacrifices that many of my friends and colleagues have made to serve our nation - time with their families, career opportunities, recreation, and even their own health and safety. Granted, it isn't always a dangerous way of life - many find successful careers in military service - but it's a lot to ask of anyone even so.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, veterans of foreign wars - like Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq - often face criticism for their actions "over there." It's a reality that has garnered backlash by many and rightly so. I would encourage anyone who reads this post to remember that regardless of personal feelings about individual practice of American foreign policy, our servicemen deserve the highest respect for their defense of the American way of life.<br />
<br />
That's an interesting expression isn't it? <i>The American way of life</i>. What does it really mean? Undoubtedly it has something to do with Freedom, but beyond that, it's a bit difficult to define.<br />
<br />
In the early days of our nation, revolutionaries fought to free their families and nation from a tyrant that taxed them into poverty, without allowing them any representation. Later, our nation faced an existential crisis over states' rights and human slavery - resorting to a brutal war between brothers for the future of the nation. the United States of American shifted from a collection of free states into a unified nation - and firmly rejected the slavery of any human being as being immoral and totally unacceptable in America.<br />
<br />
The 20th Century saw another series of wars that ravaged our world - and these wars propelled our nation to unprecedented heights - as the economic, military, and moral leader of the free world - and a strong opponent of the Communist threat of Eastern Europe. The various military engagements for the remainder of the century largely were proxy wars between our nation and the Soviet Union - as we fought to contain communism. The century closed to a new world - the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of globalization and the genesis of today's technical revolution - America won. Freedom won.<br />
<br />
Now, the 21st Century hits. We see a new rise of radicalism in response to American imperialism, "Western" promiscuity, and ideological reform in many religious and political groups. Today, we find ourselves facing a presidential election cycle that is almost unprecedented in the degree of cynicism and disinterest by the American people. I think that it is fair to say that, today, more than ever, it is important for us to take some time to remember what it means to be an American.<br />
<br />
I recently watched the new Tom Hanks film, <i>Bridge of Spies</i>, and his character made a stunningly simple point on that subject, that I think is dead accurate:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/V4cnOrUqJWg/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V4cnOrUqJWg?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
"<i>I'm Irish, you're German. But what makes us both Americans? It's just one thing...the Rulebook. We call it the Constitution. And we agree to the rules. And that's what makes us Americans." </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
In the end, the only point I would make this Veterans Day is - <b>remember who we are as Americans. </b> A large mess of people with different interests, passions, and ideas. But people who are united in our respect and love for our founding documents - the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.<br />
<br />
These documents - no matter how old or "out of date" they may seem, still shine as the one example of what it means to be an American. These documents are the reason that thousands upon thousands of American servicemen have sacrificed their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor at home and abroad.<br />
<br />
So, yes, I hope we all thanked a veteran today for their service. But more than that, I hope we all take the time to consider what that service really means and resolved never again to underestimate their sacrifice in defense of our freedom as Americans.<br />
<br />Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-32462783897141493442015-03-22T20:47:00.001-07:002015-03-22T20:49:52.057-07:00Globalization & Protectionism<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
The
development of the global economy is perhaps one of the most controversial
topics in economics, while also the most inevitable. Very few economists would
argue that resisting</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
globalization is a wise idea, or even possible. However,
there are definite advantages and disadvantages to a global economy. This blog simply weighs the positives and negatives of how globalization has
impacted the United States and the international market as a whole in regards
to specialization of economies, protectionism, and international trade. <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://accelerateit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/globalization-globe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://accelerateit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/globalization-globe.jpg" height="220" width="320" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
American system was designed around an understanding of the free market – where
supply </div>
and demand determine the prices of various good and services. This
allows scarce resources to flow to their most efficient uses, since capitalist
producers will not continue to waste valuable resources on failed experiments,
if there is no economic incentive. As competition increases due to more
countries and businesses having interaction with each other – the international
consumers will have a greater quality and quantity of product.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://img.izismile.com/img/img5/20120229/640/oil_crisis_of_1973_in_the_usa_640_09.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://img.izismile.com/img/img5/20120229/640/oil_crisis_of_1973_in_the_usa_640_09.jpg" height="212" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Gas lines resulting from OPEC Embargo, 1973</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">There are a number of factors that
impact the degree to which developing nations are capable of competing with
more prosperous nations. First, some countries simply maintain an absolute
advantage in a particular sector of the economy. An absolute advantage is when,
“one country, for any of a number of reasons, can produce some things cheaper
or better than another” (Sowell, p. 503, </span><i style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy</i><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">). Whether this advantage comes from
climate, technology, or even the culture of society – it can cause other
nations to become incapable of competing in that sector. Comparative advantage
is where specialization in national economies allows countries to divide their
resources to produce the most efficient amount of goods, despite possible
absolute advantages exercised by one country over another. This can allow for
massive increases in productivity – but it also has the potential for abuse by
one country toward another. In 1973, due to the comparative advantage that
Saudi Arabia and OPEC held over the oil industry, Arabs “imposed an embargo
against the United States in retaliation for the U.S. decision to re-supply the
Israeli military and to gain leverage in the post-war negotiations” (“Oil
Embargo” <i>Office of the Historian</i>). The globalization of the economy, then, can have both positive and
negative consequences on the growth of national wealth. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">One of the
biggest problems with specialization resulting from globalization is that
countries can reduce or even eliminate entire sectors of their economy – for
example, the US now imports most factory-made goods from overseas in China or
Taiwan – countries that have specialized to focus on industrialization. This
makes for cheaper products, but costs the US blue-collar factory jobs. When
workers lack expertise outside of a particular sector, job losses in factories
can destroy their livelihood and lead to vast homelessness in certain
communities.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.clker.com/cliparts/z/k/k/0/J/k/whitecollar-md.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.clker.com/cliparts/z/k/k/0/J/k/whitecollar-md.png" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">It must be understood, though, that
this does not mean that the entire economy suffers, as a result. If blue-collar
jobs are lost to overseas corporations – it will usually result in more
white-collar jobs domestically. Thus, an economy might experience rapid growth,
through specialization, while still seeing entire sectors lost and radical
increases in unemployment rates. At this point, however, labor unions
historically will arise to protect the rights of workers to have full
employment. If a large enough union can mobilize a grassroots campaign against
the government of a nation, it can easily prevent the export of economic
sectors, causing entire sectors to be “protected” from outsourcing. This is
known as protectionism – and it results in a country favoring domestically
produced goods and services – often going so far as to place tariffs and quotas
on foreign imports.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">It is fair to note that
protectionist policies are effective at accomplishing their chief objective –
they artificially preserve the jobs they seek to protect, and insulate these
workers from potential job loss. This can benefit a country domestically, as issues
of joblessness and homelessness are not as rampant, despite changing
technology. However, protectionist policies have the unintended consequence of
harming foreign nations, by blocking or limiting the amount of goods and
services that these countries can export. Organizations like the World Trade
Organization exist to address the rules of international trade, and to ensure
that protectionist policies remain limited, to avoid unnecessary disputes
between nations. The area where protectionist policies become the most
problematic is in regard to the commanding heights of the economy – large
industries like coal, oil, and steel.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://scmr.com/images/NAFTA_compliance.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://scmr.com/images/NAFTA_compliance.jpg" height="163" width="200" /></a><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Finally, the globalization has had
a profound impact on the development of international trade agreements. As the
global market has expanded to allow more rapid trade and more international
business, many nations have sought to establish freer trade agreements with
each other, in the interest of bilateral economic growth. One key example of
this is the formation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. This agreement “reduced barriers
to commerce and business among the three nations (Weidenbaum, p. 193, </span><i style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Business and Government in the Global Marketplace</i><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">). NAFTA was
viewed by Canada and Mexico as a great achievement toward more equitable trade
between themselves and the United States. When NAFTA was under debate in the
United States, many conservative politicians objected to the adoption of the
agreement due to potential harm to the economic stability of the U.S. economy,
by allowing lower skill jobs to transition toward Mexico and forcing unionize
labor to suffer. While ultimately, politicians voted in support of NAFTA, in
light of recent developments, the success of this agreement is questionable. As
Weidenbaum points out, “Overall, the changes resulting from more open trade are
turning out to be much less than forecast by either NAFTA’s supporters or
opponents” (193). Thus, even with strides being taken toward freer trade, the
globalization of the market still creates difficulties for successful trade
between developing nations and more prosperous countries. </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://www.biz.uiowa.edu/tippiemba/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/global-economy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://www.biz.uiowa.edu/tippiemba/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/global-economy.jpg" /></a><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">In conclusion, the globalization of
the market is essentially a neutral phenomenon. There are both negative and
positive consequences – but it is an inevitable result of free market
capitalism. While there are certainly potential complications, through
protectionist and punitive trade policies, as well as unbalanced trade between
nations, there are many advantages as well. It is important to understand that,
whatever fears or dreams that economists may express in regard to
globalization, it has certainly benefited economic and human rights advances in
developing nations. It is vital that politicians – and the general public –
understand the essentials of the global market – and ensure a healthy respect
and fear for the potential consequences of manipulation of the markets by national
or international government agencies.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">- Evan Gillespie</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Copyright April 2014</span></div>
Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-38229607790193076122015-03-03T23:33:00.002-08:002015-03-03T23:38:09.112-08:00Bibi & 'Bama - What it Means<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBvmnM9wEaVBhcDHCV_hIhDehkkuDoXqhz_rfu-qsKren45K6C4br752ep_P74dRDZyaN9VJaPCh9WPsmMANEzGtzvpMu_0AhXCC7RuRpLvWbgxACg_zJHPznddLWoaM7LhVq4roNMPj8z/s1600/2015-03-03T162750Z_1999399423_TB3EB3319Q49M_RTRMADP_3_USA-ISRAEL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="color: black;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBvmnM9wEaVBhcDHCV_hIhDehkkuDoXqhz_rfu-qsKren45K6C4br752ep_P74dRDZyaN9VJaPCh9WPsmMANEzGtzvpMu_0AhXCC7RuRpLvWbgxACg_zJHPznddLWoaM7LhVq4roNMPj8z/s1600/2015-03-03T162750Z_1999399423_TB3EB3319Q49M_RTRMADP_3_USA-ISRAEL.jpg" height="217" width="320" /></span></a></div>
This morning, something HUGE happened. Some of you may have missed it, or heard about it but failed to grasp its gravitas. Today, Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel spoke to Congress on the dangers of U.S.-Iranian nuclear talks. This wasn't a simple speech on something we all agree on - this wasn't something designed by the President to make Congress look bad. In fact, it was quite the opposite.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>The Head of State of a foreign nation made an unprecedented address to the U.S. Congress - bypassing the President of the United States, entirely. That's massive. </b><br />
<br />
The state of Israel has long (since 1949) been a close ally of the United States of America - a nation that we have defended in the UN, provided weapons & technology to, during the Cold War years, and publicly defended as a beacon of democracy in the midst of the chaos of the Middle East. While Presidents & Israeli PMs have certainly had their share of differences over the years, our two nations have enjoyed a mutual respect and kindness toward each other, for decades.<br />
<br />
Now, in light of talks between the United States and Iranian diplomats, over Iran's nuclear program, Congressional Republicans - and many throughout the nation, on both sides of the isle, fear that the United States is willing to make far too many concessions to the Islamic Republic of Iran in the name of compromise. For this reason, House Majority Leader, late in January 2015, John Boehner (R) invited Prime Minister Netanyahu to Washington to share his concerns --------------- without consulting the President. In Boehner's words,<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>In this time of challenge, I am asking the Prime Minister to address Congress on the grave threats radical Islam and Iran pose to our security and way of life. Americans and Israelis have always stood together in shared cause and common ideals, and now we must rise to the moment again</i>."</blockquote>
<br />
To clarify, Israel has a serious concern with the potential for a nuclear-armed Iran, as Iranian leaders have vocally condemned the existence of the Jewish state for years. Many fear that if Iran possesses nuclear weapons, they will almost certainly use them to attack the state of Israel - which could have dire consequences not only for these two nations, but for the entire world. Preventing such an outcome, is clearly a desirable objective.<br />
<br />
The White House was less than enthusiastic about this revelation, <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/21/john-boehner-invites-israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-to-address-congress">when Press Secretary Josh Earnest said,</a> "The typical protocol would suggest that the leader of a country would contact the leader of another country when he's traveling there." From the initial announcement it was clear that the President felt personally insulted by this breach of protocol, and for months there has been speculation over the impact of this speech.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOUM_3pfZnYmLD9qPnAOUg323Jk13arJ-qFDdxRdYyxK65W4cw3_gh5FdvwCr2qFodX2KqY7A8Lxi4kqh1l3CMFM1ZfTHs4WyR5kx8Mq65P0rlHBMd6QM4WZAvmxaXfH4jWV6LVi6N300P/s1600/download.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: black;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOUM_3pfZnYmLD9qPnAOUg323Jk13arJ-qFDdxRdYyxK65W4cw3_gh5FdvwCr2qFodX2KqY7A8Lxi4kqh1l3CMFM1ZfTHs4WyR5kx8Mq65P0rlHBMd6QM4WZAvmxaXfH4jWV6LVi6N300P/s1600/download.jpg" /></span></a></div>
Shortly before the speech by Netanyahu,<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvVSZakQ2fw"> President Obama spoke briefly on the speech</a>, in an interview, calling it a "distraction" from the larger concerns with Iran, and deflecting to queries about how destructive this breach of policy would be to the U.S.-Israeli relationship in the future. His tone - as is frequently the case with President Obama - seemed calm and unconcerned - which is even more concerning in light of the seriousness of the issue.<br />
<br />
Bibi's speech was fantastic, in my opinion. He steered a careful course - remaining respectful and supportive of the United States and even President Obama, while condemning the Iranian nuclear talsk as "a bad deal." He was careful to condemn Iranian leaders as "zealots" pursuing "jihad" and referring to the nation at large as the world's "foremost sponsor of terror" - breaking from the recent rhetoric of President Obama, who has painfully sought to disassociate the acts of Islamic terrorists from the religion of Islam. Netanyahu's speech was a polite slap in the face to the President and his administration - reminding the American people that just because Obama says something is true, it doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees.<br />
<br />
The most stunning part of this entire situation, however, is the tone of President Obama, in light of everything. While he may be trying to come across as "above the fray" and even presidential - it simply isn't working. The entire nation - both nations in fact - recognize that this speech was no distraction - <i>it was a serious address by a <u>foreign head of state </u>to the American people, <u>on U.S. soil - </u>in direct opposition to the policies of the American President.</i> James Oliphant wrote today, in the <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/netanyahu-delivers-just-what-obama-feared-20150303">National Journal</a>, that<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;"><i>"Obama, in an interview with Reuters, had dismissed the speech as a "distraction," and aides made sure everyone knew he would be too busy to watch it. But if the president didn't cast an eye at a TV, he might have been the only person in Washington not to. And that's the problem. </i></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;"><i>For weeks, the White House has worked steadily to write the speech off as a thinly veiled Republican ploy to undermine the delicate negotiations with Iran. But network coverage treated it for what it was: the head of state of a critical ally delivering a controversial address on American soil. That served the interests of both House Speaker John Boehner, who was the impetus behind the speech, and Netanyahu, elevating both of them while key Democrats such as Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren stayed offstage."</i></span></blockquote>
<br />
I couldn't have said it better myself (ya, I know - don't even say it). While Barack Obama wants to write this off as a small blip on the radar - the American people <i>aren't buying it! </i>And frankly, Obama's coolness in light of this insult is hurting, rather than helping him.<br />
<br />
So yes - something big happened in Washington this morning. Bibi threw down the gauntlet to Barack, <i>in his own town, </i>and I am excited, frightened, and generally fascinated to see what the coming weeks will bring us.<br />
<br />
<br />Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-60886044673009379482014-11-30T21:45:00.000-08:002015-03-03T23:44:08.871-08:00The Melting Pot<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNh9SnfCmaSPugXugQAWOXpYNHO9ogX-ASvhxe9fWD3gPwOH0fsrHTUnBVcH881xbmQfldq2x7nzhsgpUykbl_N7N0fAh-rzTR2bbeSY7pXlG_hUMkxTN_AJRad8x5oIo2YZhgUDr4_aHz/s1600/Melting+Pot.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNh9SnfCmaSPugXugQAWOXpYNHO9ogX-ASvhxe9fWD3gPwOH0fsrHTUnBVcH881xbmQfldq2x7nzhsgpUykbl_N7N0fAh-rzTR2bbeSY7pXlG_hUMkxTN_AJRad8x5oIo2YZhgUDr4_aHz/s1600/Melting+Pot.JPG" height="161" width="200" /></a></div>
Have you ever heard the analogy that the United States of America is a "melting pot" - where different cultures, religions, ethnicity, and personalities come together to create something unique and special? I've always appreciated this analogy for its simple depiction of what makes America great - our pragmatic assimilation and appreciation of the good ideas in the world. This "melting pot" approach to American society and government can be traced all the way back to the original colonies in this nation. While many were British, there was also a great deal of influence Dutch, Spanish, and French society, as well. Settlers came to have opportunity, land, and freedom from the "old country." As time went on, the predominantly Protestant Europeans also began to be diversified among different denominations, and even Catholicism and some non-Christian sects, as well. By the time America declared independence, there was already a great deal of diversity of culture, religious denomination, and ethnicity represented.<br />
<br />
Our political philosophy also traces through centuries of thought - ranging from John Locke to Thomas Hobbes to Aristotle and even Plato.<br />
<br />
Something else that we Americans often forget is that even our own government system is a "melting pot" of sorts - at least at its foundation. Democracy was not unique to America. The ancient Greeks actually practiced a form of pure democracy, and the Roman Republic sported a Representative Democracy, something that the USA later mimicked. Even the bicameral nature of our Congress hearkens to back to the British Parliament with a smaller, more elite upper house and a larger, more "common" lower house.<br />
<br />
Thus, diversity in our nation is not a bad thing, at its core. However, in order for America to properly function as a melting pot there are three key conditions that must first be met:<br />
<br />
<i>1. </i><i>There Must be Mutual Respect for Individual Rights (Libertarian's excel at this)</i><br />
<i>2. </i><i>There Must be a Desire to Unite as a Nation (Democrats are good at this)</i><br />
<i>3. </i><i>There Must be a Foundation of Morality & Ethics (Conservatives are good at this)</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
I'll tackle each of these three in turn, to explain why this is so vital the America's melting pot.<br />
<br />
<u>1. There Must be Mutual Respect for Individual Rights</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNS1y_4xpfn9Z7czmuFDrq-x5TyROAWvGEjeXJyzFVljhyigwKpr-GgtSzBfyyiCsT9BpIEKVkwnhBksW7zPi88EFM-TQCNHajg-fKh4G8gyTG6vTqyUlKRnpjH_9f5cdMecyQf_iTrT8s/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNS1y_4xpfn9Z7czmuFDrq-x5TyROAWvGEjeXJyzFVljhyigwKpr-GgtSzBfyyiCsT9BpIEKVkwnhBksW7zPi88EFM-TQCNHajg-fKh4G8gyTG6vTqyUlKRnpjH_9f5cdMecyQf_iTrT8s/s1600/images.jpg" /></a>This is perhaps the most universally touted condition, but in many ways the least understood. It is also the most "American" of the conditions. In order for there to be any hope at progressing to Condition #2, individuals must be willing to respect the rights of other individuals in their communities, states, and nation. This is at the very core of the ideology on which our nation was founded. Just because one individual makes choices another disagrees with does not necessarily mean that someone has the right to interfere. Libertarians tend to excel at depicting this condition in society. At its core, it is very Lockean because it depends a respect for an individual's Life, Liberty, and Property.<br />
<br />
One of the weaknesses of this condition, however, is that it does very little to encourage a melting pot - in fact, it segregates society into small, confined units of individuals that have little interaction. Many times, this is the weakness in matters of civil rights and diversity because it doesn't allow the full integration and growth of a community that is all-encompassing. It works in small communities, but there is little to no national identity.<br />
<br />
<u>2. There Must be a Desire to Unite as a Nation</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
The second condition is an uncomfortable transition from the first because now there arises the problem of competing values. It depends an element of compromise in the interest of unification. Conservatives (GOP & Libertarians) hate this. Democrats thrive on this. As frustrating as this condition is for many conservatives, it is actually fairly uncontroversial at its core - and it is the very basis of representative democracy. In a society of individuals, there will be differences. In order for the society to protect Life, Liberty, and Property there must be a universally respected structure that encompasses the nation-state.<br />
<br />
There are many different political theorists that offer different views of government, but I hold most strongly to the Social Contract view which describes government as a conceptual contract to which individuals agree to uphold, whether consciously or subconsciously. Individuals grant to government the ability to make and enforce laws, and agree to abide by laws that are created in accordance with the social contract. In the United States, the government system is Republic in which individuals elect Representatives that pass laws, make treaties, and perform the functions of government. They can tear down "unjust laws" by replacing their representatives with new ones that more accurately represent their values.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4wCalHcO4NLliwzAVP0aiEFFE8Tr35tzOK7d3LgSLTHpUZ4rcGHcG2-izpXc0UyMGfeUoTgg7ejIyRmrsTVepUWxCEeKJsGM_NQM98Qsv8aukflxej149TdKX7vEkKZcQ39zAet0gZreZ/s1600/Can-you-be-arrested-for-sharing-a-link.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4wCalHcO4NLliwzAVP0aiEFFE8Tr35tzOK7d3LgSLTHpUZ4rcGHcG2-izpXc0UyMGfeUoTgg7ejIyRmrsTVepUWxCEeKJsGM_NQM98Qsv8aukflxej149TdKX7vEkKZcQ39zAet0gZreZ/s1600/Can-you-be-arrested-for-sharing-a-link.jpg" height="133" width="200" /></a>The problem with unification and Social Contracts is that there will always be dissenters. Some individuals in<br />
a society will simply refuse to abide by the contract. Whether consciously or subconsciously, they will operate in deviance from the norm. Governments historically create police forces that control crime and deviance by punishing those that are in violation of the law. Not all views, then, can be tolerated in a united society. Thus, a nation must balance competing values in a way that provides the best protection of liberty while also remaining united.<br />
<br />
<u>3. There Must be a Foundation of Morality & Ethics</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
This is the least palatable condition in contemporary America. I list this condition last, due to its controversy, but in reality, it is the very foundation of a just society.<br />
<br />
Allow me to explain...<br />
<br />
John Adams, one of America's founders once wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." This is not an extreme statement. I will temporarily divorce this discussion from religious undertones (don't worry, I'll incorporate them later).<br />
First, let's define "morality" and "ethics" before jumping to conclusions. Merriam-Webster should do fine:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Morality (n): Beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Ethic (n): Rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good or bad.</i></blockquote>
Morality and ethics, at there core, are the glue that holds a society together. Without them, there is no way for a free society to function. The fundamental difficulty in any free society, though, is establishing <i>whose morality and ethics will be followed.</i> This problem isn't as pronounced in smaller societies. However, as any society begins to grow - whether intellectually, culturally, or geographically - the resulting plurality of beliefs and rules of behavior among the body politic begin to diversify at an alarming rate.<br />
<br />
This is essentially why any great society - be it ancient Greece, the Roman Republic, the Catholic Church in the middle ages, the United Kingdom, and even America - all shift toward authoritarian government. There are other factors in this slide, to be sure. In fact, I could probably spend pages on the other factors, but I'll restrict myself for now. Fundamentally, though, this has been a consistent factor throughout history.<br />
<br />
Now, the touchy subject is that I firmly believe the Judeo-Christian tradition - which is the the foundation of Western society - is the most stable and just model for an ethical and just society. Now, I'm not saying this because I am a Christian (okay, that's probably part of it) but for a few key reasons:<br />
- It emphasizes freedom and justice<br />
- It gives legitimacy to governmental authority while providing accountability. <br />
- It has proven the most revolutionary and successful philosophy.<br />
- It sees human nature as fallen and depraved - and therefore government as fallen and depraved.<br />
Historically, the Republican Party has had the greatest impact in holding to Judeo-Christian values in society - largely a result of Reagan's ability to draw the Moral Majority into his coalition.<br />
<br />
The great difficulty in America, however, is preserving this framework of morality and justice - despite the reality that many citizens do not hold to the basic tenants of Christianity - or even Western thought - whether through sheer ignorance or ideological differences. There are a few choices on how to approach this, ranging from forcing "Christian values" on a pluralistic society to abandoning religion-based morality to abandoning objective morality altogether. As terrifying as the third option may appear, in many ways tyrannical law is the only way to sustain a diverse population.<br />
<br />Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-67299369759899967532014-07-30T11:15:00.002-07:002014-07-30T11:15:26.681-07:00Why America Should Support IsraelIn light of the past month's crisis in Gaza, there has been a great deal of argument about how America should view the nation of Israel. Some feel that they are guilty of human rights abuses against their Palestinian neighbors, some feel they are attempting to capture more of Gaza, and still others believe they are simply responding to terrorism from the Hamas leadership in Gaza.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A while ago, I wrote an entry with my own perspective, looking at the history of Palestine and how Jewish-Arab relations have evolved, and why I feel Palestine and s<i>pecifically </i>Hamas is actually the instigator in this crisis. I stand by this conviction (though I am open to debate in the comments section). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This time, however, I would like to dodge the entire question of "who's right" and simply explain why I believe US support of Israel is so critical to American foreign policy.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnp2sBN9e4jeBuumEVOTFdV9-PknSrnLVN2oeT8VAPi9lhoq4Mrfc6nywiHGDS_COpgVDekniN6Xyxuj7bcVKwZjyBMjVepDjOFeUy-L6rgvDZMSWcF5vbIAlnZoNic3I_heuHNoYNfOE7/s1600/41zMSGBwceL._SL500_SS100_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnp2sBN9e4jeBuumEVOTFdV9-PknSrnLVN2oeT8VAPi9lhoq4Mrfc6nywiHGDS_COpgVDekniN6Xyxuj7bcVKwZjyBMjVepDjOFeUy-L6rgvDZMSWcF5vbIAlnZoNic3I_heuHNoYNfOE7/s1600/41zMSGBwceL._SL500_SS100_.jpg" /></a></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<u>1. We have a longstanding relationship with Israel <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
</u></h3>
<div>
Ever since the UN plan was drawn in 1947, the United States has stood behind Israel, despite an incredibly controversial start for the small nation. Risking damage to our own reputation, we have supported the nation of Israel from aggression around the world and provided funding for a great deal of their infrastructure (including the Iron Dome). Withdrawing our support from Israel would send a message to the world that America can be pressured to break alliances, if enough of the world disapproves. Our stance should be that of John F. Kennedy: </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."</i></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnp2sBN9e4jeBuumEVOTFdV9-PknSrnLVN2oeT8VAPi9lhoq4Mrfc6nywiHGDS_COpgVDekniN6Xyxuj7bcVKwZjyBMjVepDjOFeUy-L6rgvDZMSWcF5vbIAlnZoNic3I_heuHNoYNfOE7/s1600/41zMSGBwceL._SL500_SS100_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnp2sBN9e4jeBuumEVOTFdV9-PknSrnLVN2oeT8VAPi9lhoq4Mrfc6nywiHGDS_COpgVDekniN6Xyxuj7bcVKwZjyBMjVepDjOFeUy-L6rgvDZMSWcF5vbIAlnZoNic3I_heuHNoYNfOE7/s1600/41zMSGBwceL._SL500_SS100_.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<u>2. They're our one Democratic Ally in the Middle East</u></h3>
</div>
<div>
This one follows from the last, but it simply cannot be overstated. Regardless of what your views are about Israel specifically and their policies, it is undeniable that they are a stable democracy in one of the most unstable and hostile regions in the world. Any attempts to replicate this success by other nations in the region (think Egypt), have failed miserably. Whether you like them or not, Israel is a strong ally of the Western World in a region that has radical contempt for the West and what we represent.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnp2sBN9e4jeBuumEVOTFdV9-PknSrnLVN2oeT8VAPi9lhoq4Mrfc6nywiHGDS_COpgVDekniN6Xyxuj7bcVKwZjyBMjVepDjOFeUy-L6rgvDZMSWcF5vbIAlnZoNic3I_heuHNoYNfOE7/s1600/41zMSGBwceL._SL500_SS100_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnp2sBN9e4jeBuumEVOTFdV9-PknSrnLVN2oeT8VAPi9lhoq4Mrfc6nywiHGDS_COpgVDekniN6Xyxuj7bcVKwZjyBMjVepDjOFeUy-L6rgvDZMSWcF5vbIAlnZoNic3I_heuHNoYNfOE7/s1600/41zMSGBwceL._SL500_SS100_.jpg" /></a></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<u>3. The Leadership in Gaza is a known Terrorist group</u></h3>
<div>
While it is true that a great deal of innocent life has been lost during Israel's <i>Operation Protective Edge, </i>much of this is due to the nature of their enemy. The leadership in Gaza, and the ones responsible for bombing Israel and digging an extensive, tactical tunnel system into Israel is an internationally known terrorist group (Hamas) that declares their unwavering desire to destroy Israel, the Jews, and everything that opposes the spread of Islamic Sharia law and a Muslim Caliphate. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The United States has a longstanding tradition of <i>not negotiating with terrorists</i>. This doctrine was established to ensure the international and domestic respect for the rule of law and legitimate authority. Israel is a sovereign state. Gaza, and particularly its current leaders, is not.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnp2sBN9e4jeBuumEVOTFdV9-PknSrnLVN2oeT8VAPi9lhoq4Mrfc6nywiHGDS_COpgVDekniN6Xyxuj7bcVKwZjyBMjVepDjOFeUy-L6rgvDZMSWcF5vbIAlnZoNic3I_heuHNoYNfOE7/s1600/41zMSGBwceL._SL500_SS100_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnp2sBN9e4jeBuumEVOTFdV9-PknSrnLVN2oeT8VAPi9lhoq4Mrfc6nywiHGDS_COpgVDekniN6Xyxuj7bcVKwZjyBMjVepDjOFeUy-L6rgvDZMSWcF5vbIAlnZoNic3I_heuHNoYNfOE7/s1600/41zMSGBwceL._SL500_SS100_.jpg" /></a></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<u>4. Israel is showing respect for civilian life, Hamas is not</u></h3>
<div>
Hamas is using their own people (Palestinians) to protect their weapons. They use civilians, public places, and tunnels to hide their weapons and command stations, to ensure a high body count when the IDF advances. Israel, on the other hand, has repeatedly called and dropped fliers to Palestinians to inform them of incoming attacks, to allow for evacuation. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
America, as a beacon of liberty and justice in the world, should support nations that uphold the value and sacredness of human life. In this situation, it is certainly not the leadership in Gaza. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnp2sBN9e4jeBuumEVOTFdV9-PknSrnLVN2oeT8VAPi9lhoq4Mrfc6nywiHGDS_COpgVDekniN6Xyxuj7bcVKwZjyBMjVepDjOFeUy-L6rgvDZMSWcF5vbIAlnZoNic3I_heuHNoYNfOE7/s1600/41zMSGBwceL._SL500_SS100_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnp2sBN9e4jeBuumEVOTFdV9-PknSrnLVN2oeT8VAPi9lhoq4Mrfc6nywiHGDS_COpgVDekniN6Xyxuj7bcVKwZjyBMjVepDjOFeUy-L6rgvDZMSWcF5vbIAlnZoNic3I_heuHNoYNfOE7/s1600/41zMSGBwceL._SL500_SS100_.jpg" /></a></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<u>5. The spread of Radical Islam is a Threat to Freedom</u></h3>
<div>
<div>
The spread of Sharia law in the world is diametrically opposed to the spread of democracy. As the leader of the free world, the United States must stand up in support of freedom of religion (for all faiths), human rights, and right to freely choose one's elected representatives. Hamas does not believe in freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly. They radically mistreat and abuse women and they kill those they despise. <i>Palestine,</i> and the world, deserves better than this. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If America really seeks to establish peaceful relations between Israel and Palestine, then we must support Israel's efforts to defeat Hamas and free Palestinians from their leadership and violence. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-44757955550446116412014-07-21T12:06:00.000-07:002014-07-21T12:28:21.750-07:00Israel Is 'The Bomb'<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’m sick and tired of hearing friends complain about how
horrible the nation of Israel is with regard to the current conflict in
Gaza. While I can understand that people would object to violence in the world
and the unpleasantness of war, it frustrates me when citizens – and Christians
in particular – jump into judgment of conflict without taking the time to
consider the context of the situation.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi66Sns5L8OvUczVY1jV1OZstu-9C00zhx2pL3J63PVxzNlL4rEAfkBtsKp7xHANmFCympW7UuqEA1GAEDxXLrvdkmLM88VpDw-CT24QcP-QiY5VFf_g1_U5C5XkXra0KVTu19Xl-OVk4A1/s1600/Flag_of_Israel.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi66Sns5L8OvUczVY1jV1OZstu-9C00zhx2pL3J63PVxzNlL4rEAfkBtsKp7xHANmFCympW7UuqEA1GAEDxXLrvdkmLM88VpDw-CT24QcP-QiY5VFf_g1_U5C5XkXra0KVTu19Xl-OVk4A1/s1600/Flag_of_Israel.svg.png" height="232" width="320" /></a>The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is without doubt one of the most controversial issues of international policy, today. In fact, it has been one of the biggest issues of modern foreign policy since Israel's sovereignty was recognized by the U.N. in 1948. Since the establishment of the Israeli state, the government of Israel has received harsh criticism from the international community, with steadily declining support over the years. Today, the United States remains one of the few nations that publicly supports the legitimacy of Israel's sovereignty and we continue to publicly support them as a vital ally in an incredibly unstable region of the world.<br />
<br />
The current military incursion by Israeli forces into the Gaza strip is a matter of extensive criticism by many of the left as well as many conservatives. In order to fully understand the situation, though, it is important to consider some of the history of the region - starting in ancient times and continuing until today. Let me be very clear - I support the nation of Israel. My hope is that following this entry, my readers will have clearer understanding of the complexity of the issue and maybe come to appreciate the importance of this current conflict and its implications for the stability of the region.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Jewish people trace their history in the region to the calling of Abram by God, which is recorded in the book of Genesis in chapter 12:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Genesis 12:1-3)</i></blockquote>
The religious branches of the Jewish community, believe that the Palestinian region was granted to them by God. As Christians, we also believe this. On the other hand, the opposition within the Palestinian Authority and groups like Hamas are Sunni Muslims who are religiously and ideologically opposed to the existence of Israel. Both religious groups view Israel, and specifically Jerusalem as a holy site.<br />
<br />
The contemporary debate stems over whether or not the secular state of Israel has a legitimate right to the region,<i> </i>since the U.N. chose to draw the boundaries lines in order to establish the Jewish state in the 1940s. Palestinians reject the legitimacy of this decision. The seriousness of this debate is a little absurd to me. The international community has established the boundary lines of countless nations across the world - look at the geographical boundaries of the African states. These lines were established almost entirely without the support of the native people, but are still recognized by the international community without much more than some minor intellectual debate over the wisdom of the decision - the actual authority of the decision is rarely questioned, at least in in regard to its legitimacy today. Israel remains the state that should not exist, to most other nations.<br />
<br />
Following the establishment of the Jewish state, Arab opposition attacked the nation the next day in a tragic war. Surprisingly the nation of Israel survived and repelled the opposition. In 1967, Israel was again attacked in the Six Day War where Israel fought back Arabs who sought to destroy the nation - again. The objective of the Arabs? "No recognition. No peace. No negotiations." - Sounds reasonable, right? Israel held them off and gained territory in the West Bank and Gaza - territory claimed after an unprovoked attack against the Jewish sovereign state.<br />
<br />
Then, in 1973 the Yom Kippur War broke out - with Syria and Egypt both attacking Israel on their holy day. This conflict was also responsible for the oil embargo that impacted the United States in the 1970s. In 1978, the Camp David Accords were signed between the Israeli Prime Minister and the Egyptian President, later responsible for the 1979 peace treaty between these nations.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2SpggpL4ljIkMpGAV8PagWcJo6iVYmcpBOoZKVyangXci6VfyuHg27x2tOHKMNUlj4sRzIgyPGxCwWyf67SAx4wm-MKGxS1yhRXxtwvQpkLX12mNFwen1vMg42zuM-QwmfxgD6U78irC8/s1600/tumblr_mdmgp4PaDz1qij8k6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2SpggpL4ljIkMpGAV8PagWcJo6iVYmcpBOoZKVyangXci6VfyuHg27x2tOHKMNUlj4sRzIgyPGxCwWyf67SAx4wm-MKGxS1yhRXxtwvQpkLX12mNFwen1vMg42zuM-QwmfxgD6U78irC8/s1600/tumblr_mdmgp4PaDz1qij8k6.jpg" height="264" width="320" /></a>Then at the turn of the century, modern terrorism reared its ugly face in the region. Palestinian terrorists began to attack the nation again through repeated suicide bombings across the nation and later through continual surface-to-surface bombing from border countries. To avoid unnecessary escalation of the violence, Israel constructed a complex and expensive missile defense and interception program, called their "Iron Dome." The United States has also contributed millions of dollars to this program. Israel has confirmed that this system intercepts 90% of missiles that threaten military or civilian targets. This systems has been used to intercept the vast majority of missiles deployed by Hamas - a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel, which is now working with the Palestinian Authority. This relationship has allowed Hamas to receive foreign aid assistance from the United States. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-z8y6C6HAs">See the acknowledgement of this situation from US Senator Rand Paul</a>.<br />
<br />
Israel has been forced to be overly strict and militaristic toward refugees and opposition within Gaza and the West Bank, out of need to preserve their own existence in light of the constant threats from Palestinians and other Arab opposition. Yes, there have been abuses and missteps by Israel and its leaders. Yes, the Palestinians have reason to feel slighted from the UN acknowledgement of Israel in 1948. Yes, Israel does treat Palestinians harshly. But spending millions of dollars on a defense system to <i>avoid war</i> with those that initiate the conflict should be a good testimony to the intentions of this nation. I seriously doubt that the United States or any other developed nation would go so far to <i>avoid </i>war with an aggressor that has declared their desire to <i>destroy</i> us. And remember - Israel has always spoke out in favor of peace with Arabs. Arabs have responded by demanding the complete destruction if Israel and the Jewish people.<br />
<br />
Israel is the bomb. Why is it that such a small speck of land should be such a villain? Just consider the human rights abuses against women, Christians, and Jews by Palestinians, Hamas, and other Muslim groups. Read about them. Study them.<br />
<br />
It is embarrassing when Americans criticize the treatment of Palestinian Arabs out of an American context. Israel has been fighting for their own existence since 1947 - whether right or wrong, is it <i>really</i> so extreme that they would distrust those that openly oppose their <i>existence?</i> <b>Why are American Christians so willing to side with the misogynistic and religiously-extreme Sunni radicals over the only stable democracy in the Middle East?</b><br />
<br />
America must stand behind our ally Israel and be willing to defend their right to exist as a sovereign state.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM8EO-tm7ucsqmbv1FDr7cynul1FMJ4JH30EI8BojavxK7OKl4O8-lmpVkyQFw3RJxPs5_6unnsHFCZyzjqAioWSfvupI4Uf2dvwSDvUZuf8kUhJWoEJQ5wau_gUtncjcFPqvpg4dV_SM7/s1600/download+(1).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM8EO-tm7ucsqmbv1FDr7cynul1FMJ4JH30EI8BojavxK7OKl4O8-lmpVkyQFw3RJxPs5_6unnsHFCZyzjqAioWSfvupI4Uf2dvwSDvUZuf8kUhJWoEJQ5wau_gUtncjcFPqvpg4dV_SM7/s1600/download+(1).jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-size: large;">- <i>Evan Gillespie</i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
Please check out this video for a great summary by Jewish American and Conservative leader Dennis Prager.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/8EDW88CBo-8?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-33757944998654164762014-07-01T16:59:00.001-07:002014-07-02T09:13:42.272-07:00Unlikely Allies: Feminism and its Core in Republican Values<div class="MsoNormal">
Many conservatives are quick to spout criticism of “feminists”
and how the push modern drive for women’s rights has damaged the nation.
However, in my experience, true feminists and conservative republicans really
share many core beliefs, and the movement itself was rooted in a fundamental
understanding of the principles upon which our nation was founded. It has certainly
been corrupted in recent years, but I would argue that true feminism is a
strong ally to the Republican Party, and a vital component to winning the
cultural war before us today.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
The Merriam Webster dictionary offers a few interesting
definitions for "Feminism" that will help illustrate my primary
thesis:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<i>1: The theory of the political, economic, and social
equality of the sexes.</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<i>2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and
interests.</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
Both of these definitions offer some insight into the basis
of the "feminist movement" - I would blend these definitions to
something akin to the following -<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<i>"an organized activity on
behalf on women's rights and interests, predicated upon the theory that women
ought to be politically, economically, and socially equal to men in all
respects." </i></blockquote>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
Forgetting other components of the
movement, I would argue that this definition is deeply rooted in an understanding
of Republican values. In fact, I will go one step further – this definition
fits perfectly within a conservative Christian view of American politics. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cbssanfran.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/christiancrossclouds.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cbssanfran.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/christiancrossclouds.jpg" height="150" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
The truth is, Christianity is, in many ways, responsible
for the cultural respect for the value of women in society. There is extensive
evidence that nations lacking Western traditions –deeply rooted in religious
traditions – also have greater levels of human rights violations and abuse of
women. I have spent time in the past describing how “Christian” the founding of
America really was, but I will condense this argument, for now, to the simple
statement that our founders recognized that Christian morals were vital to the
nation’s survival. Even those that were personally deists or atheists, still
recognized that Christian values were necessary. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<a href="http://sciencepenguin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/feminism2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://sciencepenguin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/feminism2.jpg" height="200" width="170" /></a>John Adams once wrote that “our constitution was made
only for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate to the government
of any other.” These same founding fathers argued that “all men are created
equal” and that they possessed “inalienable rights” such as life, liberty, and
property. This understanding of natural rights is what allowed the women’s
liberation movement to take steam, as well as the Civil Rights movement of the
1960s – recognizing that all of mankind possesses God-given rights. The
Feminist <o:p></o:p></div>
movement recognized the fact that there was not equality of
opportunity – women did not have the same opportunity to achieve as men, and
they pushed for legislation that would overcome this obstacle and allow for
equal opportunity for men and women.<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Yet somehow, in recent years, that same movement has
entangled itself with the LGBT community, advocating less for equal status for
women, and more for legislation recognizing “gender identity” – a concept that
is actually detrimental the very values that represent the core of the feminist
movement. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
On June
26, 2014,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Slate<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></i>published<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/26/infant_gender_assignment_unnecessary_and_potentially_harmful.html">an
article</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>on the subject of
gender identity, claiming that a doctor declaring your newborn as male or
female is "infant gender assignment," which causes your baby's life
to be:<o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>...instantly
and brutally reduced from such infinite potentials down to one concrete set of
expectations and stereotypes, and any behavioral deviation from that will be
severely punished - both intentionally through bigotry, and unintentionally
through ignorance. </i></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/outward/2014/06/23/140623_BROW_Baby.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/outward/2014/06/23/140623_BROW_Baby.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg" height="228" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
The author advocates that parents should object to a doctor
"assigning" your child's gender at birth because "Infant gender
assignment might just be Russian roulette with your baby's life."<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Do true feminists really wish to create a society where
biology is ignored in favor of a euphoric belief that one’s identity is a
choice?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
As the <i>Slate </i>article illustrates, many in today’s
society feel that recognizing one’s biology has “reduced” them to “one concrete
set of expectations and stereotypes.” This is diametrically opposed to feminist
thought, which advocates
that in order to achieve equality among the sexes, gender stereotypes must be
broken down and both sexes should be allowed to pursue their own interests. Have
feminists abandoned their own cause in favor of another?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Finally,
while gender neutrality is more of a concept than an actual movement, it
also has great potential harm for feminists in the future. Once the concept of
male and female is blurred, there is very little opportunity for legislation
and regulation that ensures that “women” have equal opportunities as men. If
people can pick their own gender identity, how long will it be before
biologically female individuals once again find themselves underrepresented?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/04/24/Others/Images/2014-04-23/TYLER%206481398307755.jpg?uuid=C9UCestbEeO4Gm__VrxZHg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/04/24/Others/Images/2014-04-23/TYLER%206481398307755.jpg?uuid=C9UCestbEeO4Gm__VrxZHg" height="132" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"Tyler"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
I’ll wrap up with the story of a girl named Kathryn,
whose parents have made her into a key figure in the transgender movement.
According to reporters, at the age of 2 she insisted she was a boy. The parents
then accepted it, and allowed their “son” to change her to “Tyler.” She’s now 7
years old. <i>The Washington Post</i>
records the evidence of how good their “son” is doing now that [s]he’s accepted
the change:<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Come on! Let’s play Batman!” he
screamed to my younger son, his partner in crime on a recent play date. The two
boys swam together, compared Lego guys and had sword fights. Whenever the
family watches television, <b><i>Tyler roots for the boy characters</i></b>. His
home <b><i>looks
like a house with a son.</i></b> Karate gear, soccer balls, cars, trucks and
pirate swords abound. At school, he’s a boy. Plain and simple. (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/transgender-at-6-for-tyler-and-his-parents-no-second-thoughts/2013/07/11/eab8b398-ea0f-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_story.html">Washington Post</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Now, I may not completely share the same view as many modern feminists – I do believe that there are differences between men and women both physically and emotionally. I think that there are areas that
men are more suited to, and women are more suited to. In addition, in many ways, parents fail to establish how much of a gift gender is and how the differences between men and women actually compliment each other and lead to a more balanced family and society. However, I also recognize that there are exceptions - not all women fit a mold, nor do all men - there are plenty of tomboyish girls, and more feminine boys.Which is why I find it
incredibly fascinating that the evidence presented for “Tyler” being a true “boy”
was her interest in perceived “masculine” activities. Most of all, though, I find it
disheartening that feminists would accept such a stereotype and condemn a 5 year
old girl to a life as a mascot of the LGBT community simply because she dared
to have interests in “masculine” activities. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
In the end, I believe that conservatives and true
feminists really have a great deal of common ground on many of these issues. If
these two unlikely allies can find it in their power to unite and remember our common heritage and values, there is a chance
that both our goals can be reached. If there are women that truly
wish to fight to allow for greater equality of opportunity and representation, they
must unite with conservatives that wish to resist the trend toward gender identity
and neutrality legislation which is detrimental to this very objective and to our families, and our nation at large.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<o:p><br /></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<o:p><i>"When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created." - Genesis 5:1b-2 ESV</i></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<o:p><i><br /></i></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<o:p><i>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence, 1776</i></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<o:p><i><br /></i></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-77926107851387824132014-06-30T10:41:00.004-07:002014-06-30T10:46:12.498-07:00Hobby Lobby Win For Conservatives<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ5Onhq6yMT2xk-wA-dXwunKTQaBb5Lrtb6pjGY2eBSBX8V70buxmtiNEc0iw96XMIEe2acVNPL6txL7QhbL0HUtxC8EXOPxmSNeaE69GUW_RkM-AMlhPFxvfyDXWDjeCuPCyZnOxHYaLX/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ5Onhq6yMT2xk-wA-dXwunKTQaBb5Lrtb6pjGY2eBSBX8V70buxmtiNEc0iw96XMIEe2acVNPL6txL7QhbL0HUtxC8EXOPxmSNeaE69GUW_RkM-AMlhPFxvfyDXWDjeCuPCyZnOxHYaLX/s1600/images.jpg" height="232" width="320" /></a></div>
Today we celebrate a huge victory for religious freedom and the pro-life movement, in this nation. This morning, the United States Supreme Court stood up for Hobby Lobby's suit against ACA's HHS mandate that employers provide abortive contraceptives to their employees.<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf">the majority opinion</a>, Justice Alito describes why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act grants Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties the exemption from the mandate:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>In holding that the HHS mandate is unlawful, we reject HHS's argument that the owners of the companies forfeited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships. The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs. </i></blockquote>
While the Left is in an uproar over this "step backwards" in regard to "women's reproductive health" it is important to note that this decision does not allow a complete exemption - it only allowed the exemption in <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgepMN-eE-Bx6qHaruIDP8f0aWHSgCh1lR_RDvcypr1F6lAgCUig1QD_hCYcE5BfTyn1E-Qh1SYMLVbYUe-0ZXiFqUvcgw-RtiSr48EDSv43wdqVZCM4Q7TX8zmWWkf4rGHFs-All_1zTdV/s1600/download.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgepMN-eE-Bx6qHaruIDP8f0aWHSgCh1lR_RDvcypr1F6lAgCUig1QD_hCYcE5BfTyn1E-Qh1SYMLVbYUe-0ZXiFqUvcgw-RtiSr48EDSv43wdqVZCM4Q7TX8zmWWkf4rGHFs-All_1zTdV/s1600/download.jpg" height="120" width="200" /></a></div>
the case of the abortive contraceptives that were in dispute in the case, and it specifically applies to the organizations that were parties to the suit. Other forms of contraception and other health procedures of medication are still mandated through the far reaching ACA mandates, and there are plenty of organizations that will no doubt lack the grounds to reject the HHS mandate, due to differing circumstances, However, this remains a huge victory for religious liberty in our nation, and specifically for the pro life movement. This is even more evident when coupled with the previous decision regarding buffer zones around abortion clinics - which granted permission for pro-life activists to council women away from abortion, while they were on their way to abort their children at Planned Parenthood clinics. The massive 35 foot buffer zone that had been regulated was struck down in favor of a much smaller zone.<br />
<br />
While these two victories are small in scope, they represent great potential for future momentum. While there are many cases of defeat and loss in our nation as we struggle to undue the downward spiral in our nation's political, economic, and religious preservation, these victories allow us time to remember that our nation still allows for the redress of grievances against severe violations government overreach. Let's be thankful for the small victories we do receive and push forward to effect more substantial change so that we can restore our nation's religious and economic freedoms once again.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOPWR1AOQ3jzQY4ft8v-DvXE3oH4ru7Uskz3anWHq3WTXrPfqqiiUurUsjrJG-CviD2CNGvc0UV-UbjKRIMJ0SyICuL6zSVjivL2BxSl4f1rk2UKJReb0RcQk3zcRdfNlW9hI9Wk0XYZcE/s1600/american_flag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOPWR1AOQ3jzQY4ft8v-DvXE3oH4ru7Uskz3anWHq3WTXrPfqqiiUurUsjrJG-CviD2CNGvc0UV-UbjKRIMJ0SyICuL6zSVjivL2BxSl4f1rk2UKJReb0RcQk3zcRdfNlW9hI9Wk0XYZcE/s1600/american_flag.jpg" /></a></div>
Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-55689749243031769192014-06-26T11:17:00.002-07:002014-06-26T11:49:24.514-07:00RNC vs. Tea Party<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Well, I've been waiting for something that frustrated me enough to evoke a blog post, and then, I was supplied with an appropriate topic, as the 2014 election year kicks into high gear.</i></div>
<br />
The GOP has sunk very, very low, in my mind, in recent days. If you've been following political news recently, you know what I'm referring to, if not, let me explain.<br />
<br />
<br />
A short time ago, <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/2014-elections-eric-cantor-dave-brat-tea-party-republicans-108143.html">House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was beat out by Dave Brat</a>, who ran as the favorite for the anti-establishment Tea Party movement, within the GOP. This sudden defeat for the GOP Leader stunned many political pundits who had expected much greater success for Cantor in years to come - never expecting that the Tea Party would be able to amass so much support again, after such a dismal record, in recent months. However, many more conservative commentators were far less surprised, claiming the GOP establishment has not been overly attentive to the frustrations of constituents, focusing instead on political compromises in order to buy the centrist vote.<br />
<br />
Now, I'm not a massive Tea Party supporter - I think in many ways the group has damaged how the public perceives the Republican Party in Washington, by utilizing excessive emotion and not enough clearly defined strategies to problems. I do admire the conservative ideals that the Tea Party represents, though, regardless of how convoluted those values may appear in poorly handled campaigns. It is important that constituents like you and I voice our frustration with the out-of-touch political elites in Washington that are more focused on winning the next election than on actual representing conservative policies.<br />
<br />
This is why I am outraged about the actions taken by the establishment, and specifically Thad Cochran, who allied with minority democrats out of fear of defeat from Tea Party favorite Chris McDaniel. Check out the recording below, from a robocall made to many voters urging liberals to join with Republican Cochran to stop Chris McDaniel, a feat possible only through the open primary system in Mississippi, that has become increasingly popular in recent years. In addition, take a look at the flyer below, distributed by those in support of Cochran, in an effort to smear the Tea Party.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/Cpp6cYZrrcs?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://c6.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/pic_corner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://c6.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/pic_corner.jpg" height="320" width="272" /></a>As many of you know, I am an outspoken fan of the RNC's platform and planks and I generally side with realistic solutions over idealistic dreams, but in this case, I am absolutely ashamed of my party and how it has sided with political opponents in order to smear the clearly conservative candidate in this race. Although I will admit that there is no concrete evidence, that I am aware of, directly linking Cochran or the GOP establishment to these tactics, the reality is that a significant portion of Cochran's victory was the result of outreach to liberals. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
I affirm the value of bipartisan efforts, but bipartisanship is only positive when there are two clearly opposing viewpoints represented, allowing for an actual solution to be created. That is why I fear that at this stage of the game, excessive "bipartisanship" by the GOP is not helping conservatives or the nation, it is merely allowing liberal policies to have their severity reduced, instead of stopped. Great work, guys. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This is one of the reasons why I am a strong opponent to the open primary system and the problems that it creates. The closed primary system allows candidates from within each major party to chose the candidate that will run against the opposing party, and best represents the values and hopes of their constituents. This allows there to be an effective representation of the fundamental values of the parties, ideally rooted in the platform of the party. This isn't always the case, but this is predominately because of poor understanding of the political climate in the nation, by many uninformed voters. The purpose of a primary, in the first place, is to narrow down the candidates so that voters have a reduced pool to decide between in the general election. It also weeds out more extreme candidates from each ideological persuasion. This, however, is impossible, in an open primary.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The open primary allows voters to vote for any candidate they choose - whether they are registered with that party or not. Usually, this means that the top two vote getters, regardless of party, will face off in the general election. Well, this sounds "fair", but simply - it is not. First, an opposing party now has the ability to mobilize voters to choose the candidate <i>they</i> want from their opponents, if there is little competition within their party. It also opens up the possibility for two candidates from the same party to be represented in an election, which alienates an entire quadrant of the political spectrum from having any real impact with their vote. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
As frustrating as the open primary system is for me, however, the thing that I am most disappointed about is the blatant disregard for the beliefs of constituents. Cochran's campaign recognized the potential for defeat, in light of Cantor's loss, and instead of seeing this as a call to represent what his constituents sought from him, he chose to draw support from the opposition party, in order to crush his own party. This simply exemplifies the reality that many establishment candidates are more concerned about maintaining their office than actually representing the values they claim to uphold.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The solution to this problem is not to cry and weep about being betrayed. Nor is it running away and joining third parties, further destroying any chance for conservative policies to be enacted. The solution is to stand up and fight for real conservatives who can replace the current establishment. We must stop the Party Leadership from destroying the party that many of us claim to love so dearly, and we must do it soon, before it is too late.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1QS-MPxP20UUL6CTjoqVCi4f6rAhOzCf7ZiWbM9CG1K7xIFXUmgIoJqRjhYIc6AUHeVkWANIIjYVlACMSLhNcZ6kE7bOJkRlLWTYtgLqqLgiWYK6tDSwouQmLsBfNET4iupN-L0hpmUYk/s1600/gop-red.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1QS-MPxP20UUL6CTjoqVCi4f6rAhOzCf7ZiWbM9CG1K7xIFXUmgIoJqRjhYIc6AUHeVkWANIIjYVlACMSLhNcZ6kE7bOJkRlLWTYtgLqqLgiWYK6tDSwouQmLsBfNET4iupN-L0hpmUYk/s1600/gop-red.png" height="205" width="320" /></a></div>
</div>
Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-3502154960472353102014-05-28T10:45:00.001-07:002014-05-28T11:00:40.476-07:00Guns, Knives, and Cars - oh my! I really, really, really hate the mainstream media.<br />
<br />
Oh wait, maybe I should be a bit more specific about why I'm saying this <i>at this particular moment.</i><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGrTTLBSPmF94J-1u39YpKirVvTm_LYwN2U8VqQA4013bGzZUyP_TPbcM756dCi14dN_N9NLVHJEnjkbchgcJmrwUtKsS0VS-nG8swm0Y9oRT78BQszFdx6OcvZnWuHkqtBGGPOStIElsj/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGrTTLBSPmF94J-1u39YpKirVvTm_LYwN2U8VqQA4013bGzZUyP_TPbcM756dCi14dN_N9NLVHJEnjkbchgcJmrwUtKsS0VS-nG8swm0Y9oRT78BQszFdx6OcvZnWuHkqtBGGPOStIElsj/s1600/images.jpg" height="178" width="200" /></a><i><br /></i>
By now, you've either heard <i>extensively</i> about the Santa Barbara killings last week, or you're already so disillusioned with the "news" that you no longer pay attention. Allow me to summarize -- a spoiled 22-year-old boy, with a warped perception of life and women, wrote a 137 page "manifesto" declaring his frustration with life and with women who wouldn't accept his advances <i>(The media coined him the "virgin killer", as though this is some shameful label to be worn by an unmarried 22-year-old. But I digress...)</i>. He then proceeded to stab 3 college students, and gun down another 3, while evading cops and running over cyclists with his car. He then took his own life before cops could arrest him.<br />
<br />
Oh, and this kid had been getting therapy since he was 8 years old - and his parents had previously called the cops because they were concerned he might be planning something. Typical, normal, average kid, right?<br />
<br />
In response -the entire news media is now engaged in yet another debate over the issue of "gun control" in order to help "end gun violence." Richard Martinez, the father of one of the victims <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2641165/Crusading-father-son-shot-dead-virgin-killer-brings-20-000-mourning-students-feet-emotional-Not-One-More-speech-campus-vigil.html">declared at a rally</a>, "How many more people are going to have to die in this situation before the problem gets solved?"<br />
<br />
This is what has happened to the Left-sided "news" sources - rather than recognizing that a disturbed individual heartlessly killed and wounded his peers - we see a call to "end gun violence." Is anyone even acknowledging that he stabbed 3 and ran two cyclists off the road with his car? But let me clarify - I do think that <i>violence</i> is a problem in our society, in many ways - but this is a problem in every society. The real issue that must be considered as how policymakers move to address the violent actions of individuals - regardless of what weapon they use to perpetrate their crime.<br />
<br />
Last week, I was in the process of preparing a blog about the issue of national security in contrast to individual privacy - which I think is a very relevant discussion. Simply put - there are dangerous people out there - whether that be criminals who act out their fantasies for fame and attention or terrorists who have an agenda to destroy the West and everything we stand for. Terrorism is a real thing - anyone who believes that we are not in serious danger of attack by religious or political terrorists is vastly mistaken. The world of the 21st century is the perfect stage for the continued expansion and severity of terrorist action and senseless murder- not only from Islamic fundamentalists but also from political anarchists, cyber-warfare, and idiot kids following their lust for recognition and fame. This reality is often easily forgotten by many of us in this nation, due to our soundbite culture. Rather than seeing crime as crime, terrorism as terrorism, and foreign threats as foreign threats, we tend to see them as excuses to advance an agenda.<br />
<ul>
<li>Someone was killed with a gun? We must - "end gun violence in this generation" by limiting the access that citizens can have to guns. </li>
<li>A radical jihadist successfully carries out a terrorist attack - and we think that we should capitulate to jihadists everywhere in order to get them to stop. (or we should specifically hunt down everyone in <i>that</i> organization without giving any thought to potential threats from other organizations.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Rather than using bad news to advance a particular agenda, Americans must recognize that there are threats, but how we move to address them must be done in a way that reflects the values that we treasure the most.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7i_LU6LCevqsoWb9MrfX39Ck4uF4kbB2TXt132R3XcGXHBSsKrIW-PjdHTPkA-rF6f65W600wWH_oSBFSKIwQ-4AKd6s9CfvRX2tyrUA9zbaaT3QNI7W_tEns1Zv7G83Brdabh4yB7m_3/s1600/download.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7i_LU6LCevqsoWb9MrfX39Ck4uF4kbB2TXt132R3XcGXHBSsKrIW-PjdHTPkA-rF6f65W600wWH_oSBFSKIwQ-4AKd6s9CfvRX2tyrUA9zbaaT3QNI7W_tEns1Zv7G83Brdabh4yB7m_3/s1600/download.jpg" /></a></div>
<div>
I fundamentally agree that, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" (Benjamin Franklin). Thus there is an important balance that must be recognized - we live in a dangerous world with real enemies that mean us real harm, whether but we also live in a constitutional republic that is designed to have a limited government that will not abuse its powers. What is a solid Conservative to do with such a dichotomy?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You're probably not going to like this....</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>There is no solution.</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
Liberty is a sacred value that cannot be traded. If individuals and local entities continue to trade their independence and liberty in the interest of providing temporary safety, then that freedom is severely compromised. However, I must admit - I have no desire to watch a bomb go off in my local airport or get shot to death by a madman on my college campus.<br />
<br />
I firmly believe that liberals who argue for increased gun control will do far more harm than good. I also just as firmly believe that the libertarian/anarchist movement of anti-government and anti-police is breaking down law and order and actually <i>accentuating </i>violence in society. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Perhaps the only answer that I am willing to give is that the Second Amendment offers a legitimate solution to this problem, albeit a controversial one. The Second Amendment, in case you are unfamiliar, reads "</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>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." </i></blockquote>
I am not arguing for the "Wild West" as many gun-control advocates would claim - I believe that there should be some minimal standards to ensure that those who have been convicted of violent crime cannot easily gain access to weapons. But I do believe that the vast majority of gun control laws vastly exceed the minimum standards necessary. I think the recent wage of shootings provide a good framework. Rather than moving to ensure that schools and public areas were provided with safety measures and programs, the greatest political push was for increased gun control. Why? Soundbites and emotion are the perfect tools to gain support for "doing something."<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXYgjFzWWmAS3HTTD15bwutVZxdgBJYYbUK89YDn4yTHAHzJHr9GE1EmQLpPLo4q7mgqPN_4McTvIZP1ytz3Jqh25Q3f6VWC9oGJWgC0Qb6vsxajC5YfOig11YkZ7bpqCS5LsPVxIZ7659/s1600/Rocklin-PD-Ext-02-300x254.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXYgjFzWWmAS3HTTD15bwutVZxdgBJYYbUK89YDn4yTHAHzJHr9GE1EmQLpPLo4q7mgqPN_4McTvIZP1ytz3Jqh25Q3f6VWC9oGJWgC0Qb6vsxajC5YfOig11YkZ7bpqCS5LsPVxIZ7659/s1600/Rocklin-PD-Ext-02-300x254.jpg" /></a>On the flip side, exercising your second amendment rights doesn't have to be a war against "the man," either. When we continue to assert our rights in the faces of those that have dedicated their lives to public service in the interest of protecting citizens from harm and serving their local communities, we are not representing the values that America was founded on, either. Instead, we are actually weakening the stability of our own society, by failing to allow those who uphold our laws to perform their jobs.<br />
<br />
This doesn't mean that we have to accept everything that comes from the benevolent government either - there are important concepts called "balance," "common sense," and "integrity" that I have found are quickly being lost in the minds of many Americans on both sides of the political spectrum.<br />
<br />
Our government allows us to address the issues that we see. There are legitimate ways to curb violence through legislation - and I believe that if these policies are formed through careful consideration rather than an emotional whirlwind, we can see positive reform. Even more important, though, is the understanding that reactions to specific cases of violence is a dangerous way to shape the laws of our nation. There will always be dangers from the mentally disturbed, criminals, and terrorists. This is the world we live in. It is important to recognize that in America we will not always have everything we want - we cannot have collective bargaining, social security, gun control, welfare, free healthcare, all while holding onto limited government, a competitive marketplace, and individual liberty.<br />
<br />
Ultimately then, the question we should be asking is not "how can we end gun violence in this generation" as the media would tell us. Instead, it should be - "how much of my freedom and privacy am I willing to give up in order to feel safer?"<br />
<br />
...And then we must be willing to accept the consequences of that decision.Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-81946752692618386542014-05-07T08:50:00.001-07:002014-05-07T08:50:44.861-07:00Poverty: From a Conservative Viewpoint<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">As with many of my posts, this topic was inspired by a class discussion on development economics and the ensuing follow-up conversations with fellow students. I think it is a fascinating topic to discuss and analyze as well as a very important social ill that much of the world -including our own nation, continues to struggle with on a daily basis. Any follow-up discussion that you would contribute is welcomed and encouraged, in the comment section below.</span></h2>
<div>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmWMORuG96NLyua24SYPB8gqiuCHwC75JyFjCWWxyRcT2zJJkacSfThj61-gVKF4X4DTpg3j42Xm459CDW_k6rfpK8k_Gj3DXhkX5y8U2sfp8qvlJ6ohn7V4-oQtLMgaEXX0OqML2VSjEK/s1600/Poverty_in_Colombia_by_Luis_Perez.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmWMORuG96NLyua24SYPB8gqiuCHwC75JyFjCWWxyRcT2zJJkacSfThj61-gVKF4X4DTpg3j42Xm459CDW_k6rfpK8k_Gj3DXhkX5y8U2sfp8qvlJ6ohn7V4-oQtLMgaEXX0OqML2VSjEK/s1600/Poverty_in_Colombia_by_Luis_Perez.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Poverty. The greatest social blight of the world. We've all seen the commercials for the non-profits that seek to sponsor children living in poverty. Most of us have seen documentaries and newscasts from experts that discuss the implications of poverty on society in Africa and Southeast Asia. In lieu of the sheer mass of public awareness campaigns and NGO's that we encounter in our daily lives, it can be easy to turn a blind eye to the reality of this issue in the world. There are millions of individuals in the world living in extreme poverty with little or no hope of climbing the economic ladder and achieving a higher per capita socioeconomic status. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcCJX2UM80Hh0lwuPremTDdYhw3Dbir8V4ZUU9fgzc2mv0mADrOx1bPbVm3p76_XsMxCnAn8peREmzoLfiJDc9syHMLPw1wcXGlYwmulz9pFzK0mm1D_3Z-cLfk2HPCXIg8yq-xxaPNMfH/s1600/SanFrancisco.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcCJX2UM80Hh0lwuPremTDdYhw3Dbir8V4ZUU9fgzc2mv0mADrOx1bPbVm3p76_XsMxCnAn8peREmzoLfiJDc9syHMLPw1wcXGlYwmulz9pFzK0mm1D_3Z-cLfk2HPCXIg8yq-xxaPNMfH/s1600/SanFrancisco.jpg" height="177" width="320" /></a>If this seems a little daunting of an issue for this blog to tackle - and maybe a little too globally minded - I understand. For many of us, addressing poverty and disease in Africa and the rest of the developing world is not even an option -- our daily lives are more than enough to figure out, and the financial and time commitments necessary to help the rest world are simply impossible for us. But there is another area of poverty that is often ignored - local poverty. Poverty in our own neighborhoods, cities, and states. The city of San Francisco <a href="http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/migrated/FileCenter/Documents/LHCB/For_Immediate_Release_Homeless_Count.pdf">had approximately 6,436 individuals living in homelessness in 2013</a>. That's huge. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
While thinking about this issue, it occurred to me - in light of the fact that conservatives often find themselves on the defensive with regard to their opposition to government policies and regulations, I thought it might be nice to discuss how a conservative (myself) views the issue of global and domestic poverty - and how Americans, and my fellow Christians, can remain compassionate and attentive to this serious social ill while maintaining our fiscal responsibility in government policymaking.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In my Political Economy class, we made a distinction between the two primary views on how one should address poverty in the world. The first category are labeled as "Planners" while the second are "Searchers." Planners seek to gather research, discuss policy and with the collaboration of various experts - create a plan to solve the issue. This approach is associated, in part, with the approach advocated by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs">Jeffrey Sachs</a>. Searchers, on the other hand, view the issue as too complex to address through any expert-plan. Poverty is an issue that must be addressed piecemeal through homegrown solutions. Do these arguments sound familiar? They should - this is essentially the permanent policy debate between conservatives and liberals, when it comes to social policy and economic development. In light of this, you can probably guess which side of the fence I come out on. I align with the "searchers." Primarily. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To show my hand - I do not believe that poverty can be eradicated. Ever. I think that some form of poverty will always exist - to deny this, I believe, is to deny human nature and the entire history of civilizations in the world. However, I do believe that poverty is still a social ill that individuals should seek to fight and resist - it is certainly possible to reduce poverty - and even work towards a temporary solution by alleviating the amount of absolute and extreme poverty in the world. I believe that poverty is a serious issue and one that many of us, and especially many Christians, fail to devote serious thought or time toward addressing. If Christians, such as myself, claim to follow the teaching and work of Christ - then we should be seeking to address the physical as well as spiritual needs of those around us. Micah 6:8 declares, <i>"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
So - poverty should be fought - but how?<br />
<br />
I believe that to address poverty and limit/eliminate it, one must first understand where the issues of poverty really come from. Is it the result of exploitation by the rest of the world? Is it the result of lack of innovation and engagement? Is it self-caused, or a byproduct of other people's and government's actions?<br />
<br />
Answer - Yes. And No. Because global poverty is far too big of an issue to boil down to one cause - in some places, all of these might be the case. In others, none. In some, it may be a mix of a few of these, but not all. This is why I am a "Searcher" and not a Planner - just as this is why I believe in the Free Market and limited government - it is impossible to accurately predict all of the variables that will influence economics in the future or the present - but we have consistently seen that when individuals are provided with a basic framework of law and order and equality of opportunity - then competition allows some to shine, while others fail. Government policies to help those in poverty are not preferable, but at times, they might be necessary. The most desirable approach to fighting poverty, though, in my belief, is by those outside of poverty living with and engaging in community with those trapped in the social conditions of poverty. This allows those who truly need change to have policies formed based on the realities of those in need, not based on the decisions of political elites. It also allows those in poverty to have an opportunity to be equipped and empowered to pull themselves out of poverty - when they see the decisions and choices that must be made to achieve success, and observe them working, they will be more willing to accept these changes than if someone simply tells them what to do.<br />
<br />
The most important thing to remember, however, is that talking about poverty and doing something about poverty are not the same thing. Tossing money to homeless person might be all well and good, but it does little to actually help them out of their situation. I admit, that I am often guilty of repeating this mistake, because it is much easier to give money than to give time. However, if you do have time or the resources, I would encourage us all to make time - even if only on occasion - to volunteer and assist organizations and individuals seeking to address local issues of poverty. Small steps can lead to big changes. Only by going out of our way to help equip individuals with the knowledge and skills that they need to pull themselves out of poverty, do we have any hope of solving this very real and tragic issue in society.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlpOCTmUrTenvSNz9pIBRdJkky4Xe8zT8EZlh50yOT5kUUAqAH-9qI2M8m8Yg7Nrw6n2pQpSTtBTU2PVFj39gne-PhQM_RtspMt-y6aSlUiwcSrxgvMNT7JFW5lOWzu2jLzwt5snvpFGFt/s1600/993749_10153388112230162_1920199567_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlpOCTmUrTenvSNz9pIBRdJkky4Xe8zT8EZlh50yOT5kUUAqAH-9qI2M8m8Yg7Nrw6n2pQpSTtBTU2PVFj39gne-PhQM_RtspMt-y6aSlUiwcSrxgvMNT7JFW5lOWzu2jLzwt5snvpFGFt/s1600/993749_10153388112230162_1920199567_n.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">WJU San Francisco Outreach Team, November 2013</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-75132865140931224742014-04-29T09:07:00.001-07:002014-04-29T09:07:28.281-07:00Why I Like The Walking Dead<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I thought it might be nice to take a slightly different track and breakdown some entertainment, for today. This post is serious though in one regard - I believe that there is merit in <i>The Walking Dead, </i>in the philosophy and political commentary it can provide for us. This post is not meant to be a recommendation of the show, however. It is rated TV-MA and certain has a dark and unpleasant tone - if this is disturbing to you, do not watch the show - it's not worth it.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcM74JUjQA2KlQVB5S47iaD_l_3V5NMFzUQM6gp2jo6N6hJaMwhYfu4Xu-b_M6dStxjamGsXmgMR85EIEJOFDi2EYrMwDdTu0bCI4_z0qU54RMT2dBz59XU8JYiNR7oPmFYVDMBHvFRnbX/s1600/The-Walking-Dead-04-cast.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcM74JUjQA2KlQVB5S47iaD_l_3V5NMFzUQM6gp2jo6N6hJaMwhYfu4Xu-b_M6dStxjamGsXmgMR85EIEJOFDi2EYrMwDdTu0bCI4_z0qU54RMT2dBz59XU8JYiNR7oPmFYVDMBHvFRnbX/s1600/The-Walking-Dead-04-cast.jpg" height="277" width="400" /></a></div>
<i>The Walking Dead</i> is a great show, in my view. Of course, don't be silly and let your young children watch it - and if you yourself have difficulty with grit & gore, you might want to try something else as well. But I genuinely consider this show to be well written, directed, and acted. Oh - and zombies are always cool right?<br />
<br />
I like <i>The Walking Dead - </i>not because the plots of the individual episodes or overly compelling, or because the situation is believable - or because I have any strong desire for observing the violence and depression of a show with absolutely no hope for its characters. I like<i> The Walking Dead</i>, because it thoroughly explores human nature - and how men and women behave, when social structures are demolished. That's a fascinating question, right there. And can it be dark? Yes it can - but it can also be a warning for us to recognize just how far people might be willing to go to protect what they value the most - and sometimes at the cost of another person's welfare.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrGAx_o7p9m_DhdDzFWkymIe6UmOa2Qpf8o5-qJVpb32ugxTiS6Cb0v7dVA29S2FZUR4UF88uQqNUNT66nL7JnUyZ4hVpNAZoMuuNxEMXHfoB-PMQN-ZMuWE1RxOAzuXdNNrrbouQrO6jL/s1600/Thomas_Hobbes_(portrait).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrGAx_o7p9m_DhdDzFWkymIe6UmOa2Qpf8o5-qJVpb32ugxTiS6Cb0v7dVA29S2FZUR4UF88uQqNUNT66nL7JnUyZ4hVpNAZoMuuNxEMXHfoB-PMQN-ZMuWE1RxOAzuXdNNrrbouQrO6jL/s1600/Thomas_Hobbes_(portrait).jpg" height="320" width="303" /></a>One of my favorite classes in my sophomore year of college was Political Theory & Philosophy - which touched on some political philosophies that have helped to shape the way people view government and politics. One of those philosophers - Thomas Hobbes presented a depiction of a "state of nature" where individuals lived in sort of anarchy. In this philosophical exercise, Hobbes imagined that if laws and social custom were removed from society, human beings would live in a perpetual state of chaos and violence, due to their own natural self-interest. There are several philosophers that had different perspectives on the philosophical "state of nature" but few had such a clearly defined view. Hobbes actually believed in monarchy, because he thought that it was the best way to protect against the chaos of natural anarchy.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPQlnNpwGc9Ck1xLCkOHqK96GLaAFU8fbLXRfecKgx-MKjWWZWbMJ5J373wVr-HUxwiKF8XozyzqxDEMnMQztaPPHadTW2NTOd76OvB1PuZZLG2TfOd7U94VTf14a_d1ISTMT0dhOijC3j/s1600/rick.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPQlnNpwGc9Ck1xLCkOHqK96GLaAFU8fbLXRfecKgx-MKjWWZWbMJ5J373wVr-HUxwiKF8XozyzqxDEMnMQztaPPHadTW2NTOd76OvB1PuZZLG2TfOd7U94VTf14a_d1ISTMT0dhOijC3j/s1600/rick.jpg" height="225" width="320" /></a><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The Walking Dead </i>plays with this "state of nature" concept - the zombie apocalypse marks a destruction of law and order in society - and leaves men, women, and children to struggle with what is most important now that there is not authority or system to constrain them. It asks questions - do people naturally cooperate with each other for mutual benefit? Do they resort to violence? Or is there no clear answer, at all? One of the things that I love most about the show is how the characters are forced to consider not just on how to survive - but <i>why?</i> A common theme that the show explores is whether ends justify the means. Is continuing your own survival worth sacrificing everything you believe, or are there some things worth risking your life for? As Hershel says in the show, "Every moment now you don't have a choice. The only thing you can choose is what you're risking it for."<br />
<br />
This is what I love about the show - some of the best characters on the show have given their lives in order to protect others - in order to stand for something more than survival. Some place continuing their own existence above anything else. And of course, as in reality - there are those in the middle - who struggle with the day to day decisions of right and wrong, especially with no government system to provide an answer. Each character has a different viewpoint to consider - let's look at three - Rick, Carol, and Daryl.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGZBDqeANUpxh1y_YhLyuC6HSSJXnXFfMppT2cGNAyYErZHXWqd_Wr3AkGcXD8TmClHCjiaZytxUf5vXefKbJauLa1Dguy_AdeQWSMkhSlFAKLOrz2cG7RdlIiQRtIejh6UuEUbcQMYoMt/s1600/300x372xrick-grimes-picture.jpg.pagespeed.ic.SYfCnCNWk4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGZBDqeANUpxh1y_YhLyuC6HSSJXnXFfMppT2cGNAyYErZHXWqd_Wr3AkGcXD8TmClHCjiaZytxUf5vXefKbJauLa1Dguy_AdeQWSMkhSlFAKLOrz2cG7RdlIiQRtIejh6UuEUbcQMYoMt/s1600/300x372xrick-grimes-picture.jpg.pagespeed.ic.SYfCnCNWk4.jpg" height="200" width="161" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<u><br /></u></div>
Rick's character is interesting. Previously a police officer, he has the most to lose in this world. His struggle in the show is how to respond to this new world of chaos and violence and protect his family in the process. Watching his character gradually lose sight of his own values and respect for law and authority in a desire to keep his son, Carl, alive is a good warning for viewers - how much are you willing to give up, to protect those you care about? Are you willing to compromise your own morals? It's a good question - and its a good case study. His redeeming quality is his love for his son and his desire to protect him from the tough realities of the apocalypse.<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg793k1bTlMf5R87GZ6FGPmdADpXqrsLAFiqOs95JMNJx8jMPBXE4JuQMhM2708K5bv869jEldUMuyKsSjL6KZ5wtiBhur0vMzhR5fSwQlAl0tRfFyKzIM58-mFoyqJ9rwVorwE_Ek9xahu/s1600/images+(3).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg793k1bTlMf5R87GZ6FGPmdADpXqrsLAFiqOs95JMNJx8jMPBXE4JuQMhM2708K5bv869jEldUMuyKsSjL6KZ5wtiBhur0vMzhR5fSwQlAl0tRfFyKzIM58-mFoyqJ9rwVorwE_Ek9xahu/s1600/images+(3).jpg" height="200" width="149" /></a>Carol's story is different. We see her at the start of the show as a timid women who is victimized by her abusive husband. Her chief goal is staying alive so she can protect her daughter - and later for preparing the group for the inevitable choices they will have to make. She places survival as an objective in itself - and she is willing to do anything it takes to keep alive and keep those she cares about alive. Carol, though, is a character without hope. She doesn't have any absolute purpose in her life. She has no faith to honor - no code to obey - she merely lives and exists. I think this also is a warning for many individuals today.<br />
<br />
Daryl is everyone's favorite - and its not just because his crossbow skills are amazing or that his redneck attitude makes him particularly suited for the world<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz1dTxcM47bh33w_F8-s5Vcu9lTxmjoiApVhEyPBgnNpxLCBMrVJ7I_pcIhbEgZe2vELWsNo2RqEH478mNIAOzprQRAnL9hd1qkKLLPjsiIyL0PmCiUxO_3bTsAbsdaJ8VMyphYFz48WOO/s1600/images+(4).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz1dTxcM47bh33w_F8-s5Vcu9lTxmjoiApVhEyPBgnNpxLCBMrVJ7I_pcIhbEgZe2vELWsNo2RqEH478mNIAOzprQRAnL9hd1qkKLLPjsiIyL0PmCiUxO_3bTsAbsdaJ8VMyphYFz48WOO/s1600/images+(4).jpg" /></a></div>
they are living in. Daryl is great because he's lived a rough life since he was born. This "new" world isn't much different for him. Laws and social behavior really didn't effect him much in the old world - so he has the easiest time adapting. However - Daryl is perhaps the most ethical, moral, and hopeful character on the show - because while others struggle with preserving their values and morality in light of no government structure or law - he gradually learns to accept these values <i>because of their inherent worth</i>. Friendship is good - not because it helps them survive the zombie herds - he can already deal with that. Friendship has value because humans are created as relational beings. Daryl recognizes the importance of preserving these values - and feels personally responsible if they collapse.<br />
<br />
These are a few reasons why I love <i>The Walking Dead. </i>The show offers some great insight into human nature. It also offers some insight into political interactions and philosophy - but most of all, it allows individuals to consider where their purpose and hope really comes from. Does it come from government, money, and continued existence, or from God? Because how you answer that question will determine how you interact with the laws and systems of the world.Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-90763406121479605212014-04-24T00:31:00.001-07:002014-04-24T09:14:24.608-07:00The Ideological Divide of the 21st Century<ul>
<li><i>Is the human race fundamentally good or fundamentally bad? </i></li>
<li><i>Are humans generally altruistic or self-interested? </i></li>
</ul>
<div>
Think about these questions. Don't just read them -- work through them in your own mind, because <i><u>how you answer them will shape the way you approach politics, business, and your religious beliefs.</u> </i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are two clear ideologies in contemporary politics, and they manifest themselves not only within the United States, but fundamentally across the developed (and at times the developing) world. Some would label the division in ideology the divide between modern Liberalism and Conservatism- and there are reasons for these labels. I, however, believe that this is a rather inaccurate labeling for the actual ideologies that influence the world, because conservatism and neo-liberalism are not truly the root ideology - they are two responses to the core issue. The real divide is over how individuals interpret the first question, I listed above. Now, I recognize this might be a bit ambiguous, so I reframe the question with the second one listed (they are two different questions, but I don't have time to get into the theological/metaphysical implications of the first question - practically they state the same question). My question is this - <i>If there were no tradition, "Strong Man", or rational-legal framework restraining individual people - how would they behave? </i>Would they go out of there way to help those around them - SIMPLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HELPING OTHERS or would they look to preserve their own safety and happiness? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The answer to this question, I believe, explains the divide between traditional Republican ideology and Democratic ideology. Interestingly, though, it also explains the seemingly odd division between conservative republicans and libertarians - who share many beliefs in regard to the role of government and society. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
In my opinion - liberal/democratic and libertarian ideology share a common belief in the general decency, goodness, and altruism of man, while conservative Republicans/Federalists believe that man is inherently self-interested, bad, and power-hungry.</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPOjmj-eLtARaQT6TD0Zonjj27Q7xNXbxKi5oV1Hdb0HrhAiMEXbP7IIi49JcuHZNtMW59hW-6VGLnRnXWW4XDA2Ya-Yvpqbk6xoRH_Tn8HRhG6dNTNDCP-0pCvPOxy2nUtz3sz1RVwPFD/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPOjmj-eLtARaQT6TD0Zonjj27Q7xNXbxKi5oV1Hdb0HrhAiMEXbP7IIi49JcuHZNtMW59hW-6VGLnRnXWW4XDA2Ya-Yvpqbk6xoRH_Tn8HRhG6dNTNDCP-0pCvPOxy2nUtz3sz1RVwPFD/s1600/images.jpg" height="158" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH_0HkIAelkIn_Au1VzdqpYnJ0-HIE3OhEbRROCzgWHsdmCTgaZKlKZC4OYxhc4COqTpWwA8Xr7ojYjhRtGJtnTfwLVEcuYtluGpG1DZUINsvRCsPqSck2878K0ZiLcpMJ4TPsYam-Supc/s1600/DemocraticLogo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH_0HkIAelkIn_Au1VzdqpYnJ0-HIE3OhEbRROCzgWHsdmCTgaZKlKZC4OYxhc4COqTpWwA8Xr7ojYjhRtGJtnTfwLVEcuYtluGpG1DZUINsvRCsPqSck2878K0ZiLcpMJ4TPsYam-Supc/s1600/DemocraticLogo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH_0HkIAelkIn_Au1VzdqpYnJ0-HIE3OhEbRROCzgWHsdmCTgaZKlKZC4OYxhc4COqTpWwA8Xr7ojYjhRtGJtnTfwLVEcuYtluGpG1DZUINsvRCsPqSck2878K0ZiLcpMJ4TPsYam-Supc/s1600/DemocraticLogo.png" height="195" width="200" /></a></div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguWswfetzGVo6ijLizmz2ikrsGBf07TSn3ZI44o3tCtfPEyZKnf2pmGXnz3MSCzxJfPvS_Wqq7GiWU00hi9Gpu2c_oIhlKbij_zHlA19Yp_IHE7L3c7FtirW7l5k2XXPOLsrmjJZwWUnBX/s1600/GOP-logo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguWswfetzGVo6ijLizmz2ikrsGBf07TSn3ZI44o3tCtfPEyZKnf2pmGXnz3MSCzxJfPvS_Wqq7GiWU00hi9Gpu2c_oIhlKbij_zHlA19Yp_IHE7L3c7FtirW7l5k2XXPOLsrmjJZwWUnBX/s1600/GOP-logo.jpg" height="150" width="200" /></a> </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
VS. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is the fundamental ideological divide that I see in America today. This is what concerns me about the strong shift in fiscal conservatives toward "libertarianism." Please, though, don't mistake this a merely a "rose-colored glasses" view of the GOP - Trust me, the Republican Party is corrupt, election-focused, and totally out of touch with a large portion of its electorate. The elite within the party have hijacked traditional conservative values into a sound-bite opposition to the Democratic/progressive party in the hopes of offering alternatives, but in reality simply distancing themselves from real credibility in their own base of support. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But I still remain a firm, resolute Republican for one reason - I have yet to see a noteworthy political party that represents the Hobbesian view of man - corrupt, self-interested and greedy. I suppose I should also clarify this - I'm not pessimistic about life in general - I love my country, I love my state, I love my county - I think that the American system of government outlined within the Constitution remains the greatest, most effective, and ideal system of government for protecting the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of its citizens. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But the success of the American experiment did not come from a random shot-in-the-dark approach to government - it was rooted closely in an understanding of man's natural inclination to pursue his/her own individual welfare and happiness. In Federalist 51, James Madison explained his concern in regard to establishing a system of government:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. <b>Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.</b> The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But<b> what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? <u>If men were angels, no government would be necessary</u>.</b> If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this:<b> you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.</b> A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.</span></blockquote>
<div>
This line of reasoning is what led our founders to the need for the checks and balances provided by a separation of powers - both between Federal and State governments and the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of said governments. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This divide in ideology is also influences the way we view politics and public policy because it frames our <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZd2Z9bKD-6yxO5KHaefbwVskF7nhO_OZQswI6J2hjqpqDsZfHCdaK2ZjMPtjF-V5IFF-l0qe7ClFHs0AqI4xrd-uTDT_C7iMQR7eUa2tOMhRPZJFsesFTXNxVP_wSkR9Dchi_c9QYfntO/s1600/download.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZd2Z9bKD-6yxO5KHaefbwVskF7nhO_OZQswI6J2hjqpqDsZfHCdaK2ZjMPtjF-V5IFF-l0qe7ClFHs0AqI4xrd-uTDT_C7iMQR7eUa2tOMhRPZJFsesFTXNxVP_wSkR9Dchi_c9QYfntO/s1600/download.jpg" /></a></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnrfQxt9E4y8-BQeU8sPP4D9_x9QZj-iINtV4TPjB7Ao4LoGbv7HQ9sL_vVfCxPrEEHkfN65hgjVUGcWZ5sEOP4EdT19ylvfvsZdXpUD9cYbGMWfovMx2sU3kKMvRyTKIyCDr03FpiWqgU/s1600/17-plates_tread-full.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnrfQxt9E4y8-BQeU8sPP4D9_x9QZj-iINtV4TPjB7Ao4LoGbv7HQ9sL_vVfCxPrEEHkfN65hgjVUGcWZ5sEOP4EdT19ylvfvsZdXpUD9cYbGMWfovMx2sU3kKMvRyTKIyCDr03FpiWqgU/s1600/17-plates_tread-full.jpg" height="133" width="200" /></a>view of the world. If you view humans as good, you will be more willing to accept policies that advocate for internationalism, multiculturalism, and social justice. Or, on the flip side, you might view the system as the problem - since humans are basically good. This view would cause skepticism and a push for man to be left alone to do whatever he pleases. And, if this view of human nature is correct - you are absolutely right to take these approaches because human ingenuity and international cooperation could yield unimaginable benefits for society and individual welfare and happiness - and each man looking out for himself would be able to get along with other individuals living the same way. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8IRtl2s_zq8kbeiGN8_GFYxzTXWGlwhyphenhyphen8S4t2qH3Z040cyg6djUwCdg6qPueZl-eFCF2PSqOwh88uBSod7MC_tZ11dIeqc8-Eya66rAw8mQEFficj1g8pIEjjtzi66E53M4pzaHnbsolO/s1600/87577015.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8IRtl2s_zq8kbeiGN8_GFYxzTXWGlwhyphenhyphen8S4t2qH3Z040cyg6djUwCdg6qPueZl-eFCF2PSqOwh88uBSod7MC_tZ11dIeqc8-Eya66rAw8mQEFficj1g8pIEjjtzi66E53M4pzaHnbsolO/s1600/87577015.png" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
However, If you view humans as self-interested and corrupt, then you will be more inclined toward cautious policies of national defense, power politics, and a balance of power in world affairs. Domestically, you will be more concerned about tried-and-true fiscal policies, and traditional values in social issues - such as traditional marriage, strong families, restrictions on mind-altering substances, and other community-preserving policies. Just as with the alternative perspective - if this view of human nature is correct - then these policies at the very least are logical conclusions for the protection of an ideal society. It doesn't mean that diplomacy and <br />
innovative policies should be rejected, by any means. It just means that there must be sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal will actually work. it just means that there is an element of skepticism in the way a holder of this worldview looks at the promises and hopes of promises and experimental policies. One might even be willing to go so far as to argue that due to the American system's checks and balances - we have a moral imperative to take a leadership role in world affairs, to point other countries toward a system that is effective at curbing man's corruption - in government and the electorate. Not all hold this view, but the line of reasoning at the very least, is understandable.</div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDXOlN8yyY4XFcDOufjT4OY6wdWcM-ZpGQJPeennw5pb8ENs51nUxUOj4hieyBthaakI6oSaZPotI0FNq7eFBBQFlOJ6H0_37ewLjGHP9dOeVFFAnmdAmgNj-R_eHqqABb9S8QeYEiXeRs/s1600/images+%25282%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDXOlN8yyY4XFcDOufjT4OY6wdWcM-ZpGQJPeennw5pb8ENs51nUxUOj4hieyBthaakI6oSaZPotI0FNq7eFBBQFlOJ6H0_37ewLjGHP9dOeVFFAnmdAmgNj-R_eHqqABb9S8QeYEiXeRs/s1600/images+%25282%2529.jpg" /></a></div>
<div>
So once again, I ask you -- do you believe that man is basically good or basically bad? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I myself, as you have probably guessed, look at the world more through a realism/federalist perspective. I say "more" deliberately, because there are always other factors that play into any political decision and to TOTALLY reduce political differences to these ideologies is a bit naive, as well. Generally, though, I hold more to the conservative/federalist view of human nature - because I believe that it has been demonstrated throughout history. I also believe that conservative/republican politics aligns with the Christian view of human nature as inherently sinful and fallen - in need of redemption and renewal (see Romans 3:10). I don't believe that humans are totally incapable of good and altruistic acts - but I believe that for the most part, man is capable of serious harm toward his fellow man. </div>
<div>
<br />
Now - to draw this back to an element of positivity - I believe that the values that the Republican party [claims] to uphold recognize this view of human nature - and therefore <i>play man's self-interest against itself to achieve a positive result</i>. This is the basis of our separation of powers - every group fights for the greatest benefit for itself - forcing a compromise that mutually benefits all branches. It also can be applied toward economics - if businessmen seek their own profit - the demand for higher quality goods, better workers wages/conditions, and lower prices will cause businessmen to supply these demands with their product and production process. Capitalism works because not only does the producer gain, but so does the consumer. However, a [good] Republican/Conservative also recognizes that there is a need for government at times - to uphold justice and protect individual rights, settle disputes, provide military defense, prevent excessive monopolies in the market, and occasionally rise in resistance to threats to our national interests abroad. I think that libertarianism is a significant improvement over neo-liberalism, because it recognizes half of the problem - it sees government as an infringement on the rights of the people - and rightly so. It also respects the value of the free market to check individual self-interest for a common good. The problem is that it fails to recognize the nature of man as the <i>reason</i> why government is so corrupt - and believes that removing the structures that preserve and defend our society will cause the good and natural man to flourish in peace and cooperation. I respectfully disagree. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In my view - Conservative/Federalist/Republican ideology offers the economic benefits of libertarian/Austrian economics while preserving a healthy distrust in the benevolence of the average man - whether he be in government or the street. This is why I remain - firmly - a Conservative Republican. </div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
-<span style="font-size: large;"> Evan Gillespie</span> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-4273567312368110982014-04-04T15:25:00.000-07:002014-04-04T16:06:48.168-07:00The Cycle of SilenceLast night I had the privilege of attending a panel discussion at my school entitled "Faith and Freedom in the Public Square." This event featured keynote speakers Eric Metaxas<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2UHdy3-Xea9QJz-oX-6SBOMqIqYCDy67vusJ4CGDvgBNU7XAai2GIou7td9F2qxg-DaWgjgIyn8E3JI-8AYWlgJLOtBN3qxt0tdpzP_EoFrBLByFn6unGimSSk9_kdx60tlIJ4D98JTMx/s1600/ericmetaxas-prophoto.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2UHdy3-Xea9QJz-oX-6SBOMqIqYCDy67vusJ4CGDvgBNU7XAai2GIou7td9F2qxg-DaWgjgIyn8E3JI-8AYWlgJLOtBN3qxt0tdpzP_EoFrBLByFn6unGimSSk9_kdx60tlIJ4D98JTMx/s1600/ericmetaxas-prophoto.jpg" height="200" width="122" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Eric Mataxas</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
and Dennis Prager. Mataxas is a renowned author and Christian speaker who showed genuine outrage on the quietness of the Christian church in the face of anti-religous sentiment in the public square. Dennis Prager is a conservative radio talk-show host that also has great convictions about the suppression of religion in the public square. As a Jew, he recognizes the danger of what can befall a nation that rejects the notion of God. The panel discussion was led by Dr. John Jackson - the president of William Jessup University.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEis1NLSNun6st6BC6s0mRYtd8NVrI8eEoNUvZ-6YydGE8lP-9EgTGPTB5cp55zDaLcajRwF-XLVZTdiZwTCTpac7fKth7T7FLabeqC6o6JcADEhXisAYI3ejSALBtc4y9_rl5LPNim1TAZ4/s1600/2_61_prager_dennis+(1).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; display: inline !important; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEis1NLSNun6st6BC6s0mRYtd8NVrI8eEoNUvZ-6YydGE8lP-9EgTGPTB5cp55zDaLcajRwF-XLVZTdiZwTCTpac7fKth7T7FLabeqC6o6JcADEhXisAYI3ejSALBtc4y9_rl5LPNim1TAZ4/s1600/2_61_prager_dennis+(1).jpg" height="150" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Dennis Prager</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
For the most part, the discussion surrounded the common arguments about public suppression of faith - "happy holidays" and "Merry Christmas" made their way into the discussion, per usual Christian gatherings on the subject (Although I did enjoy Prager's bias toward <i>"Merry Christmas"</i> despite his Jewish faith). One of the conversations that did draw my interest, however, was one brought up by Mataxas - he referred to a "cycle of silence" which grows stronger every time people avoid talking about a subject. If there is free discussion on a subject, then there are good ideas discussed - but if discussing opposing views on a subject is considered taboo, it becomes increasingly hard to present alternative viewpoints as time goes by. He argued that Christians have allowed themselves to succumb to a cycle of silence when it comes to religious beliefs in the public square - rather than openly opposing contrary viewpoints, they allow Christian "love" to cause them to allow the secular world to expand without any opposition.<br />
<br />
If you doubt the legitimacy of this, just consider the subject of homosexuality. Traditionally, the Christian church views homosexuality as sin - much as adultery, fornication, or any other sexual deviance outside of marriage would be considered a sin. However, rather than holding to this line and offering help to those struggling with their sexuality, Christians have accepted the logic of the world and now argue over how they can be more loving to homosexuals. Should they be welcomed into churches? Should they be counseled away from homosexuality? These questions are all well and good, and it makes sense for Christians to struggle with such things - but it has become taboo to declare it sinful, now. It doesn't matter if you view it as a "lesser sin" like anger, gossip, etc, even. If you call it sin, you're hateful and homophobic.<br />
<br />
There are countless other examples of this cycle of silence. Usually the logic used is the logic of "separation of church and state" which means (according to the mainstream consensus) that those of a religious persuasion must not intersect their religious beliefs into the public square - that the state must be totally secular. <i>This is absurd.</i> Rather than having open discussion on "marriage," religious imagery in courthouses, religious expression in schools, even individuals presenting their personal faith in a public place -- people of faith find themselves <i>suppressing their own faith!</i><br />
<br />
<i>Why on earth have Christians allowed this to happen? </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Anyone who knows me personally, is aware of how passionate I am about American politics and the values of liberty, justice, and religious freedom. These are the cornerstones of our Republic - if we willingly hand them over in the interest of "not causing a fuss" or "showing love" we are guilty of destroying these values far more than anyone of another value system. While I understand and appreciate the Christian focus on loving their neighbors, this does not mean that Christians must roll over when their liberty is being challenged - the nice thing about America is that it was founded to allow the free exchange of ideas - not to suppress them. If we lived on a dictatorship, I would almost be <i><b>more</b></i> in favor of Christians being quiet, because that government is not designed to accommodate differing values. For example, the common response that I hear from many Christians, when urged to participate in politics is a citation of Romans 13:1a, "let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is established by God." <i>This is absurd</i>. Yes - Christians ought to be law abiding citizens. Yes, we should respect the government and the authority it yields. But this does not mean that in a representative democracy that we must refrain from offering alternative solutions/perspectives. This nation is not a "Christian nation" in the sense that it is a nation of Christians. But it is a Christian nation in the sense that it was founded on Christian values, and Christians ought not to be ashamed of their beliefs in a nation that prides itself on freedom of expression. Instead, we should boldly proclaim our faith and our values in the public square and allow the free debate of ideas to determine the development of law and order. Remember - there's a difference between being respectful and loving and being a doormat.<br />
<br />
The fascinating thing is that for people of other religious faiths - it is still a problem. If we accept the logic that religious faith has no place in the public square, it suppresses Christian values, but it suppresses the values of other cultural perspectives as well. Every individual in this world has a worldview shaped by their own religious or a-religious beliefs. If we restrict the subject of public discourse to secular arguments based on nonreligious values, we reduce freedom of expression to atheists and agnostics - is this really the nation that we live in?<br />
<br />
<b>One final note on the subject of Christian "love"...</b><br />
Before I conclude, let me spend a few minutes addressing the concept of "love" for many contemporary Christians. If there is one thing that I believe has been fundamentally destroyed in the Christian community, I think it is the concept of love. Love is the basis for virtually everything in the Christian faith - it is God's love that caused him to offer his son as an atonement for sin, it is our love that is supposed to dictate our passion for preaching the gospel to a world desperately in need of a savior and desperately in need of true love.<br />
<br />
But we have screwed up this task- <i>massively. </i><br />
American Christians now have reduced love to "acceptance" or respect for another person's opinion. <i>Excuse me? </i>So if I believe that a certain behavior pattern is sinful and in direct defiance of God's will - I'm just supposed to tolerate my neighbor's actions in order to "love" them better? <i>How is condemning your neighbor to life of disobedience and separation from God's perfect will "loving," exactly?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Now let me be very clear - I am not saying that Christians ought to be constantly preaching fire and brimstone - because I think that is a distortion of the gospel as well. Our faith is not well served if we have no compassion for the struggles of our neighbors. And let us be quick to recognize that <i>every man, woman, and child on this earth has sinned against God</i>. It is not our place to judge a nonbeliever for their failures - but neither should we turn a blind eye when they are hurting themselves. Think of it like this - if you have a child (or an adult) who doesn't know the damage that can be caused by fire - would you stand by as the kid tries to touch a hot stove, or would you intervene in their own interest? Isn't the latter the most "loving" course of action? In the same way, if we see people practicing destructive patterns of any kind - promescuity, unwise financial decisions, abuse of friends and family - is not the most loving course of action to confront them (at least on some occasions)?<br />
<br />
Christians have allowed our entire understanding of love and forgiveness to be destroyed. Forgiveness means that someone <i>recognizes the severity of the wrong but chooses to overlook it</i>. That's RADICAL love - and that's the kind of love that Christ demonstrates to sinners. Shouldn't we seek to imitate the God we claim to serve?<br />
<br />
I'll close with this short video of a non-believer's perspective on the treatment of many Christians in this country. It is food for thought, at the very least.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/5EomkPt3e5M?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
~Evan Gillespie<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-39931724498229671112014-02-11T23:42:00.000-08:002014-02-12T15:04:09.684-08:00Rhetoric and Reasoning: Why the Republican Party has accepted opposition vocabulary<i>This post was spurred by a discussion I had a short time ago with a professor about the different views of "compromise" in the U.S. two-party system. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwtnRHBkEw6BZvSNlOVmDPTD2hAAyQAsw9jSGBXEgZ937w5QoYebH4B8rsD1lpm5pw0A95SsgHRBIdx_4feAajDZdZYFEnanKm5x4igl1qpKY23KNMQIu6f9UJUHhFyBC4Jz-6FEnQOaFx/s1600/liberalvsconservative.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwtnRHBkEw6BZvSNlOVmDPTD2hAAyQAsw9jSGBXEgZ937w5QoYebH4B8rsD1lpm5pw0A95SsgHRBIdx_4feAajDZdZYFEnanKm5x4igl1qpKY23KNMQIu6f9UJUHhFyBC4Jz-6FEnQOaFx/s1600/liberalvsconservative.jpg" height="256" width="320" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
This picture says it all.<br />
<br />
Whether you are a gun-toting, laissez faire conservative or a bleeding heart Liberal, it is safe to say that you can recognize this meme's representation of the two-party system. By that I mean people recognize that this is the picture painted of the GOP, whether or not it is true.<br />
<br />
Why is this the case, though? What is it about the word "liberal" that evokes imagery of freedom, equality, and reason while "conservative" makes one feel stifled and suppressed?<br />
<br />
I have written in the past about what I feel is the best tactic for the Republican party as we approach 2016. I have also written about my frustration with my own party in its inability to collate around the core planks of the platform. Today, I would like to discuss the political stigma of the GOP in contrast the the Democratic Party and from where such a rhetorical stain originates.<br />
<br />
Before I begin, let me clarify one political and philosophical assumption that I hold. In my opinion, <i>there is no such thing as a perfect society</i>. The human race has long conceived of Utopia. If there is one thing that we have learned through the course of human history, though, it is the fundamental flaw with Utopian thought is that it fails to account for the terrible weakness of self-interest, greed, and discontentment inherent to humanity. This is why Utopian systems fail and representative systems thrive - in general. All of the succesful and enduring states recognized the need for a realistic form of government that accounted for human weakness. The job of government, then, is the find the best way to preserve and protect individual freedom and community welfare while avoiding unnecessary control of the economy and culture. In America, the system devised was a Constitutional Republic with a Federalist system of government. Whether you consider this good or bad really isn't my point - it's the system that we've inherited, and it has profoundly impacted the two-party political system we have today.<br />
<br />
But I'm getting off track.<br />
In our current system, the Republican Party is the conservative party for the country. The difficulty with this fact is that in many current political debates, the republican party has accepted itself as the "opposition party" - the party of "no." After all, the Republican Party (generally) objects to unrestricted abortion, deficit spending, extensive regulations, nationalized healthcare, comprehensive immigration reform, etc. The difficulty lies in the fact that such labels stand in sharp contradiction with the way many Republicans view their party and platform. A good conservative doesn't view themselves as the ones <i>standing in the way </i>of progress (as a good Democrat might)- they see themselves as the ones <i>standing up </i>for American values in a wave of progressive attack on traditional institutions and policies. As a professor at my school told me, when discussing this topic, "the burden of proof is on the democrats," at least for a conservative Republican. If a liberal policy is going to be accepted then, there must be conclusive evidence to support its adoption - and the benefits must radically outweigh the costs.<br />
<br />
The complication then, is that the Democratic party does not look at politics this way - instead, Republicans must justify why their "fundamentalist" values should stand in the way of progress. This is why Republicans "oppose national healthcare" or "reject" immigration reform efforts and compromise. This is true. The nuance is in the reasoning. The rationale isn't one of "rejection" -- it is one that has weighed the benefits against the costs and found the costs to be too great to give up the status quo. <i><u>For a consistent Conservative, avoiding pitfalls is more important that high-speed "progress."</u></i><br />
<br />
The most astonishing thing to me in light of this realization, is that the GOP has <i>accepted</i> this "opposition" mentality. Rather than articulating our own rhetoric, we embrace the vernacular of the Left! As silly is it might sound - the tone in which a policy is portrayed can be the most important variable in a public debate of ideas. Even if all evidence (in theory) supports caution -- the progressive rhetoric may <i>still </i>prevail over traditional logic, because of its impact on the human psyche.<br />
<br />
The single most important thing that the GOP could do to remain competitive in public debate is NOT to "stick to their guns" NOR "adapt to changing times" - these are important considerations, to be sure, in light of the 2016 Presidential race. The single most important factor, however, in my opinion -- is <i>vocabulary</i>. If we <i>articulate our position</i> properly, people will be more inclined to respect that position. Republicans shouldn't squabble over how we're going to take down ObamaCare or Comprehensive Immigration Reform - but should instead focus on articulating the Conservative reasoning of a careful cost/benefit analysis. ONce the public begins to recognize the rationality of the GOP, they will learn to respect it (though they may not agree). But if people can once again respect the mindset of a conservative -- particularly in our current fiscal climate -- there is a chance to get this country back on track.<br />
<br />
<br />Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com2Rocklin, CA, USA38.7907339 -121.2357827999999838.6917514 -121.39714429999998 38.8897164 -121.07442129999998tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-18733601500425096962013-11-13T08:03:00.001-08:002013-11-13T08:03:27.851-08:00The GOP and the FutureYesterday, I spent a considerable portion of my "free time" doing what every good college student should do -- procrastinating on important homework by debating viable presidential candidates for 2016.<br />
<br />
...I know - nerd, right?<br />
<br />
Regardless, the idea that kept returning to haunt me is the fact that the GOP has no real foundation anymore - republicans don't know what they stand for. The establishment, for example, wants to win elections, and thus will run moderate RINO's in order to draw the centrist vote. Not a terrible idea, from a pragmatic perspective. On the flip side, however, the hyper-conservative side of the spectrum is radically opposed to any moderate candidate for fear of "watering down" the republican message and misrepresenting the party. That makes sense, too. And this is the conundrum facing the GOP today.<br />
<br />
Now, I already spent some time breaking down what I feel is the best course of action for Republicans moving toward 2016 and beyond -returning to the party platform, offering clear alternatives the democratic candidates, explaining why we believe what we believe... it's not a terribly difficult task to accomplish, if the party could actually take the time to look for real-world solutions. The difficulty is that right now - <i>they don't.</i> Plain and simple. The Republican Party is being pulled apart between anarchistic-libertarians and liberal RINO's, and neither side has any intention of seeking a parlay.<br />
<br />
Given this understanding of politics in America, what real options do Republicans have left?<br />
<br />
I'll list three possible futures I see for the party - they may be pretty predictable to some of you, but my hope is that this might be a wake-up call to the rest of us on how we are handling our conservative party.<br />
<br />
<u>1. Temporary Collapse of Two-Party System</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
Way to start out cheerful, right? In all seriousness, however, I don't see this as a terribly extreme option. If we republicans continue on the same path, this is a viable option. Particularly now that democrats are pushing "civil rights" issues and hospitality to illegal immigrants. Eventually the centrists will abandon the republicans for being "traditionalist" and "out of touch" with the 21st Century. The Republican party will no longer be able to maintain itself. Libertarians will attract economic conservatives away from the main base, remaining "relevant" for their more liberal social views, while social conservatives will be marginalized at best. This could lead to either a multi-party system, or it could lead to one-party (democratic) rule for years to come.<br />
<br />
Now, before you take me as a "radical left-winger" for what I just said, let me explain - <i>I am a social & economic conservative</i> - I think it is possible to believe in limited government, while preserving the American identity and moral basis for law. In fact, I think this union is <i>vital</i> to the sustainability of free government. What I am pointing out are plausible outcomes if Republicans fail to recognize our own inability to communicate the "Why?" behind our opposition to liberal policies. "Because gays are immoral" is not a valid<i> policy </i>reason for supporting traditional marriage - there<b> are</b> valid reasons, but that is not one that will be accepted by the centrist vote.<br />
<br />
<u>2. Re-arrangement of RNC platform</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
This would essentially be what the Left is urging the Republican Party to do - realign on more liberal values in order to remain a relevant alternative to far-left policies. I think this is possible, but perhaps not as likely as the first option. For one, regardless of how pragmatic the establishment of the party is, the main base of the party (evangelicals, neo-cons, fiscal-cons) will never approve - they will fight this every step of the way. So, should this become implemented, the odds are that a large base of the party will walk away to third-parties, and we'll see one-party rule for several years.<br />
<br />
<u>3. Improved Communication </u><br />
<u><br /></u>
This is my preferred future - but I think it is possible only if the establishment is rooted out or highly pressured by constituents. This option would be a return to the RNC platform and an emphasis on <i>educating</i> people on the rationale for our beliefs. If this were to be embraced, it might mean democratic-rule for 4-6 years, but it would allow for a better established conservative party in the long run.<br />
<br />
As I already said before, though, this is not a likely option unless the GOP genuinely recognizes that it has lost credibility in public policy and takes actual steps toward addressing the issue.<br />
<br />
<u>Bonus option! Economic and Societal Apocalypse</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
This is a nod to some of my libertarian and realist friends who feel that, regardless of what the RNC does, the nation is heading toward economic collapse, rupturing of the moral fabric of the nation, and diminished status in international affairs. Any last-minute maneuvering is merely political posturing that will have no real affect on the fate of the nation. Is this possible? - Most definitely. Is it Probable? That's a discussion for another time :)<br />
<br />
<br />
So these are a few of the options I see for the GOP in the coming months, years, and decades. You might have different options, or even different possible outcomes from the above options - hey, it's the future - nothing is concrete. Please, feel free to comment and let me know what you think.<br />
<br />
In the end, what I believe most certainly is - there are difficult times ahead for conservatives. But hard times can be a blessing as much as a curse - maybe some trials will actually help bring the nation around to a more receptive attitude toward conservative values. Anything is possible. Regardless, I can say with sincerity and conviction, despite the uncertainty of the future - America is still the greatest nation on God's earth, and I pray that God would continue to bless the United States of America.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghStu4FRFUUMGKBFiD9m2kyHOqIFYrVQ3qk1OJMW41e-RFbUOFmiwrvf8LvZABIB2P9qM1KJ9CvvEAI0BjsiUDE0UZc0Jw-e8FiXtHbeTZrgcDbxF7XrYIamxzL2dEV50z06mGkXJrZklW/s1600/American-Flag-Eagle.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghStu4FRFUUMGKBFiD9m2kyHOqIFYrVQ3qk1OJMW41e-RFbUOFmiwrvf8LvZABIB2P9qM1KJ9CvvEAI0BjsiUDE0UZc0Jw-e8FiXtHbeTZrgcDbxF7XrYIamxzL2dEV50z06mGkXJrZklW/s1600/American-Flag-Eagle.jpg" height="229" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-49029753387881590842013-10-05T10:55:00.004-07:002013-10-05T10:57:38.942-07:00The Core of the 2013 Budget CrisisOne hardly needs to be a politician to understand that our nation is in a crisis of leadership, right now. Today we enter the 4th full day of the government shutdown, and the American people are clearly fed up.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/D.071B.QmE.eAosJ5uxKAg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQyMTtweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz03NDk-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/317b5967cf5b1b4ca8849bfa3f7f89e52a4d4aee.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/D.071B.QmE.eAosJ5uxKAg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQyMTtweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz03NDk-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/317b5967cf5b1b4ca8849bfa3f7f89e52a4d4aee.jpg" height="222" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2013/10/3/government-shutdownobamacaregop/_jcr_content/mainpar/adaptiveimage/src.adapt.480.low.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2013/10/3/government-shutdownobamacaregop/_jcr_content/mainpar/adaptiveimage/src.adapt.480.low.jpg" height="200" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
As Congress continues to debate over how "compromise" must come about, we have seen the government "shutdown" affect national parks, websites, memorials, and as I saw on facebook a few days ago, even the First Lady's Twitter feed. In my opinion, this is true budget crisis. As a Public Policy major, I take an almost morbid curiosity in wondering "who will blink first," but even in the midst of this musing, I cannot forget what is truly on the line with this debate -- The healthcare system in our nation, and more importantly, the very meaning of compromise. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;">From news articles to Twitter feeds to Youtube, we have all seen various perspectives on "who is right" with this issue. In a recent Op-ed in the New York Times, the author stated, </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="text-align: center;">"</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; text-align: center;">This time is different. What is at stake in this government shutdown forced by a <b>radical Tea Party</b> <b>minority</b> is nothing less than the principle upon which our democracy is based: <b>majority rule.</b> President Obama must not give in to this hostage taking — not just because Obamacare is at stake, but because the future of how we govern ourselves is at stake [emphasis added]" (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/opinion/friedman-our-democracy-is-at-stake.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1380993817-FgZioLemAe4ZgHLQBDG9gQ" target="_blank">Source</a>).</span></blockquote>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
While I respect the author's belief, I cannot, under any circumstances, endorse such a perspective. For one, our government is based on popular sovereignty, but <i style="font-weight: bold;">not</i> majority rule. In fact, there are numerous institutions within the American system of government designed to check the "tyranny of the majority" as our founding fathers referred to it (ex. electoral college, no term limits for Supreme Court justices, etc...). Additionally, I contest the assertion made that the shutdown was forced by a "radical Tea Party minority."</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
For one, it is not the Tea Party alone that contests the budget that Senate Democrats would seek to propose. Even Speaker Boehner, a Republican known to be greatly disliked by the more conservative branch of his party, has been a player in these debates, holding that democrats must work with republicans in order to fix our budget crisis. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Even more to the point, though, the Affordable Care Act is really the key issue that has sparked this controversy. According to Rasmussen,<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #e3e3e3; color: #272727; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.796875px; text-align: start;">"Thirty-six percent (36%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe the government should require every American to buy or obtain health insurance, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifty percent (50%) disagree and oppose the so-called individual mandate. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided" </span><a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law">(Source</a>).</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The majority of Americans do not want ObamaCare implemented. However, the implementation of ObamaCare is what this entire budget crisis is really about. Democrats want it implemented, Republicans do not. Even more to my point - while house republicans have repeatedly offered to fund ObamaCare, with the proviso that it be delayed for one year (as it has already been delayed for Congress and employers). Democratic leadership, however, will not even accept this basic compromise. <i>Republicans, who oppose the entire legislation, have agreed to </i><u style="font-style: italic;">compromise their own beliefs</u><i> about the quality of the legislation, in the interest of passing a budget, but Democrats refuse to accept the proposal because ObamaCare is </i><u style="font-style: italic;">delayed.</u> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This budget crisis is, indeed, a serious issue. I agree with the those around me and desire that Congress pass a budget, but I stand in support of the House Republicans for being the only members of our government willing to work with the other side to achieve a mutual benefit. When Democratic leadership finally recognizes that they themselves are what is prolonging this crisis, I can only hope they will have the integrity to come to an agreement, and get our country back on track. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I leave you with this short clip:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/oA8jAxmklDw?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-87817643116323882282013-09-30T09:00:00.003-07:002013-09-30T09:16:39.377-07:00Federalism TodayIn case the above title is a stumper for you, let me briefly explain what I mean by "federalism." The term refers to a organization of government into two separate categories - the central government or "federal" government that has sovereignty over the nation as a whole, and the "subordinate" or state institutions that govern the individual states within the nation. In the United States, federalism was designed to provide a strong check to the powers of both the state and federal government - by allowing for dual sovereignty, with conflicting interests between the overlapping government forcing the governments to compromise.<br />
<br />
Now, for some of you, it was not the first term that was the stumper - but the phrase taken as a whole. This is where I would like to focus my time today. What does federalism look like in contemporary America? Or more to the point, does it even exist, today?<br />
<br />
This question was brought to my mind recently as my school debate club presented a debate on States' Rights and federalism in America today. Our resolution was that State legislatures should be able to nullify federal laws that they deem are unconstitutional - with the intention of checking illegitimate growth of government. I, arguing in opposition, found myself pointing to the flaws of the resolution on the basis that there was no objective standard for states to determine constitutionality - but then I considered - what check do we really have even now?<br />
<br />
One answer is, of course, the Supreme Court of the United States - as the final arbiter of constitutionality. However, one need not be aligned with a particular political ideology to recognize that trusting in the infallibility of 9 men and women in black robes is a frightening possibility - particularly as we often see the vote swing on 1 justice.<br />
<br />
Under our Constitution, there were several other checks on the growth of the federal government. First, powers for the central government were enumerated, or listed, while state powers included those not specifically delegated to the central government. The powers of Congress are carefully listed in Article 1, Sec 8 of the Constitution. Even so - the powers of the central government have grown over time, taking advantage of deliberate ambiguity within the Constitution to provide the basis for sweeping reinterpretations of the powers of government. If you haven't heard of the Supremacy Clause (<i>Art. 6</i>), Necessary & Proper Clause (<i>Art. 3, Sec 8</i>), or Commerce Clause (<i>Art. 1, Sec. 8</i>) - please, read up on them. These three clauses have been used to justify radical growth of the central government.<br />
<br />
Another key check that we provided by our founding fathers was the 10th Amendment, which states:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."</blockquote>
This amendment is often the trump card used by many conservatives to argue for states' rights, and rightly so. This amendment does reserve any power not granted to the federal government, to the various states. I, being a "face value" kind of person, agree with this interpretation, since it appears to be a common sense protection - there is only one reason to include a passage like this in our governing document - to prevent federal encroachment on state issues. Unfortunately, even the 10th Amendment has been emasculated today - primarily through judicial interpretation and "necessary and proper" rhetoric.<br />
<br />
As it stands then, I am frightened by the lack of protection that we have left to us, the American people, from the power of governmental encroachment.<br />
<br />
I have no doubt that the checks and balances of federalism in America are crumbling, today. History has shown that the separation of powers always tend to weaken as government grows. We live in an era of federal mandates to states, sweeping legislation, and executive orders. I won't try to blame an ambiguous "big brother" for the problem either - in large part, it has come through repeated crises where the People demanded action by their government. The Great Depression, the Cold War, and the War on Terror have all afforded ample opportunity for the government to grow with full public consent. Changing the flow of government growth, then, may ultimately prove impossible - even the founding fathers recognized that their institutions would be corrupted over time. We can, however, do our best to educate future generations on the importance of preserving our pillars of protection, though. We <i>must </i>explain why they were instituted, and why it is vital to preserve liberty - even occasionally at the cost of security and comfort - so that future leaders will be equipped with the tools they need to make wise policy decisions.Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-61758779830811788292013-09-23T20:34:00.004-07:002013-09-23T20:47:17.661-07:00Of Love and HopeToday rather than bringing you a long and boring discussion on the nature of politics in the United States, or the future of the nation, I would instead merely pass along some information that has recently come to my intention that I believe deserves fervent support.<br />
<br />
On October 5th, 2013, in Sacramento, there will be an event known as "Of Love and Hope" which is dedicated to repairing the damage done by human sex trafficking. This event will feature speakers such as <i>Jenny Williamson</i> and artists like <i>Transparent</i>. You can read more about this community event at my sister's fantastic blog --<a href="http://youreucatastrophe.blogspot.com/2013/09/of-love-and-hope-interview.html" target="_blank">Eucatastrophe</a>.<br />
<br />
This is a great opportunity to engage on a serious political and social issue that has plagued the Sacramento area for far too long! Let's do our part to put an END to Sex Trafficking in our day!Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-20420817085816519132013-07-29T16:34:00.001-07:002013-07-29T18:51:59.228-07:00Restoring the GOPEnough is enough! <br />
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
This nation has lived through not one, not two, but a minimum of three massive scandals in the last few months. First, there was the disastrous handling of the attack on the Benghazi consul, and the ensuing cover-up by the Obama administration. Next, we learned that the IRS has been systematically targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny, an act that would be repulsive on its own, but when linked to other power-plays by this administration, is absolutely outrageous. Finally, it was discovered that the NSA has been compiling the phone and Internet records of Americans without warrant and certainly without the knowledge of most citizens. Each of these issues alone, is serious, but when linked together they show an alarming trend toward an ever-more-daring and expanding federal government.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<a href="http://mundabor.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/unborn-child-sucking-thumb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img bba="true" border="0" src="http://mundabor.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/unborn-child-sucking-thumb.jpg" height="200" width="200" /></a><span style="color: black;">In addition, in areas of social justice, we see an increasingly volatile debate over issues of abortion and marriage rights - We have become a nation where the "rights" of two men to marry each other are accepted and condoned, while the fundamental right to life is denied to millions of unborn children under the pretext of "women's choice."</span></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
The Republican Party has allowed progressive policies and vocabulary to dominate American politics for far too long - it is time that we found our voice again. When I say that, I do not mean the sort of voice that members of the establishment have held - compromising our platform and personal beliefs in order to win the next election. Nor do I refer to the libertarian shift among many younger conservatives, though I understand and appreciate their concern over the heavy regulations that our government continues to place on businesses and individuals. I am calling for a third course of action that, to my knowledge, has seen little public debate. Instead of accepting the argument that we must <strong><em>either</em></strong> elect the next president <strong><em>or</em></strong> remain conservative to our core, my response is simply: can't we do both? </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
It is no secret that the GOP has a lot to figure out before the 2016 general election. After all, in 2012, we managed to lose a presidential election to an incumbent with a <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/159965/obama-averages-approval-first-term.aspx" target="_blank">job approval rating hovering around 50%</a> in the middle of a recession - a situation that is rare, to say the least. It is apparent that the longstanding coalition of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and hawks that compose the GOP base of support is weakening. But why is this? This group, originally unified by former-President Ronald Reagan has historically united in defense of limited-government, traditional values, and a strong military. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
What we are witnessing today, however, is a sad, if not entirely unforeseeable break between fiscal conservatives and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Hawk" target="_blank">hawks </a>on issues of federal spending and between social and fiscal conservatives on government regulation of social ills. Until this conflict is resolved, the GOP will have a difficult time winning any presidential election. In my mind, there are three ways to address this issue - one, is the route taken by some members of the establishment - looking for new members to the base. For example, the Republican party has historically failed to garner support from Latino voters, who are predicted to quickly become the largest minority group in the nation. If the GOP could gain the support of even a moderate portion of the Latino vote, our likelihood of winning in 2016 is significantly higher. </div>
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
With this thought in mind, many Senate republicans have opted to ally with democrats on what they are calling "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" which essentially grants temporary resident status to illegal immigrants in addition to increased funding for border enforcement (for a summary of the proposed legislation, <a href="http://immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-s744-understanding-2013-senate-immigration-bill" target="_blank">click here</a>). The hope is that Latino voters, who strongly support amnesty, will gratefully rally behind Republicans in 2016. The issue with this approach, however, is the fact that a huge portion of the GOP base does <strong><em>NOT</em></strong> approve of amnesty, citing the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986" target="_blank">1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act</a> as an example of the failure of amnesty programs. </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="clear: right; color: black; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img bba="true" border="0" src="http://teapartywpbfl.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/rp12-ron_paul_revolution_1.jpg" height="200" width="200" /></span></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
The second way is to embrace conservative policies at any cost - refusing to support any presidential candidate that we cannot completely resonate with. The <a href="http://www.ronpaul.com/category/ron-paul-revolution/" target="_blank">Ron Paul "Revolution"</a> campaign was an example of this approach to political involvement - rejecting anyone but their ideal candidate, consistently loyal supporters allowed Paul to retain his position as a candidate far longer than many other candidates, despite having a smaller base of support. Though I applaud this movement for their conservative beliefs, I worry that they too easily dismiss the importance of working with political opponents when there is potential for joint efforts. If one must only support the perfect candidate, they will never support anyone, since no politician or statesman, no matter how consistent in their beliefs, will ever prove perfect. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
The third option is the one that I hear discussed far less often, but which, in my mind, is the most logical - return to the party platform, vote in accordance with its planks, and devote more time to educating "opponents" on <strong><em>why</em></strong> we believe what we believe. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="clear: left; color: black; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img bba="true" border="0" src="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/images/trumbull-large1.jpg" height="128" width="200" /></span></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Instead of arguing about which parts of the government should be largest in comparison to others, or when exactly "life" begins for a fetus, we must emphasize the reasons why the<strong> <em>principles</em></strong> behind limited government and the right to life are essential. This approach avoids the unnecessary semantical debates by cutting straight to the core of the issue. I am convinced that once people understand the principles that our Founding Fathers sought to protect and <strong><em>why</em></strong> they established the government that they did, the vast majority of voters will embrace them. It is no coincidence that our founders referred to these principles as "self evident." </div>
<br />
Additionally, when we find common ground on the majority of issues with a candidate, legislator, or other official - instead of attacking them for their one or two weaknesses, encourage and emphasize what you agree with. Then explain to them why you disagree with them on the other points, urge them to reconsider their own stance, and let it be. Too easily we forget the power that an articulate and well-connected constituent can have over an official. <br />
<br />
This doesn't mean that we have to compromise our morals or values. If we cannot find common ground on an issue, than we should stand our ground. But if we find a candidate that we agree with on nine out of ten key issues, we should be willing to support them on those issues. This is how networking works! Quid pro quo. Once they respect us as educated and rational individuals, they may reconsider their position on the disputed issue. Even if this does not happen, there is still a net benefit from the exchange. <br />
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="clear: right; color: black; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img bba="true" border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9b/Republicanlogo.svg/220px-Republicanlogo.svg.png" /></span></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
I'm not attempting to convey this as a comprehensive plan for the GOP to win the 2016 general election - but I do believe that it is a start. If we can practice this approach in debates within our own party - and work together to educate voters outside our base, we might just have a chance to preserve the Republican party for the next generation. </div>
Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5771862485599906834.post-15920354953993169952013-07-25T12:03:00.001-07:002013-07-25T12:13:30.633-07:00Welcome!<span style="background-color: white; color: black;">A few years ago, I created a personal blog where I attempted to communicate some of my frustrations about the current political climate in this nation mixed my personal faith-based convictions. However, over time </span><a href="http://renegade4christ.wordpress.com/"><span style="background-color: white; color: black;">that blog</span></a><span style="background-color: white; color: black;"> evolved into a place where I shared some of my struggles and joys in my own personal relationship with Christ, and began to edge away from politics. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /><span style="color: black;"></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black;">Due to this evolution, I have decided to create this new blog which will focus on political issues and policy, while allowing my other blog to maintain the format it has developed, since its creation. It should be understood, this blog will not be divorced from my religious convictions, it will merely be concentrating on public policy issues with my own convictions and education as a known lens through which I look at the world around me.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /><span style="color: black;"></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black;">The name of this blog, <strong>Our Sacred Honor</strong> is taken from the last line of the United States Declaration of Independence where the author writes:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black;"><strong> "-- And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."</strong></span></blockquote>
Evan Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390693156246051710noreply@blogger.com0