Bringing the Truth

Oil! What is it Good For? - by Logan Albright

2006-03-01T15:54:00.000-05:00

America! You are standing at a crossroads. Before you stretch two roads leading inexorably towards the future of energy. That’s right, energy, the stuff you wish you had more of and you wish your kids had less of. The stuff that makes your car run and your oven cook you your delicious, delicious dinner every single evening! And what is the primary source of energy in the world today? If you’re old enough to read this, then you probably know that it’s oil. Black gold, Texas tea.
Most scientists hold the theory that the Earth is finite in volume and mass, and from this conclude that we will eventually run out of this sweet nectar of plastics and propulsion. The only question is: when, and what can we do about it?
The answer to the first question is: you don’t know. Stop making predictions that will only make you look stupid when they are wrong, which they always are. Question Two is somewhat more controversial. Many so called “environmentalists” declare confidently that we should use less oil. Don’t drive, don’t use plastic and for God’s sake no more gasoline fights. Presumably, this is because this stinking, disgusting black liquid (which is also highly poisonous, by the way) is a precious part of our eco-system and losing it would be a great tragedy akin to the recent theft of Munch’s classic painting “The Scream.”
Of course, not everyone offers this kind of reasoning. Some of the more melodramatic are convinced that when the oil runs out, the human race is done for. That’s all, folks. Move along, nothing to see here. This is a load of balderdash if ever I heard one. We got along fine before we discovered oil, we’ll get along fine after it’s gone. Of course there will be setbacks if we aren’t prepared for it when it happens, and perhaps this preparation is what these alarmists hope to achieve by preaching conservation.
Wrong!
This is the worst thing we could possibly do. Allow me to explain.
Remember college? Remember how your professors would give you a whole semester to write a term paper and you’d end up doing the entire thing the night before it was due, with bloodshot eyes and a pitcher of coffee on your desk? In many ways, the American college student embodies the very nature of the human spirit. We are tremendous achievers, but we have to be properly motivated. Remember the sixties? You probably don’t but I’m sure you’ve read about them. It took us nine years to go from basically no space program to putting a man on the moon. Nine years! That’s nothing. That’s an eyeblink. How did we do it? We were scared to death that the Russians would beat us to it. That’s how.
If we slow down our oil consumption, no one is going to bother investing the time and money to come up with an alternative fuel source. Why should they bother? There’s still plenty of oil. Someone else will do it later. However, if we instead increase our use of oil, people are going to get scared. Real scared. What’s the only motivator greater than fear? That’s right, money. Whoever has an alternative when the oil runs out is going to make some money. Probably more money than has ever been made by anyone in the history of the world.
\So fill up your cars with diesel and get driving. Water your lawn with oil, take baths in it, dump it on your neighbors as a practical joke. I don’t care. Let’s get rid of the stuff. Have you seen it? It’s foul. The sooner it’s gone the better, I say, and if that doesn’t get GM working on those hydrogen fuel cells, I’ll eat my hat.
Logan Albright

On Abortion-Logan Albright

2005-12-17T18:01:00.000-05:00

In order to support the morality of abortion, you must accept one of the following premises: a) that a fetus is not a human life, or b) that it is permissible to kill an innocent, defenseless infant. If you choose the latter, then we suffer from a fundamental ideological difference that cannot be resolved by any amount of discussion. However, if you choose the former, as do most supporters of abortion, then you are faced with a problem. At what point does a fetus become a human life?
I have heard numerous answers to this query. Some claim that the fetus becomes human at the quickening, at the first signs of spontaneous movement. But a why does the capability of movement grant humanity? Is not a hospital patient who has been paralyzed still a human being with the right to life? Others place personhood at the time when the fetus can feel pain, but this suffers from the same problem. A man subjected to total physical numbness is still a man. His ability to feel pain has no bearing on his right to life. I have a friend who claims that the fetus is a person when it can support itself outside the womb, apparently failing to realize that a two year old child cannot support itself outside the womb without someone to feed it. Finally, some claim that the ability of thought is the prerequisite for personhood. This is perhaps the most compelling of any of these arguments. After all, how can humanity exist without thought? But consider, thought is a sliding scale. There is no single moment when a fetus can “think.” Furthermore, a four year old child does not think in the same way as an adult, yet has a much greater capacity for learning. This seems a far too subjective and arbitrary basis on which to justify killing.
Whenever I enter into a discussion of abortion, the phrase I hear over and over is “a woman’s right over her body.” I couldn’t agree more that a woman has the right over her body, but I do not see what that has to do with abortion. A fetus is not part of a woman’s body. A fetus has a body of its own, with its own unique human DNA. A woman has the right to choose, but not when that choice is to kill another human being.
At this point someone usually points out that if a fetus is person and must not be harmed, then the same must be said for a man’s sperm and a woman’s eggs, which die by the thousands every day. This is false. Sperm is a part of a man’s body in the same way that blood, sweat and tears are. They have his DNA and he can do whatever he chooses with them. Likewise for a woman’s eggs. Their potential for creating life is irrelevant. We are not concerned with what could be, but rather, what is.
Therefore, taking all this into account, it is obvious that the one and only moment that a fetus becomes a human life is that of conception. When a sperm and an egg collide to create a unique life form with unique DNA, a human being is born, and from that point on any action taken towards its destruction is nothing short of murder. Any desperate justifications about rape victims or situations which endanger or, God forbid, inconvenience the life of the mother are irrelevant. The prohibition of the crime of murder takes precedence over all of these things. What if the infant would have to be put up for adoption and therefore lead an unhappy childhood? Doesn’t matter. Murder.
Maybe some of you support a woman’s right to infanticide, but I cannot.

Memorandum by Catherine Taft

2005-11-07T19:38:00.000-05:00

Memorandum

re: Political orientation
cc: Democrats, moderates, Republicans, “other”

Effective immediately:

Due to the overwhelming abundance of stereotypes surrounding Republicans, regarding what it means and entails being a Republican, we, the Republicans of America, have decided to submit and subscribe to all stereotypes put forth by non-GOP members. These include, but are not exclusive to, the following:

1. All Republicans must own at least one gun. Preferably a shotgun, 12 gauge if possible, sawed off if necessary. Wave this gun at anyone who steps on your lawn.
2. Whiskey and moonshine will be your beverages of choice, supplemented only by Budweiser (in cans) and water. The water must be tap water; no bottled, filtered, or flavored water is allowed, as this is considered ”fancy hippie and/or yuppie shit”.
3. The only pets allowed are bloodhounds, A.K.A “huntin’ dawgs”. The possession of a small and/or fluffy, generally aesthetically appealing dog is considered a serious infraction.
4. Republicans must be prejudiced against at least three of the following minority groups: homosexuals, African-Americans, Latinos, Middle-Easterners, women, or Democrats/liberals. Furthermore, none of the above minority groups are eligible to be members of the GOP.
5. Republicans must be without question brutally hostile and racist towards people from the Middle East, and upon seeing an individual who may or may not be from that part of the world, Republicans must stop, point at him or her, and shout, “ALL YOUR IRAQIS ARE BELONG TO US!!”
6. Republicans must somehow bring religion into any and every civil matter, regardless of how disconnected the tangent may be. It is expected that Republicans will use religion to back their personal beliefs by completing the following phrase whenever the opportunity presents itself: “Jesus loves/hates ______.” Furthermore, Republicans are hereby obligated to force their religion, preferably Evangelism or Catholicism, upon members of conflicting faiths.
7. Under no circumstances may a Republican endorse, or pretend to endorse a member of the Democratic, Green, or Libertarian parties.
8. The only illegal drug allowed for consumption is marijuana, and it must be home-grown and referred to as “reefer”, “dope”, or “shit”.
9. If physically possible and socially acceptable, Republicans must smoke Marlboro Reds or any unfiltered cigarette. Lights are considered “pussy” cigarettes. Under NO circumstances are Republicans allowed to smoke 100’s or “lady cigarettes”, i.e. Slims.
10. Republicans must blindly and without question support and follow every word out of the President’s mouth. Furthermore, if you are caught speaking out against any of His policies, you are immediately and without further consideration expelled indefinitely from the GOP.

However, in exchange for our submission to these stereotypes, we ask simply that Democrats and liberals agree to submit to some similar ideas. These include, but are not exclusive to:

1. All Democrats must protest absolutely everything currently in the Status Quo regardless of personal conviction, including governmental leadership, structure and policy, any current or impending military activity, and current or impending tax rates.
2. Democrats may not own a gun under any circumstances. They may own a pellet gun, paintball gun, or Super Soaker for offensive purposes only if they live in a city with a higher than average crime rate.
3. Democrats are required to demand as much from the government as humanly possible regardless of its immediate or long-term practicality and without regard for the difficulty of the attainment of these goals. This includes demanding immediate improvement in social security/health care/etc, giving women and other minorities disproportionate employment opportunities, giving middle class citizens enormous tax cuts, and awarding citizenship rights to animals.
4. Members of the left-wing political parties, including left-leaning moderates, must accept that “hippie” is an all-inclusive title referring to anyone even remotely left of center, and will be used frequently and without remorse by anyone from the opposite end of the political spectrum.
5. All liberal Democrats must smoke at least a half-ounce of marijuana a week. Conservative Democrats and moderates are excluded from this rule in its strictest sense, but are expected to have at least “experimented” for any amount of time ranging from 1-6 years. Furthermore, all liberals must own at least four pieces of marijuana-smoking paraphernalia, and they must have themed names.
6. All Democrats are required to pitch a cataclysmic fit of angst if/when their candidate of choice loses a political race for office. This includes all political offices from school board to city council to President of the United States.
7. Democrats are expressly forbidden from endorsing ANY member of the Republican party for any reason, especially in a race for office. If a family member is a Republican, that family member must be tortured, ridiculed, and eventually removed from the family if the individual refuses to change his or her political orientation.
8. Democrats are forbidden from consuming excessive amounts of alcohol, in particular the cheaper beverages such as Budweiser, Heineken, and low-grade vodka. Instead, they must consume only “pussy girl drinks” such as Smirnoff Ice. Martinis, daiquiris, and margaritas are also acceptable, but consumption of beer is too “white trash”. The only exception is privately micro-brewed ale, which must be drunk from a glass or a bottle if said beverage has been chilled. Consumption of warm beer and any alcohol from a can is strictly prohibited.
9. Democrats may not under any circumstances engage in such sports as hunting or fishing, as these are sports of brutality and murder, which goes against the Democratic Credo. If this rule is not obeyed, Republicans are free to call pro-choice lobbyists “hypocrites” and “babykillers”. Furthermore, all Democrats must never eat meat or animal byproducts, and subsist entirely on soy-based products and vegetables.
10. All members of all left-wing political sub-groups must admit fully that Ralph Nader is a freakish gnome bent on converting our country into gangs of roving cow-people.

Please note that these changes will be effective immediately, as of 0248 hrs, on Friday the 1st of November, 2005. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Catherine A. Taft
Republican

Moral Contradictions by Logan Albright

2005-11-07T19:30:00.000-05:00

A child sits on the floor, watching television. On the screen, a cartoon depicting the adventures of Robin Hood, that loveable rascal who robs from the rich and gives to the poor. The child observes the expressions of joy on the peasants’ faces and those of consternation on the comically wicked elite, and laughs.
“How wonderful!” he exclaims.
Presently, the show comes to and end and the child changes the channel. Now he sees an episode of the Twilight Zone, in which a young boy possesses godlike powers, which he uses to force his family and friends to cater to his every whim. The child observes the horror on the good people’s faces as they are cruelly forced to dance and perform puppet shows for their spoilt child. They live in constant fear of the wrath of the little tyrant.
The child wrinkles his nose in disgust.
“How horrible!” he cries.
He turns off the television and runs outside to play. He will go his whole life without realizing that the two scenarios he has just witnessed are, in fact, the same.
In both cases, an individual uses his power to take from others what does not belong to him, and then to distribute it as he sees fit. So how can we have such violently different reactions towards the two?
To answer this question, let us examine the superficial differences between these situations. Robin hood is cheerful, happy and charismatic, as are the peasants he seeks to help. His enemies are depicted as evil monsters with no regard for others. In the Twilight Zone example, the boy is selfish, uncaring and unappreciative, while his family is, on the whole, good and loving. Also, he uses his power to benefit himself, not others as does Robin Hood. But suppose the situations were reversed.
Suppose Robin Hood stole from honest, hard working people in order to give to prostitutes, drug addicts, thieves and murderers. Would we still consider him good? Suppose the boy form the Twilight Zone forced the owners of Fortune 500 companies to build houses for poor people, who could not afford them. Would we still consider him evil?
As we can see, the primary difference here is one of personality. Robin Hood is a hero because he is likeable and his enemies are not. But what lesson does this teach our children? That the morality of a particular action depends on the personality of the actor? Surely no organize system of morality has ever made such a ridiculous claim, and yet this is what is drilled into our heads at every turn.
This problem is compounded by the fact that almost everyone considers himself likeable and well-intentioned. Based on the premises above, the individual can reach only one conclusion:
“I am likeable and I mean well, therefore anything I choose to do is morally acceptable.”
Of course, no one would dare to state it so bluntly as that, but that is nevertheless the criterion under which we begin to operate. In actual thought, it may formulate itself as one of any number of ways, such as the following.
“I am hungry and I have no money, therefore it is permissible to take this loaf of bread.”
“I like music, as should everyone, therefore I may force my neighbors to donate money to the symphony.”
Or, “I feel sorry for poor people. I am therefore justified in robbing millions of people in order to build them some tenements.”
All of these statements are things that many people believe and that happen constantly in our society.
It was wrong of Billy Mumy’s character on the Twilight Zone to force his parents to put on a puppet show for him. However, forcibly taking hard earned money from the pockets of every American citizen so that Sesame Street can remain on the air is another matter entirely.

The Death Penalty Seems A Bit Mild For This Monster

2005-10-19T15:41:00.000-04:00

A chronicle of the crimes committed by Saddam Hussein, his cohorts, and his sons (currently burning in hell), this was compiled by the British gov't.

Political Media Wars by Catherine Taft

2005-10-12T09:04:00.000-04:00

America is media-centric. There is no way to dodge this fact. It would really be impossible for our existence to be anything else. We are a people obsessed with movies, music, celebrities, and gossip. Even our news is handed to us primed and primped, presented like a movie or a TV drama. It has been standard practice for decades to read the newspaper in the morning and watch it on television in the evening. Current events are discussed on Late Night shows, morning shows, daytime talk shows, cable television, and various rags and periodicals that pop up a dime a dozen in every town and city across America. We truly have the advantage of “free press”.
However, it seems that it’s become impossible to get an honest opinion. Every news source seems to have a bias one way or the other. Fox News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, NBC, The Wall Street Journal, The LA Times – all of these publications give a seriously skewed version of American goings-on that are decided by the political atmosphere from which they come. Smaller publications are even more fiercely slanted. In Boston, it’s impossible to find a single conservative word in any local periodical, less because there are no conservatives in Boston than because conservatives don’t feel like putting up with a personal lambasting. Areas with a significant party majority do not enjoy the healthy balance of political dialogue, and this winds up being a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the minority political group never really has a chance to surface.
Even more extreme than news media, where the severity of the political slant (cable aside) is often relatively localized, is the film industry, which is intertwined to a certain degree with parts of the music industry. Hollywood has become the epicenter for liberal America. Every star, every musician who has become a public figure, every media celebrity, every B-list actor has something to say about some cause in some country they’ve never been to and whose name they can’t spell. Everyone has a cause. Everyone has a pet charity. Bono has been mouthing off for years about the US, a country of which he is not even a citizen, needing to relieve foreign debt, in light of the fact that we as a country find ourselves looking down the barrel at serious financial trouble. Richard Gere even became a Buddhist. Granting pardon to Gere, who is a sincere, humble and genuine person (albeit a mediocre actor), the morose thing about it is that the majority of these celebrities don’t care a whit about the rest of the world – they go charity hopping for publicity, to appeal to liberal America, to get noticed and promote themselves. If they do care, they care from their four-story Malibu mansions inside gated communities. They care from their cell phones in their swimming pools shaped like dollar signs. How can the Democratic party let themselves be represented by people who obviously live in another tax bracket on another planet? Because those people are visible. They have social weight, and therefore they have political weight. Sure, we have Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Terminator, and we have Drew Carey, the quintessential Everyman, but who are they compared with Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and 99% of the rest of the people we shell out our $9.25 to see light up the big screen? The people who enrich our lives with their artistic finesse? Sure, Bono may be obnoxious, but he’s famous, he’s articulate, and he’s very, very loud.
Every Republican’s blood pressure raised measurably at the release of the film Fahrenheit 9/11, produced by the man every Righty loves to hate, Michael Moore. His name has become, in our community, a phrase of confusion. We don’t know whether to spit, cry or laugh. This appalling piece of work terrified each and every one of us, as we realized that it had the power to further divide America. Bush’s popularity was already waning, and Republicans were becoming concerned with the increasing noise and truculence from liberal America. This was the last thing we needed. Having all seen Bowling for Columbine, which achieved its success due to some seriously shrewd and underhanded editing tricks, we quaked in fear as we paid our eight dollars and entered the theaters, painfully torn between our curiosity and the shame of lining Moore’s already deep pockets.
Upon emerging from the theaters some two hours later, Republicans were laughing, scowling, and speechless with shock at Michael Moore’s incredible audacity. Fahrenheit 9/11 was ridiculous. Yet the audiences, which were overwhelmingly liberal, would applaud for five minutes at the end of each showing, sometimes giving the screen, a very inanimate object, a standing ovation on general principle. Republicans would tear their hair out in anger and frustration, loudly trying to make it known that Moore’s shoddy morals and clever fingers made this movie little more than a work of fiction that barely made sense, a political drama with a cute soundtrack rather than a documentary, just like his last film. Clearly they hadn’t learned anything from the widespread controversy over Moore’s drastic editing-together of two of Charlton Heston’s NRA speeches in Bowling for Columbine, wherein he made Heston look like an insensitive, trigger-happy maniac, when in fact Moore had conveniently left out the fact that due to the number of notices (over 4 million) that would have to be sent out in such a short period of time (ten days), they could not legally cancel their Michigan NRA meeting. Heston, in the “forgotten” portion of his speech, went on to say that they sincerely felt sorrow, as the nation’s oldest Civil Rights Organization, for the tragedy that had occurred in Columbine, and that it comforted them and made them proud that some of their members had been among the officers and volunteers who brought relief to the Columbine community in the wake of that awful event. That should have raised some serious red flags to Moore fans, but people refused to believe that Fahrenheit 9/11, such a well-composed symphony of humanitarian justice, could be based on lies.
America has a bad habit of turning unworthy people into media pundits, and this is exactly what happened with Michael Moore, first with Bowling For Columbine, and subsequently with Fahrenheit 9/11. The film represented nothing but supposition and hearsay, not to mention the degradation of the journalist’s code, yet people were eating it up. People were singing his praises as they started picketing and protesting against Bush, as Bush and the rest of his cabinet sat in the White House scratching their heads, wondering who the hell this fat nutjob was and why he had made all this stuff up.
A year and some change later, every Republican got a little something in his or her eye at the conception of the far more rational and tongue-in-cheek response to the flagrant misuse of celluloid that is Fahrenheit 9/11 – Michael Moore Hates America. In this documentary, Michael Wilson followed Moore’s footsteps around the country and exposed his tricks and manipulative fabrications, and more than likely made a member or two of the Academy weep with shame for presenting Moore with an undeserved Oscar for Bowling For Columbine. At last, people were allowed to speak for themselves in a legitimate format, and it seemed that even some liberals were upset at Moore’s gall for speaking for them, especially with such dishonesty.
It’s a shame that someone with such a knack for the editing block should waste his talents making grotesquely skewed quasi-fictional “docuramas”. He clearly has the intelligence and wherewithal to propose very important questions, like some of our government’s inefficient methodologies, or the appalling condition of his oft-mentioned Flint, Michigan, which is undeniably dying on its feet due to the sucking economic wound General Motors left in the wake of its withdrawl, and then allow fair national debate surrounding these topics. Instead, he became a money-hungry megalomaniac, cramming his extremist ideas down the throat of every man, woman and child in America, bent on making his final point regardless of how he makes it. And somehow he managed to separate the points he was so publicly making from his personal life. While insisting that money-grubbing politicians are the biggest drain on our society, he soaks up hundred dollar bills like a bloated, unshaven sponge, secures himself a massive residence in one of Manhattan’s richest, most exclusive boroughs, and lives like a king. And perhaps that’s fair, because he really is a king. He is absolutely, irrefutably, the unchallenged king of propaganda, at least since World War II ended.
Unfortunately, while Moore may represent an extreme and distressing symptom of this problem, he’s merely a particularly unsavory fart resulting from what has become a serious problem brewing in the bowels of America’s media industries. It has become impossible to get the straight story. We’re granted the freedom of press, but as America becomes overrun with extremists, the more eloquent of those extremists take over the major publications of the country and spout totally biased information from both sides. And unfortunately, since this media is the only channel of information we have, we are forced to receive politically filtered information. The issue then becomes not suppression or distortion of truth so much as the agitation and exacerbation of the bipartisan political divide. As the popular media becomes increasingly liberal, and conservatives are trapped in the realm of Paid Cable, more and more people are getting the message of the Evil Republican. We get blamed for poorly executed relief efforts, high gas prices, poor economy, and global warming, when in fact poor relief efforts are a result of corporations and organizations tripping over each other because of bad planning at the executive level, high gas prices are as much a result of market competition within the petroleum industry as they are a result of the rising cost of crude oil overseas, our economy fluctuates fairly regularly, and global warming is a theory, not a fact. The media is being, in a word, unfair.
The mass media as a whole has become incredibly liberal, as Republicans and conservatives are confined to cable television and the decidedly unflattering realm of talk radio, where we’re represented by such wonders of nature as Rush Limbaugh. Yet liberals are constantly denying the fact that they have the political majority in the media. Books have been written on the subject, claiming that conservatives control it because we have “friends in high places”. It need not be mentioned that all of the powers that be in the communications world are not Republican. The fact is that as Hollywood and popular culture encroach on mass media as a whole, the liberality of these industries gains the vast majority.
It brings to mind the old question of whether the media is even fundamentally capable of producing an unbiased image. A news media distributor becomes biased automatically due to any number of things – anything from the tone of the newscasters and their ad-libbed comments, to the newspaper and magazine writers and their personal spin, to the choice of stories published or broadcast, to which public figures they choose to back them up in interviews. A film or television show is viewed in a certain light depending on the message it puts forth, which is almost always liberal, but not always in a bad way, how they choose to cast it, and how they choose to market and publicize it. Politics, media, business and marketing have become utterly intertwined, and we get fed our politics intravenously through the enormous amounts of media that Americans gorge themselves on daily. Politics have become entertainment (enter Michael Moore) and entertainment has become politics (enter Ahnold), and the success of a political movement is almost completely dependent on the media coverage and representation it gets.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with a good old-fashioned media firestorm, and in some ways it’s a disguised blessing to see such brazen propagandist garbage as Fahrenheit 9/11, rather than propaganda of the sly, sneaky sort, because it immediately sets off our Bullshit Alarms and makes us consider, evaluate, and discuss what is wrong with these ideas, and what, if anything, is right about them. It was only a matter of time before our entire culture, which is in essence defined by our media, its wide availability and the freedom within that industry, became the spearhead of anything and everything, before a CD could be used as a political weapon and before actors became presidents and governors. And there’s nothing wrong with it. We live in a media-centric society. In any “civilized” country, mass media is the main method of communication, whether it’s muzzled by the government or freely utilized by the people. One of the great things about our country is that we are given free reign over our media’s output, politics and all. After all, as Tim Slagle said in Michael Moore Hates America, “If we take all the shrillness out of the debate, everyone’s going to be talking like John Kerry. Isn’t shrillness one of the colors that makes the sport so enjoyable? …If we didn’t have those kinds of people in the game, it wouldn’t be nearly so much fun, would it?” The only concern is that at some point, when Hollywood eats the world, we might not be able to tell up from down.

Read This Article By Catherine Taft!!!

2005-10-04T22:10:00.000-04:00

“Are you the Republicans?”
This question, spoken by a member of Berklee’s College Republicans group who was looking for the right room, was met with a loud barrage of shushing and comments like “Be quiet, you’ll get us shot!”
This, unfortunately, is the way most of us are living these days. It’s odd, having a seriously right-wing president and the senate majority, and still being afraid of attacks from liberals. How many of us have been in a group of people and had to laugh at some stupid ill-conceived Governator joke for the sake of diplomacy, or had to say “Yeah… Bush… fuck that guy…” while scanning our peripheral field of vision for anyone brave enough to roll their eyes in front of these crazy people. As soon as we get home we’re free to throw darts at pictures of John Kerry or mouth off on the internet, but in daily life, liberals are thirsting for our blood.
And that’s odd too, considering the spin that they put on us. According to them, we’re the bloodthirsty bigots who are standing in the way of change, impeding their progress, and preventing the birth of a newer, better, freer America. The stereotypes are so widely spread that they even confuse other Republicans, making them think that most of their peers actually ARE bigots, when in fact the reverse is true. Maybe it’s because I’m from Massachusetts, a notoriously and sometimes irritatingly liberal state, but I don’t know too many Republicans who hate all gay people, minorities and women, sleep with their guns under their pillows, and love killing things and preventing positive change. Nor do I know many liberals who are the unbiased, patient, rational, orphan-saving, kitten-loving purveyors of Democracy that they would like us to believe they are. Maybe we’re just bad at our jobs.
All things considered, it seems like the stereotypes are exactly backwards. Republicans, despite the word on the street, are not all homophobic, racist Evangelists. There are gay Republicans, minority Republicans, and even (gasp) non-Christian Republicans because nowhere in our manifesto does it say anything about having to hate other Americans, or anyone else, in order to be a member. What we stand for isn’t the impedance of progress. What we stand for is reasonability. We want progress as much as anyone else, but we recognize that progress isn’t immediate. There are things that need to be changed and things that don’t, and when something needs to be changed, it’s in America’s best interest to take it slow. You can’t change a country overnight. It’s not like switching your laundry over. Some things just aren’t practical at a given point in time, and sometimes they take longer than we’d like.
Sure, we’d love equal rights for minorities and the increase of work opportunities for women. Maybe some people wouldn’t, but maybe some people are just jerks. The problem is that liberals want it all, and they want it NOW. John Kerry didn’t have a magic wand. He was just some guy from Massachusetts with good oratorical skills and bad hair and no diplomacy who inevitably would have fouled things up as much as anyone else. Liberals have painted this picture of themselves as being the chosen people of God, Allah, Yahweh, Buddha, Confucius, and whomever else they can nod to in a farcical attempt at mass appeal, as if the divine powers that be had invested in them the ability to change the world instantaneously into a wonderful, happy dreamland where Osama Bin Laden heaves a big sigh, puts down his guns, crawls out of his rat-hole and says, “Yeah, I guess you guys were right. I’m just a big old misguided creep. I sure am sorry about killing all those people. I wish I could take that one back! Ha ha!” Then he’d go shake hands with Howard Dean and have a nice carb-free vegetarian lunch. Gosh, if only we’d all voted for Kerry instead.
But see, the world doesn’t work like that. There is no button to push that will make everyone love their neighbors. We can’t give everyone everything they want. We have to meet somewhere in the middle. And yet the liberals have an itemized agenda, filled with goodies like “pro-choice”, “gay marriage”, “advancement of women and minorities”, “no war”, yadda yadda. These are all important issues, and within the Republican community there are widely varying degrees of support and opposition to each of them. The thing that liberals don’t realize, or don’t acknowledge, is that while it would be nice to give everyone everything they wanted, it isn’t possible. People have opinions, and opinions are a result of culture and upbringing. Unfortunately, you can’t go up to a racist and say, “Stop hating black people, it’s just skin pigment,” when that person was raised to believe in white supremacy. Unfortunately, you can’t go up to a fundamentalist who believes that homosexuality is wrong and say, “Stop hating gay people, it’s just love,” when they’re convinced that this particular brand of love is morally repugnant. Unfortunately, you can’t go up to the leader of a terrorist cell and politely request that he stop waging war on people just because their beliefs are different. We still live in a world where countries solve disputes by behaving like poorly disciplined toddlers – yelling and screaming at each other and calling names, and eventually resorting to physical violence. In that same world, there are people who still discriminate against people because of their sexual preference, race, or gender. These are deep-seated ideas that put down roots a long time ago and have taken hold. While it’s a nice thought that someday people won’t be so incredibly trite and immature, you can’t just flip it off like a light switch. Progress, at least the good kind, is slow.
How, then, if these are standard American problems, did they come to be considered Republican problems? Because we realize the need to take it slow. The Democratic Party has nicely turned that around and made it look like we are resisting change, and they shout this at the top of their lungs at every opportunity. The media has become overwhelmingly liberal, with only a few noteworthy exceptions (thank you, Fox), and through this channel they’ve really put it out there that Republicans are scumbags. But we know we’re not scumbags, and they’re certainly not going to convince us otherwise, so who do they think they’re convincing? Moderates and the politically apathetic. They’re trying to convince the unconvinced so that they can get the upper hand. That sounds remarkably like the conniving attitude that they pin on us.
It’s important to note the difference between “liberal” and “Democrat”, as well as the difference between “conservative” and “Republican.” While Republicans generally only really loathe liberals, liberals seem to hate anyone who wears red, let alone conservatives. I think the problem is mostly a lack of maturity. At the Democratic National Convention, we picketed politely in the designated protest area, as they flooded my neighborhood and the streets of Boston Proper with propaganda and assholes. I received nasty comments just for wearing a US Air Force shirt. At the Republican National Convention, we filed into the convention center and had a good time, as they blocked city traffic outside and rolled around in piles of Monopoly money on the ground. They nearly killed a police officer who tried to break up their riots. They were beating him into the ground. He was black.
The problem runs much deeper than bipartisan sniping. The stereotypes and bickering are just a symptom this deep immaturity that plagues our political system, not the problem in and of itself. Unfortunately, the public faces of both our parties are often unpleasant people, and these stereotypes actually apply to many of them, as horrifying as that is. The real people are the ones beneath the figurehead and beneath the stupid stereotypes. The Good Old Boys are exactly that – old boys. The younger generation of Republicans is quite different. We know that not all Dems are idiots. We might even admit, with some trepidation, that not all liberals are idiots. However, we would appreciate the same courtesy from the opposition. People are far more complicated than stereotypes.

The Pledge of Allegiance?

2005-09-16T20:09:00.000-04:00

Hi guys, I thought I might give you something to look over until our first meeting. I know this has been a big topic for sometime now, I just thought you all should read it.

Have a great weekend,

Freddie

First College Republicans Meeting Fall '05!!!!!

2005-09-15T23:02:00.000-04:00

Welcome Back!

Hope everyone had a great summer. We have some great events planned for the semester. We're planning to have our first CR meeting this coming Wednesday (9/21). It will be a laid back meeting where we can discuss the direction of the group and get to know each other better. We are planning to meet at 6pm. The location of the meeting will be posted shortly.

Hope to see all of you there!

CR Leadership Team

P.S. The club expo is being held next Wednesday night (9/21) in the Cafe at 9.30pm. Please come out and support the group!

.. till then, keep it right ..

in honor of our brave troops - past, present, future...

2005-05-28T10:36:00.000-04:00

How NOT To Be Poor

2005-05-11T14:18:00.000-04:00

Just because it's summer doesn't mean the intellectual wheels stop turning. Walter Williams reveals once again that poverty in the black community is not a civil rights issue, but one of behavior, of individual responibility.

Sure it's a tough subject to talk about, but it shouldn't be. No one ever got stronger or improved his position in life by doing the same things he's always done. We should all take this information to heart, as it ably demonstrates that poverty can happen to anyone who makes blatantly irresponsible life choices. (y'know... children out of wedlock... crime... irresponsible work habits... really tough things to avoid)

Look, can't people just come to grips with the fact that you can't just do whatever you want and expect to be supported? If you want to go around shooting people because they showed you disrespect, no one's going to pay you, and that's true for anyone of any race. If you're going to run around making babies and leaving them fatherless and their mothers husband-less, that is not a lifestyle the government should be in the business of subsidizing.

We have an unfortunate habit in our country/culture of excusing people's bad decisions because we're not supposed to be in the business of judging people. You're okay, I'm okay, everyone's okay. If you do something wrong, it's probably the rules that need fixing, not you. And if it's you that needs fixing, well, we'll coddle your ego and tell you it was probably because someone else, somewhere else, victimized you long ago, and that you can't be expected to rise above it.

WRONG.

Look, when I make my way into the real world, and I'm trying to support a family, my family will suffer if I decide to leave my job to find myself. They'll suffer dearly if I decide that my boss deserves to die and I go out and expedite the process. My actions will affect more than just myself, and my inability to cope, my inability to manage my emotions, my inability to accept responsibility is not something anyone should feel sorry for, nor, by extension, subsidize.

Similarly, I don't expect that my hard-earned money, which will go toward feeding and providing for my family, will be in part claimed by the government for the purpose of subsidizing the poor life choices of other people who weren't able to cope.

Read Walter Williams, not me. Click the link, and be enlightened. Again.

New Officers

2005-04-25T09:24:00.000-04:00

I hope that when you see them around, you will all congratulate your new officers for the 2005-2006 school year:

Co-President Jordan Warwood
Co-President Freddie Smith
Vice President Marvin Khoo
Secretary Rob Massoud
Treasurer Josh "Bones" Theriot

It will no doubt be an exciting year for the CR's. It has been an honor serving you, and getting this group up and running. Many thanks also to Ian Lindsey, our departing VP, and to Jess Wolfe and Jordan Warwood, for helping carry this thing through its infancy. I am looking forward to fighting the good fight with all of you, under the leadership of these noble men.

Best,

-James

some good advice "Summer De-Programming"

2005-04-15T10:38:00.000-04:00

Thomas Sowell is wonderful!
I have had this article for a while, but I thought since summer is coming quickly, I should send his reading suggestions...

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

2005-04-15T10:28:00.000-04:00

for those who believe bush lied and that there are no weapons of mass destruction...

� "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
� develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
� That is our bottom line."
�- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

� "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is �
� clear. �We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's �
� weapons of mass destruction program."
� - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

� "Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a
� �great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use �
� �nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
� �greatest security threat we face."
� - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

� "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten �
� times since 1983."
� - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, �
� � 18, 1998

� "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
� the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
� appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
� effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
� mass destruction programs."
� - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl
� � Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others
� � Oct. 9, 1998

� "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
� �mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the
� �region and he �has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
� � process."
� - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

� "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
� �mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
� - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State,
� � �Nov. 10, 1999

� "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his \ � �
� �weapons programs. �Reports indicate that biological, chemical and
� �nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
� �status. �In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems
� �and is doubtless using the cover of alicit missile program to develop
� �longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
� �allies."
� - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob
� � Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

� "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
� �a threat to the peace and stability of the region. �He has ignored the
� mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
� �destruction and the means of delivering them."
� - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

� "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
� weapons throughout his country."
�- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

� "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
� to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
� Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

� "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
� developing weapons of mass destruction."
� - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

� "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. �We are
� confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
� biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
� to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. �Intelligence
� reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
� - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

� "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
� authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
� because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass � �
� destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
� - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

� "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
� aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
� weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we
� �have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
� development of weapons of mass destruction."
� - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

� "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
� every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
� destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear
� capacity. �This he has �refused to do" �Rep.
� - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

� "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
� that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
� weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. �
� He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
� Qaeda members
� .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
� continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
� warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
�- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

� "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
� Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
� capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
� destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

� "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. �He is a brutal,
� murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
� particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
� miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
� his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
� destruction
� ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction
� is real..."
� - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

� SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE �NEVER WERE ANY
�WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???
� �

Ronnie Reagan

2005-04-15T10:26:00.000-04:00

just for fun...

Ronald Reagan, a former Democrat, said:

"Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they
lose."

"The most terrifying words in the English language
are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that
they're ignorant: It's just that they know so
much that isn't so."

"Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about
because the U.S. was too strong."

"I have wondered at times about what the Ten
Commandment's would have looked like if Moses had
run them through the U.S. Congress."

"The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the
federal government but doesn't have to take the
civil service examination."

"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with
a big appetite at one end and no sense of
responsibility at the other."

"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God,
then we will be a nation gone under."

"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see
on this earth is a government program."

"I've laid down the law, though, to everyone from
now on about anything that happens: no matter what
time it is, wake me. even if it's in the middle of
a Cabinet meeting."

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest
profession. I have learned that it bears a striking
resemblance to the first."

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up
in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it
keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving,
subsidize it."

"Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed
there are many rewards. If you disgrace yourself you
can always write a book."

what senator john glenn said

2005-04-15T10:22:00.000-04:00

WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID:

Things that make you think a little........

1. There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during January.... In the
fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month�of January.� That's
just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of
Iraq�.�

2. When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the
following:
�� a. FDR...led us into World War II.
�� b. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
�� From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an� average of 112,500 per
year.
�� c. Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea.� North Korea never
attacked us.
�� From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
�� d. John F. Kennedy. ..started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never
attacked us.
�� e. Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
�� From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
�� f. Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia
never attacked us.
�� He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by
Sudan and did nothing Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
�� g. In the years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated
two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled�al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors
in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist
who�slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...It took
less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian
compound. That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than
it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the
Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
Oldsmobile sank at Chapaquiddick

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high!� The
biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

But� Wait, there's more......................

JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for
a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard
Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu
speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and
women in the armed services do what they do for a living.

This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served
think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn): "How can you run for Senate
when you've never held a real job?"
Senator Glenn (D-Ohio): "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps.
I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by
anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the� space program.� It
wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It� was not a
nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the
bank."

"I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day... to a veteran's
hospital and look those men - with their mangled bodies - in the eye, and tell
THEM they didn't hold a job! You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and
go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and
Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their
DADS didn't hold a job. You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in
Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to
remember, and you watch those waving flags.
You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those
people didn't have a job? I'll tell you,��Howard Metzenbaum; you should be on
your knees every day of your life thanking God that there were some men
-��SOME MEN - who held REAL jobs. And they required a dedication to a purpose
- and a love of country and a dedication to duty - that was more important
than life itself. And their self-sacrifice is what made this country
possible.� I HAVE held a job, Howard! What about you?"

For those who don't remember - During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an
attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA.�� Now he's a Senator!

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English thank
a Veteran. It might not be a bad idea to keep this circulating....

How to win an argument with a liberal

2005-04-15T10:20:00.000-04:00

this is interesting... i wouldnt take all of the advice, but it gets you thinkin... :)

Youth Group backs ROTC on campus

2005-04-15T10:14:00.000-04:00

The "Nuclear Option"

2005-04-08T14:34:00.000-04:00

Here's a column from today's TownHall.com by David Limbaugh. He calls on the GOP to develop a spine for once and stand up to Democrats who are threatening to filibuster Bush's judicial appointments. It's about time.

The purpose-driven left by Ann Coulter

2005-04-07T10:41:00.000-04:00

Enough Said.

Ian

Hanoi Jane rides again

2005-04-06T14:15:00.000-04:00

I would recommend that you all read this one as well, If you don't know what this treasonous bitch did during vietnam, you should. I would also recommend that you buy the book on this page "Aid and Comfort". The truth must come out and action must be taken, when Americans become traitors!

The Constitution of the United States, Article III Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

You tell me if she is a traitor...

Ian

Confessions of a Politically Incorrect Professor

2005-04-06T13:40:00.000-04:00

This is a great article that was written by an anonymous professer from Europe that currently teaches in America. Check it out!

Ian

Jihad Jane and the Jews

2005-04-05T12:25:00.000-04:00

Hey everyone,
This article does not need any commentary. I would recommend that you all read it, Mike adams is a genius and this is one article that has not been posted on his normal columns list. Check it out!

Ian

Reform Social Security!

2005-04-04T11:51:00.000-04:00

Click the link above to sign a student petition asking senators to work with President Bush to reform social security!

Every day we don't pass Personal Retirement Accounts is another day's compound interest you and I don't see when we retire. Let's get it done!

-=j=-

S T O P T H E P R E S S E S

2005-03-31T22:09:00.000-05:00

Kristol assaulted with a pie, Coulter shouted down
Posted on Wednesday, Mar 30, 2005
By Stephen Klugewicz

Ahhh, liberals on our college campuses continue to teach us backward, mean, intolerant, dog-kicking, Neanderthal conservatives about the virtues of tolerance. Two examples of their gentle instruction occurred last night. A student at Earlham College in Indiana hit Weekly Standard editor William Kristol in the face with an ice cream pie last night as Kristol was in the middle of a speech. Earlham is a Quaker institution, but it seems that the religious sect's pacifist teachings aren't reaching everyone in the student body.

On the same night, at Kansas University, conservative columnist Ann Coulter was shouted down as she addressed an audience of 1,800 students. Unable to be heard, Coulter called on sympathizers in the audience to escort the hecklers out of the room: "Could 10 of the largest College Republicans start walking up and down the aisles and start removing anyone shouting?" Several conservatives in the audience responded and confronted the hecklers, but it was not until two police officers finally showed up and removed six troublemakers that Coulter was able to finish her speech.

There will always be a need for the Collegiate Network!

Giving George W. Bush His Due

2005-03-31T22:07:00.000-05:00

Rather than implore each of you to sign up for The New Republic's mailing list (a worthwhile endeavor, to be sure, for those who are interested), I'm copying the entire text of this article here--another important and thoughtful article from a center-left point of view on the accomplishments of the Bush administration.

Martin Peretz is the columnist and deserves much praise for his refinement and objectivity in the construction of this piece. Far from being a rah-rah right wing bandwagon missive, Peretz eventually reveals his more cynical feelings on the topic mixed in with the optimistic bits, which makes the article itself much more honest and authentic. Would that columnists on all sides of these issues might exercise such exquisite evenhandedness in their discussions.

Enjoy.

-=j=-

---

GIVING GEORGE W. BUSH HIS DUE ON DEMOCRACY.
The Politics of Churlishness
by Martin Peretz

Post date 03.31.05 | Issue date 04.11.05

If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others. He pursued his goal obstinately, they would say, without filtering his thoughts through the medical research establishment. And he didn't share his research with competing labs and thus caused resentment among other scientists who didn't have the resources or the bold--perhaps even somewhat reckless--instincts to pursue the task as he did. And he completely ignored the World Health Organization, showing his contempt for international institutions. Anyway, a cure for cancer is all fine and nice, but what about AIDS?

No, the president has not discovered a cure for cancer. But there is a pathology, a historical pathology, that he has attacked with unprecedented vigor and with unprecedented success. I refer, of course, to the political culture of the Middle East, which the president may actually have changed. And he has accomplished this genuinely momentous transformation in ways that virtually the entire foreign affairs clerisy--the cold-blooded Brent Scowcroft realist Republicans and almost all the Democrats--never thought possible. Or, perhaps, in ways some of them thought positively undesirable. Bush, it now seems safe to say, is one of the great surprises in modern U.S. history. Nothing about his past suggested that he harbored these ideals nor the qualities of character required for their realization. Right up to the moment Bush became president, I was convinced that his mind, at least on matters Levantine, belonged to his father and to James Baker III, whose worldview seemed to be defined by the pecuniary prejudice of oil and Texas: Keep the ruling Arabs happy. But I was wrong, and, in light of what has already been achieved in the Middle East, I am glad to say so. Most American liberals, alas, enjoy no similar gladness. They are not exactly pleased by the positive results of Bush's campaign in the Middle East. They deny and resent and begrudge and snipe. They are trapped in the politics of churlishness.

The achievements of Bush's foreign policy abroad represent a revolution in the foreign policy culture at home. The traditional Republican mentality that was so perfectly and meanly represented by Bush père and Baker precluded the United States from pressing the Arabs about reform--about anything--for decades. Not Iraq about its tyranny and its record of genocide, not Syria about its military occupation of Lebanon and its own brutal Baathist dictatorship, not Egypt about loosening the crippling bonds of a statist economy and an authoritarian political system, not Saudi Arabia about its championing of the Wahhabi extremism that made its own country so desiccated and the world so dangerous, and certainly not the Palestinians about the fantasy that they had won all the wars that they had actually lost and were therefore entitled to the full rewards due them from their victories. This was the state of U.S.-Arab relations in 2001: The United States was actually more frightened of the Arabs than they were of us. The extraordinary report of the 9/11 Commission about the delinquent reactions to the decade-long lead-up to the catastrophe of September 11 only confirms this impression of official U.S. pusillanimity.

The Clinton administration seized on every possible excuse--from the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, right through the atrocities in Kenya and Tanzania, to the attack on the USS Cole--not to respond meaningfully to Osama bin Laden. This aggressively dilatory approach was set early on, when Bill Clinton's first secretary of state, dead-man-walking Warren Christopher, proposed that a special bureau be set up to deal with drugs, crime, and terrorism in a single office, as if terrorism is a problem for policemen and not for strategists. The 9/11 Commission Report records that only congressional opposition aborted Christopher's concoction. Attorney General Janet Reno always worried about retaliation against any moves by the United States; Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, preoccupied with her "push for a peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis," was concerned that military strikes against the bin Laden operations in Afghanistan would strengthen the Taliban; National Security Adviser Sandy Berger fretted that a shoot-out might be seen as an assassination, and, always the trade lawyer, he consistently held out hope that some sort of carrot would turn the Taliban against bin Laden; General Anthony Zinni was more concerned about human rights abuses by the Taliban than by its hospitality to Al Qaeda and worried also that a mosque might be damaged in the course of bombing operations; Pentagon officials warned that a missile aimed at bin Laden might kill a visiting Emirati prince instead (but why was a UAE prince hanging out with bin Laden anyway?); and CIA Director George Tenet had so many objections to decisive action that it would be nearly impossible to enumerate them.

Clinton, it is true, resolved to eliminate bin Laden, but soon he eliminated his desire to eliminate him. The Clinton administration's true desire was to arrest bin Laden, to indict him, and to put him on trial--to "bring him to justice," as these men and women pompously exhorted each other. Except Berger also feared that bin Laden would be acquitted in a U.S. court of law. CIA personnel trying to cut a deal with the Northern Alliance to capture bin Laden warned that, if the Afghan "tribals"--that's the orientalism of liberals--did not bring him in alive but, heaven forbid, actually killed him, they would not be paid for their labors. The charismatic leader of the Afghan opposition and our best contact with it, Ahmed Shah Massoud, who was assassinated two days before September 11, thought he was dealing with madmen.

The new Bush presidency also found it hard to wrap its hands around the Al Qaeda phenomenon and preferred to focus instead on Star Wars redivivus--until, of course, a catastrophe in Lower Manhattan concentrated its mind. What the Bush administration gradually came to realize was that fighting the Muslim terrorist international could not be done in a vacuum. If the Islamic and Arab orbits were to continue to revolve around sanguinary tyrannies, there would be no popular basis in civil society to rob the cult of suicidal murder of its prestige. So, rather than being a distraction from the struggle against the armed rage suffusing these at once taut and eruptive polities, confronting their governments was actually intrinsic to that struggle. The Bush administration recognized that removing the effect means removing the cause. The 9/11 Commission seems to have grasped this, too, at least in its citations of Richard Clarke's assertion that bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Baath could be natural allies.

History has never traveled in the Middle East as fast as it has during the last two years. In this place where time seems to have stopped, time has suddenly accelerated. It may be true (more likely, it is not) that a deep yearning for democracy has been latent throughout the region for a long time. There certainly was a basis in reality for skepticism about the Arabs' hospitability to the opening of their societies. Whatever the proper historical and cultural analysis of the past, however, the fact is that democracy did not begin even to breathe until the small coalition of Western nations led by the United States destroyed the most ruthless dictatorship in the area.

Democracy in Mesopotamia? A fantasy, surely. But not quite. Iraq was, despite its unbelievably bloody history, a rather sophisticated place. During the nineteenth century, many Baghdadis went abroad to study. Modern nationalism sank some roots. Baghdad itself had a plurality of Jews, learned and mercantile, until they fled to the new state of Israel. An ancient minority of Christians survived into the age of Sunni pogroms and survives--though in lesser numbers--still. The Kurds grew relatively tolerant in the areas they dominated. And the majority Shia, though viciously persecuted from the founding of the Iraqi state after World War I--with the not-so-passive consent of the British colonials--and condemned to near-genocide by Saddam's revolutionary republic, have generally maintained the restraint that piety sometimes allows. After a year and a half of nearly daily Sunni bloodletting among them, the Shia have not wreaked the vengeance they surely could and, equally as surely, some of them long to take.

The U.S. liberation-occupation has now tried to cobble together these diverging Iraqis into the beginnings of a democratic regime. Wonder of wonders, these estranged cousins have shown some talent in the art of compromise; and trying to make this polity work is hardly an effort undertaken without courage. The judge who was killed with his son outside his home on his way to work at the tribunal that will try Saddam knew that danger stalked him, and so did the rest of the victims of Sunni bloodlust. This bloodlust evokes an unmistakable but macabre schadenfreude among many critics of the war, who want nothing of history except to be proved right. It is as if suicide bombings and other sorts of helter-skelter murder were a just judgment on the wrongdoings--yes, there have been wrongdoings, some of them really disgusting--of the Bush administration. And, even if ridding western Asia of Saddam is reluctantly accepted as justified, what blogger couldn't have accomplished what came after more deftly?

In any case, this churlish orthodoxy tells us that the Sunnis need to be enticed into the political game lest it be deemed illegitimate. In this scenario, it is the murderers who withhold or bestow moral authority. John F. Burns, the defiantly honest New York Times journalist in Baghdad, who has consistently reported the ambiguous and truly tangled realities of the war, now sees the Baathist and Sunni warriors in retreat, if not actually beaten. What will probably happen in Iraq is a version of what endured for decades in Lebanon: a representative government rooted in sect--argumentative, perhaps even corrupt, but functioning. Lebanon was never perfect, but it worked reasonably well, until the aggressive Palestinian guests took to commanding Shia turf to establish a "state within a state." (This was a phenomenon that the nimble Thomas L. Friedman did not much report on in the first leg of his journey From Beirut to Jerusalem, confiding that fear for his life and livelihood kept him from deviating too far from the Palestinian story as they wanted it told. Eason Jordan avant la lettre.)

The fine fruits of the Bush administration's indifference to international opinion may be seen now in Lebanon, too. What is happening there is the most concrete intra-Arab consequence of the Iraq war. Nothing could be done in Lebanon without Syria's sanction, no government decision without the approval of Damascus, no business without a hefty Damascene percentage. Syrian troops and spies were everywhere. Lebanese of all sects and clans have been restive for years. But they lived in the fearful memory of their mad civil war, the civil war of the daily car bombs in the marketplace. Suddenly, the elections in Iraq, Bush's main achievement there, exhilarating and inspiring, sprung loose the psychological impediments that shackled the Lebanese to Syria. Even if the outcomes will not be exactly the same, this was Prague and Berlin at the end of the long subjugation to their neighbor to the east. More immediately, this was Kiev only a few months ago. The first mass protest against the Syrians and their satrap prime minister drew tens of thousands. Then there was the much larger crowd of pro-Syria Shia from the south, a disconcerting moment. But, after that, a multitude so huge that it defied counting, and so diverse. This was the true cedar revolution, a revolution of the young, for independence, for freedom from the failing but always brutal Damascus regime next door. Will Vladimir Putin be so stupid as to invest credit and arms in the stiff and callow son of Hafez Al Assad?

None of this happened by spontaneous generation. Yes, there were lucky breaks: Yasir Arafat died, Syria conspired somehow to have former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri assassinated. And yes, the new directions are young, and the autocratic-theocratic political culture of the Middle East is old, and it is once again too early to proclaim that the mission has been accomplished. As the ancient Israelite king observed, let he who girds his harness not boast as he who takes it off. But the mission is nonetheless real, and far along, and it is showing thrilling accomplishments. It is simply stupid, empirically and philosophically, to deny that all or any of this would have happened without the deeply unpopular but historically grand initiative of Bush. The hundreds of thousands of young people in Martyrs' Square knew that they had Bush's backing. The president seems even to have enticed Jacques Chirac into a more active policy toward Lebanon: For him, too, Syria had to go. If this satisfies Chirac's yearning for la gloire, so be it. (But it will not be so easy to maintain such alliances: Already, Security Council members are said to be working up plans to put the future of Lebanon under the protective care of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, when nothing in unifil's past--nothing--should provide confidence that it is able, or even disposed, to act decisively against Arab brutality.)

What is occurring in Saudi Arabia and Egypt is also heartening, if more than a bit tentative. Under pressure from the Bush administration, the Saudis have allowed the first local elections in the country's history: an election to bodies that cannot make big decisions, and an election limited to male voters, naturally. But infidels (that is, Shia) may also vote. By Saudi standards, this is the revolution of 1848. In Egypt, responding to the insistence of the Bush people, President Hosni Mubarak has allowed that he will permit opponents to run in the presidential elections against him. Mubarak has no chance of losing ... this time. Maybe, however, the son will not be the father's inevitable successor, and maybe the Arab custom of turning dictatorships into dynasties will also come to an end, at least in Cairo. And, in the brave figure of Ayman Nour, the world now has a hero of the anti-Mubarak forces to celebrate and to support. In both countries, to be sure, what we are seeing are the bare beginnings of a democratic process, the very bare beginnings. It will be years, maybe decades, before these become democratic polities. And there is always the chance--as was the case in Algeria, once the jewel in the shabby crown of the "nonaligned"--that the vox populi will vote wrong. In the Algerian instance, it had to vote wrong: The choice was between national fascists and pious fascists. Take your pick.

So the situation is certainly complex. But complexity is not a warrant for despair. The significant fact is that Bush's obsession with the democratization of the region is working. Have Democrats begun to wonder how it came to pass that this noble cause became the work of Republicans? They should wonder if they care to regain power. They should recall that Clinton (and the sanctimonious Jimmy Carter even more so) had absolutely no interest in trying to modify the harsh political character of the Arab world. What they aspired to do was to mollify the dictators--to prefer the furthering of the peace process to the furthering of the conditions that make peace possible. The Democrats were the ones who were always elevating Arafat. He was at the very center of their road map. After he stalked out of a meeting room in Paris during cease-fire talks in late 2000, Albright actually ran in breathless pursuit to lure him back. It was the Democrats who perpetuated Arafat's demonic sway over the Palestinians, and it was the Democrats who sustained him among the other Arabs. And so the cause of Arab democracy was left for the Republicans to pursue. After September 11, the cause became a matter also of U.S. national security.

The great diversion from the real politics of the Arab countries, and from the prospect of political reform, was the Palestinian grievance against Israel. In the early years of their conflict with the Zionists, the Palestinians thought that these countries would fight their battles for them, at the negotiating table and on the battlefield, which they did. But what happened in reality was that the various Arabs exploited the Palestinians as pawns in their own ambitions to pick off pieces of Palestine for themselves. That is why there was no Palestinian state in the West Bank or Gaza after the armistice of 1949, as one might have expected from the Partition Plan of 1947. The West Bank was annexed to Jordan. Gaza was not annexed but administratively attached to Egypt. Syria's armies won no decisive battles against the Jews; otherwise, they also would have taken a piece of Palestine. In any event, until the Six Days War, the Palestinian groan against the Jews was focused on the very existence of Israel within narrow and perilous borders, without strategic depth, without old Jerusalem, without the West Bank, without Gaza.

And Arab governments deflected the ample internal plaints of their own peoples with mobilized hysteria against the Jews. Every domestic grievance was dispersed with rousing rhetoric against Israel. The sun of Gamal Abdel Nasser rose and set with Cairo's failures in its wars with Israel. Hatred of the Zionists levitated the Baath dictatorships of both Iraq and Syria. In the end, after five wars and two intifadas, the Palestinians still seethed. But it had all come to nothing. And, finally, the angel of death unilaterally attacked Arafat. Bush had had the good sense to pay no attention to him, despite the urgent imprecations of the usual apologists: the European Union, the United Nations, France, Russia, and the editorial page of the Times. Had Bush made even a single accommodation to Arafat, Arafat's way in the world would have been enshrined in Palestinian lore for yet another generation as the only way.

But Bush didn't, and Ariel Sharon didn't, either. Now that there is some real hope among both Israelis and Palestinians about the future, let us examine the reasons for it. The first is that Bush made no gestures to the hyperbolic fantasies of Palestinian politics. He gave them one dose of reality after another. The second is that he gave Israel the confidence that he would not trade its security for anything--which means that Israel is now willing to cede much on its own. (Israeli dovishness for American hawkishness: This was always the only way.) The third is that Bush is holding Sharon to his commitments, and everyone who is at all rational on these issues now sees the Israeli prime minister as a man of his word and a man of history. After all, Sharon has broken with much of his own political party. Not for nothing is he now the designated assassination target of the Israeli hard right. Still, holding Sharon to his word also means holding Mahmoud Abbas to his. So far, the record is mixed. The serious shutting down of the terrorist militias has not yet begun, but the Palestinian Authority did run reasonably free local elections, and they were not accompanied by killing. It is true that Hamas won more of these races than makes either Sharon or Abbas comfortable, and its strength may even increase in the coming parliamentary voting. But this, too, is a part of the gamble of democracy; and, to the extent that the Palestinians are taking this gamble and following the newest fashion among the other Arabs, it is a tribute to the inked purple fingers of Iraq, which is to say, a tribute to Bush and his simplistic but effective trust in the polling place.

It has been heartening, in recent months, to watch some Democratic senators searching for ways out of the politics of churlishness. Some liberals appear to have understood that history is moving swiftly and in a good direction, and that history has no time for their old and mistaken suspicion of American power in the service of American values. One does not have to admire a lot about George W. Bush to admire what he has so far wrought. One need only be a thoughtful American with an interest in proliferating liberalism around the world. And, if liberals are unwilling to proliferate liberalism, then conservatives will. Rarely has there been a sweeter irony.

Martin Peretz is editor-in-chief of TNR.

Reverend Sues Democratic Party for Past Racist Actions

2005-03-29T00:37:00.000-05:00

Hey, all,

Here's a great article about a great man whose work I have just recently discovered (if anyone wants to borrow his book, Unfounded Loyalty, you're welcome to it). Rev. Perryman is insisting that the Democratic Party pay reparations to blacks for decades of injustice. For those who think that Democrats have a better civil rights record than Republicans, think again.

Great stuff!

Jordan

'Rejecting Ideological Tyranny' by Janice Shaw Crouse, PhD

2005-03-26T14:38:00.000-05:00

Hey ladies and Gents,
This is a really great article, everyone should read it. It talks about Dr. Summers at Harvard and the Radical Feminists that are trying to take over that institution. Definitely worth the time, see you all next week.

Ian

Starved for justice by Ann Coulter

2005-03-24T11:40:00.000-05:00

Here is an article that is worth reading. If you feel that Terri Schivo should be allowed to die, you must read this article. I would bet money that it will change your mind! This is a sad case that comes down to a greedy, cheating, murdering husband, that only cares about what is best for him. PLEASE READ and check out her website when your done.

http://www.terrisfight.net/

Ian

PS: I was one that believed she should be allowed to die until I learned the true story.

If You Were a Democrat

2005-03-19T20:42:00.000-05:00

Hey everyone,
As you might have noticed their are a lot of new posts, mostly because I went nowhere over break, so to say the least I had a lot of free time. Anyway, This article is from the Weekly Standard which as most of you know is one of the best publications out today. The editorial above is mostly about judicial nominees, and is one of the best I have read so far. This is a MUST READ! I hope that you will all take the time to read all these new posts as you start to return from your week long break! Hope to see you all on Thursday!

Ian

MTV keeps on rockin'

2005-03-19T12:42:00.000-05:00

Hey,
This is a really interesting article about MTV and the Influence it is having on our youth! The lady that wrote it is the Vice President of the Heritage Foundation! It is a definite must read! See you all on thursday!

Ian

Lawrence Summers and the left's thought gulag

2005-03-18T10:55:00.000-05:00

CR's,
This is a great article about President Summers at Harvard University! I would recommend that you all read this, and all the posts! Hope your break is going great and hope to see you all at the meeting on Thursday! Have a great friday!!

Ian

Democrats threaten shutdown

2005-03-16T13:05:00.000-05:00

Here is a good article about the judicial nominees and the fillibuster that the dems are supporting. It is a good read!

Ian

Moonbats on parade by Michelle Malkin

2005-03-16T10:33:00.000-05:00

Hey everyone,
Here is a good article by Michelle M. Anyone that does not know her should check out her website/blog at www.michellemalkin.com Also, this article might be a good one for some protest warrior action! Give it a read and let us know what you think about maybe joining these loonies for some protesting of our own! Enjoy the rest of your break!

Ian

Democrats are out of gas

2005-03-15T11:55:00.000-05:00

Hey CR's, I hope you are all enjoying your breaks! This is a pretty article about where the dems think they are going. You all should check it out!

Ian

Liberal feeling vs. Judeo-Christian values

2005-03-12T01:20:00.000-05:00

Hey everyone,
I hope you are all enjoying your vacations thus far! Most of you have already had to opportunity to read this article but for those of you that have not, you should! It is a wonderful article that makes a lot of sense! Hope you all take the time to read and ponder! See you all soon, and check back for more postings throughout break!

Ian

Come Back, Liberals!

2005-03-10T10:30:00.000-05:00

This article is great! Ann is her usual self and defiantly worth reading!

Ian

Those of you that don't check out Townhall.com on a regular basis are missing out. There are so many great colums on this website, you should definatly make it a regualr stop!

Have a great break!! We'll see you all after break at the next meeting!

An Important Message About Tolerance and Compassion

2005-03-09T13:47:00.000-05:00

For those among us who practice the Christian faith, it is often difficult to know how tolerant we can be in our daily lives, and further, how tolerant the government should be of certain types of sinners.

Many of us have close friends who are gay, and issues pertaining to "gay rights" present a trying internal struggle.

This article is a review of a book that appears to be a new discussion of how Christians can balance their faith and their friendships with perceived sinners.

The book is called "Loving Homosexuals As Jesus Would," and discusses as its major thesis the suggestion that we should, as Jesus did, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Though some among you may disagree with the book's approach, it is always good to inform your opinion from every angle to test its veracity. Personally, I found the aritcle interesting and thought maybe some of you who are practicing Christians might find the thoughts contained within useful.

As the columnist himself said, "It's time for many Christians to temporarily set aside the books on how to oppose homosexuals politically, and pick up one on how to love them personally."

Have a great break, all. Stay safe, and we'll see you back on the Thursday following break.

-=j=-

Article written by Matt Smalls (Fellow Berklee CR)

2005-03-07T18:00:00.000-05:00

I would just like to encourage you all to read this article and then comment on it. Whether you agree or disagree I am sure Matt would love feed back on his writings. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment!

saácred (adj.)
1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory
of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices

First off, whatever I may think about homosexuality is not absolute, and I try to not judge people based on what I view as correct and incorrect. While I personally am not homosexual, I have many friends who are, and they are wonderful people, so I can't say that it's this horrid thing that many people with similar beliefs make it out to be. I do believe in the Bible, and I believe that homosexuality is not what God intended as far as sex is concerned, but in the end, people have freedom of choice and can do whatever they choose to.

I am against gay Marriage, because to place those two words together is a bit of an oxymoron. Rather like giant shrimp. To be pro-gay Marriage, in my eyes, is to suppose that you have some control over what Marriage is. But the problem with that logic is that Marriage was not created in America. In fact it is a tradition of Judaism, and by Biblical tenet it was instituted by God many thousands of years ago, and as such we have no control over it. In America we have two sides to Marriage, the spiritual and the legal. Insofar as it is a legal function, Marriage binds two people together in the eyes of the law.

On the spiritual level, it is a union of three: a man, a woman, and God. It was and still is a spiritual union. But here in America, it has become confused (Note the use of capital M for the spiritual Marriage, and lower case m for the legal aspect marriage). Marriage is often mistaken for marriage in this day and age. It should be noted that a large minority of people who are against gay Marriage are actually pro-gay marriage. I consider myself pro-gay marriage, but only as far as it is legal function. I am against gay Marriage. So I believe that the law should allow homosexual marriage (civil unions), but Marriage is simply not something the law has any sway over, thus I do not believe that homosexual couples should be allowed to Marry.

In this spirit, I believe that civil unions should be made stronger, they should have most of the rights of Marriage, and also that civil unions should be for anyone. But I still feel that some things should not be allowed, for some things are sacred, and holy, and should not be changed to suit the whims of the pop culture. Many people have disagreed with me, but so far, none of them have had any tangible conception of what the word sacred means. In the end it all boils down to that one word. I believe marriage (civil unions) to be an entirely legal function, and I believe Marriage to be sacred, instituted by God himself. The law was created by men, so it governs men and is subject to men. Therefore let the law do whatever men want of it, but that which men did not create, that which is sacred, leave outside of the law. Is that too much to ask?

By Matt Smalls

Politicized Health Care Facts

2005-03-07T10:03:00.000-05:00

In order to help continue our ongoing exploration of health care, here is an older article from CATO, which debunks a few still-pervading myths about health care, and the dubious nature of statistics in general.

-=j=-

READ. THIS. ARTICLE.

2005-03-03T03:29:00.000-05:00

The link above leads to a thoughtful reflection by a liberal on the Bush Doctrine, the liberal response to it, and what history might make of it years down the line.

It is important reading for anyone and everyone, regardless of the side you stood on in the Iraq War. Read it, and pass it on, and don't be afraid to leave a similarly thoughtful comment for the author.

-=j=-

Another article!

2005-03-02T11:36:00.000-05:00

Click the link above, or go to TownHall.com today for a great article on declining standards in art.

Straying somewhat from the conservative line, he makes the case that absurdity in art can be fun, but absurdity alone doesn't necessarily make something art.

You can read it yourself. See you tomorrow evening!

-=j=-

Students For Life

2005-02-27T20:26:00.000-05:00

Hey, All,

Like James mentioned, I am in the process of starting a chapter of American Collegians for Life at Berklee. The purpose of the group will be to educate students about the abortion debate (especially recent developments) and give students a chance to be active in the fight against abortion. I'm hoping to get the paperwork done this week and the group up and running by the time get back from spring break. However, we all know how good our school is about approving groups that don't agree with the establishment...

I want to clarify that this is NOT a republican or conservative group. If you know ANYONE who might be interested in being involved, please send them my way. This is not a right or left issue-it's a right or wrong issue. Even some liberals can agree with this one.

Also, anyone who wants to be involved with this group, let me know. I'm going to be trying to gather signatures to start the group this week, so let me know if you have any interest at all. We specifically need WOMEN in this group. The last thing we want is a group made up of all men trying to focus on a women's issue. Finally, if anyone (especially women) who would like to join the leadership of this group, contact me right away.

Jordan

email me at:
jwarwood@berklee.net or...
berkleeprolife@yahoo.com

The Electoral College

2005-02-27T18:55:00.000-05:00

Hey everyone,
Here is another article that I think is worth a read. I have been hearing more and more about why we should get rid of the electoral college, and I think it is about time that we have a valid argument as to why we should keep it. This is a wonderful article that I believe you all should read. It makes some wonderful points as to why it was created and why we should keep it. Post your comments after you read it. I would love to hear what you all have to say about the issue! See you all on Thursday!

Ian

PROTEST WARRIOR

2005-02-27T16:13:00.000-05:00

hey guys, hope you are all checkin this out...
about protest warrior:
in order to become a member of the berklee chapter of protest warriors. youll need to go to protestwarrior.com (the link above), at the top of the page youll see different categories, click on HQ, then register, agree to the terms and conditions then it will ask y ou if you'd like to join a school PW chapter, say yes, youll see list come up, scroll down to Massachusetts and click on berklee college of music! then youll set up your profile and what not and i'll approve you and you'll be all set! lets try and get everyone signed up, even if you don't partake in any/all of the missions we seek out, at least you'll still be getting official protest warrior info!
hope everyone is having a great weekend,
wont see you on thursday night, but after the meeting, try and stop by the caf to see the tower of power ensemble!!!

take it easy, and if i dont see you have a WONDERFUL and WELL RESTED spring break! (maybe party a little too?)
jess

ps- ill email you guys more about anysoldier.com when we are on spring break or near it, but you can check out the website to see what its all about.
some of the items they ask/suggest for are:
beef jerkey, Chunky Soup, Campbell's Select Soup, Mini Ravioli, Tuna Lunch Kit, Fruit Cups, Raisins, fruit & oatmeal muffin bars, Entenmann's Original Chocolate Chip Cookies, Rice Krispies Treats, Nacho Cheese Crackers, Doritos Rollitos, Combos Pizzeria Pretzels, Fruit & Nut Trail Mix Bars, Slim Jims, Planters Salted Peanuts, Honey Roasted Peanuts, Sunflower Seeds, Tang, Gatorade or Kool-aid, Instant Coffee, Tea bags, Starburst Candy, Skittles and Fun Dip.
Anti-bacterial Wipes, Bug Wipes (contains DEET), Nail Clippers, Tweezers, Foot Powder, Deodorant, Sunscreen, First Aid Kit, Medicated Lip Balm w/SPF, Dental Travel Kit (Toothbrush, Toothpaste and Floss), Shampoo, Comb, Razors, Shaving Gel, Hand Sanitizer, Cotton swabs, tissues, toilet paper, and gum
Personal Cleansing Cloths, Tampax Compact Tampons, Panty Liners, Aloe Vera Skin Therapy Lotion, Shower to Shower Body Powder, Nail files, Hair Brush, and Pony Tail Holders. (remember there are men AND women in the troops!)

there are other suggestions i will make later, but this is just to get a rough idea... we'll talk more when we get closer to the meeting after spring break!

The Problem with American Colleges and the solution

2005-02-26T23:50:00.000-05:00

Hey everyone,
This is a wonderful article! I thought maybe you all would enjoy it as much as I did. While you are at it you should check out the Students for Academic Freedom website. It has a lot of great articles, and great insight into what SAF is all about.

Ian

www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org

AnySolider.com

2005-02-25T01:30:00.000-05:00

FYI, Jess announced at the meeting today that beginning the first meeting after spring break, we're going to be assembling packages for troops to send through anysoldier.com. Pending a successful in-group effort, we may try launching a college-wide collection as our first pulic action as CRs.

You don't need to do anything right now, just keep it in mind.

-=j=-

Website Links

2005-02-24T22:44:00.000-05:00

TownHall
InstaPundit
EconoPundit
Drudge Report
PowerLine Kudlow's Money Politic$
RedState.org

Young America's Foundation
Club100
Students for Academic Freedom
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

CRNC
MACR

Heritage
CATO
Citizens for a Sound Economy

ProtestWarrior
BureauCrash

I'll post more links as time passes, but here's the same list we handed out at the first meeting, with a couple additions. Those who are into conservative gossip, there's a rumor out ther that Ann Coulter and Matt Drudge are an item. Talk about your powerhouse couple, huh?

Larry Kudlow

2005-02-24T22:34:00.000-05:00

An excellent blog overall, but a particularly excellent post on the current state of the economy resides at Larry Kudlow's Money Politic$ blog. Check it out (it's after the obit).

-=j=-

Welcome

2005-02-24T13:50:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the temporary home of the Berklee College Republicans!

Check back frequently.

-management

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Bringing the Truth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~