Bailout...

So there have been many blogable topics in the news recently. It is funny have my brain has changed this last week, so that I now process what I hear and read by how I can blog about it. Fun.
One topic that has been out there a bit, an is unmissable; the morgage bailout.
I just refuse to believe that we have a sitting republican president who is pushing for a trillion dollar bailout. Yes I know it could end really bad for some people if the levels continue to lower, but isn't that the definition of risk? That is why they 'play' the stock market afterall!
Things got overinflated, but if you're looking for someone to blame, try blinding consumerism.
The real issue here, what has me incredulous about it all though, is the fact that Bush/McCain wants to inject our tax dollars into the economy, the 'free"--market economy.
So as far as precedents go, we can probably no longer enjoy the lack of significant government interference. I really hate to be the guy that yells "we're goin' socialist!!", but.....could this be a first step? It doesn't mean neccisarily that we are now going to be socialistic, but I would imagine this would help that cause. Now if we find that this move "helped", ( I use quotes because even the market fixes itself, congress' loan will get credit for any upswing) it will only reinforce the fallicious ideas of Kaynsian economics.
Let just hope there are enough cajones on the Right side of the Hill to challenge Bush's proposal.


Here's your pork-barrel John!!!

epos; part deux

it took me awhile to feel ready to try and define conservatism..

its hard to think about it from the outside, when it is part of your life..

Conservatism in most senses relates back to the original traditions and philosophies that we say our nation was founded upon.  Today in America a conservative holds most dear the traditions of our new republic because he thinks that our founding system and structure happen to be the best way to organize a government, and ultimately sustain a people. 

This founding, in a structural sense, had a great deal to do with the social contract, which bound the citizen to the governing 'triumvirate' system. The crux of this system is the interweaving of power between the branches, and the inter-dependency given them all. A very treasured after-thought of the signing of our constitution is the bill of rights. Conservatives hold very sacred this document, as it is an insurance policy against any undesired growth in the power of the ruling body. A conservative heartily believes in the integrity of the system, but not in the heart of the members.  Since our nation was founded on the belief by some men that we aught to be free to rule over ourselves, we overthrew an oppressive government and took on that one self-evident liberty of autocracy.  For this very reason, conservatives react very negatively at the hinting of another government body meddling too greatly into the lives of the people. It is a sort of reminder of the initial motivation for the revolution.   The colonists were very self-reliant, and for this reason the tradition remains within conservatism that the citizenry is capable and an overbearing government is unnecessary.  

the actual definition for the well-being of the citizen can be somewhat ambiguous, but what matters most to a conservative is that that citizen reaches it himself.  Equality becomes an important issue insomuch that each member of the society has equal access to attain what his/her well-being might be; and since this is decided by the citizens themselves, only they should have that power and authority. 

this may seem like incoherent ramblings, but I hope to soon draw some funny dichotomies from all of this mess.... so stay tuned!!                           (boy was that cheesy :/)

politics epos

this will be somewhat of a political epos; a series of blogs dealing with a fundamental topic of political theoery. I may wonder, but I hope to, at some point, end up at some point.

consider this an introduction to the problem. 

in American politics there seems to be two distinct paradigms with which citizens view the landscape. there is a liberal viewpoint, and a conservative one. i really don't want to delve into origins or histories of either one,(mostly cause i'm ignorant there!). let me focus on the liberal point of view first the liberal seems to view the state as a sort of caretaker. this means that the role of state is one that plays an active role in securing and individual's liberties, security, and status quo. they view the state the primary vehicle to equality and prosperity. liberals strive to adhere to our constitution, while promoting the progression of ideas. liberals look to the state to accomplish the collective will of the people. in acheiving this, they tend to value pragmatism more than the previously established traditions of the people or the state. while this is merely a brief overview, my intention is to focus on one specific point. and that point is the tendency of liberalism to lean heavily on the reliance of the state to acheive its goals. while most citizens will agree that the goals of liberalism are not bad by any means, it may be the means that cause me the most problems. i too desire liberty and justice for all, and i tend to think that the defense of human rights is a most honorable duty.  I think that the success of a nation can be measured by its progress, economic stability, health of the population, and morality (amung others), i see the liberal as needing a 'greater' vessel than the actual population to acheive this. There is much importance given to alruistic behavior, looking favorably upon work being done to promote universal human rights and providing equal dignity and opportunity to all. In fact, this seems to be a mandate placed upon the state by the people; a well negociated agreement within our mutually binding social-contract.

Does that, for the most part, accurately summerize the world view held by most modern liberals?

Feel free to help me better understand if I got something wrong.

Some questions..

these are some old questions that I found

while digging through and old hard drive,

it would be interesting if anyone had any of the answers.....

We have Philosophy. We have Theology. 

Some people address philosophic issues 

according to their beliefs of God. Other 

people evaluate their beliefs of God 

according to their philosophy.  I see two 

beginnings that can govern your flow of 

ideas, or can dictate the rationality for 

your mental paradigm.  You can start 

with God, or Philosophy.  I believe they 

are both good means with which to 

measure or filter our ideas. 

But they don't seem to mesh very well 

when thinking about origins and causality,

and what we can know about existence.  

They tend to create more

questions than they answer. 

God is stable and rational, but not 

philosophically speaking.  Philosophy 

is logical, but not theologically speaking.  

They both talk about each other, often 

negating principles and ideas of the 

other.  And they are both, theoretically 

or supposedly, truth.  As a Theist, how 

ought I use philosophy? As a philosopher, 

can I presuppose the Truths and Principles 

of God, as knowable truth?  Is human 

understanding adequate to examine God?  

Can you not explain God in accord with 

a philosophical understanding?  Will God 

line up with that, or ought we to line our 

philosophy up with what God is? Will the 

idea of God be clarified by means of 

philosophic inquiry, or will Philosophy 

be further clarified after an 

understanding of God is reached?

So while you are trying to understand what I was thinking about during freshman philosophy, enjoy this picture I took of a bird. A yellow bird.