1. Stay INFORMED.
2. Have reasonable conversation with people of opposing views. Share why you believe what you believe, and always make the argument for principles. If necessary, bash public schools...
3. Never sit on your hands. Conservatives don't whine and cry and play victim like liberals do when they don't have enough power. Be active; go door-belling, write to your representatives and senators, start blogs and activist groups...whatever it takes to get the truth and a case for conservatism into the public arena.
4. Flood the Internet. One of the biggest blunders of the Republican party was not utilizing modern technology to the fullest extent. Just google-ing the word "conservative" will bring up a flood of opposition virtually unopposed by people like us, who are perfectly capable of handling the arguments. Why do I find so much more YouTube liberal, Kool-aid drinker speech than logical conservative reasoning? Would it be so hard to put a little extra effort into what we believe in? So Republican techies...CHARGE!
I write this for a simple reason: It is simply not enough for conservatives to just vote. We are outnumbered now, and the leagues of new leftists will continue to expand until they either trample our nation under their march or we rise up and take our country back. We have to be active; we have to bring back the courteous debate Americans used to enjoy with one another that is now replaced by bitter attacks and partisan smears and "party lines." We must take advantage of the gifts of a modern society, and we simply cannot lay down in front of this parade of socialist idealogues.
It's time for conservatives to wake up and smell the stench of dying freedom. If we really are set on rebuilding conservatism bigger, better, and stronger, can we afford not to do those four simple things?
G. C.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Don't Be Sad, Be ANGRY
God, don't let this happen to my country.
I don't know what to say.
I won't say anything.
So, fight?
Do you really want to lose your freedom, bit by bit, right by right?
Go right ahead.
But you go through a wall of principles and believers first.
Conservatives don't give up.
We don't let stupid Marxists take over the greatest country on earth.
But if we do, it will take cuffs, ropes, and gags to immobilize us.
G. C.
I don't know what to say.
I won't say anything.
So, fight?
Do you really want to lose your freedom, bit by bit, right by right?
Go right ahead.
But you go through a wall of principles and believers first.
Conservatives don't give up.
We don't let stupid Marxists take over the greatest country on earth.
But if we do, it will take cuffs, ropes, and gags to immobilize us.
G. C.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Newsflash: JOE THE PLUMBER speaks for us!
Yes, my fans, THE Joe the Plumber. He's been making appearances all over the media, and each time he sticks to his guns.
Why for all that is rational would anyone chase down this "average Joe"? Apparently normal, patriotic, conservative Americans are a hot commodity..
Or the real reason could be that Joe has done what no other conservative voice crying to be heard has done: he has gotten the One, the Messiah, the Clean and Articulate Barack Obama to, quote, "[shoot] himself in the foot."
A few days ago, Senator Obama and the press were wandering the streets of a small town, doorbelling, if you will. Joe, whose first name is actually Sam, was tossing a football around with his son in their front yard when the presidential hopeful approached, moving down the street.
Joe saw his chance, and leaped at it. He thought he'd ask Obama a "harder question" that no one else would ask. Joe feels that the media was too soft on the Messiah, too, I guess.
The question (in my words): "do you know your tax plan punishes people like me, who work sometimes ten, twelve hours a day? I work in the plumbing industry, and because I want to buy my own business, under your tax plan I get penalized because I'll make over 250,000 dollars a year."
Obama's answer (summarized with all the stutters and ums edited out): "why is it such a bad thing to give those less fortunate a chance do as well as you? It's not fair, so I don't think it's such a bad thing to, you know, spread the wealth around a little, so they get the same chance as you."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Now the word is out. My fans, look at this opportunity! We have a chance to expose this guy for what he really is with his own words.
This is brilliant. I can't believe it--Obama could have possibly given this election away on a silver platter. Pay no attention to the polls people, when it really comes down to it, my country is still not quite liberal enough to elect one the most radical and cunning socialists since F.D.R. We had a fascist once (Woodrow Wilson), and then there was the average yet spooky socialist, the great Franklin D. Roosevelt (a raw Deal if there ever was), but we haven't had a full-fledged Marxist and we won't for at least another ten years. Spread the wealth around? If that's not a red flag for those dazzled Obamakins and enchanted independents, I assume nothing will pull them out of their lala land.
So kudos and diddos to Joe the Plumber. He has unveiled the principles of Barack Obama and his radical agenda, and his life, logic, and demeanor speak for the silent masses of workers who defy the polls on election day.
G. C.
Why for all that is rational would anyone chase down this "average Joe"? Apparently normal, patriotic, conservative Americans are a hot commodity..
Or the real reason could be that Joe has done what no other conservative voice crying to be heard has done: he has gotten the One, the Messiah, the Clean and Articulate Barack Obama to, quote, "[shoot] himself in the foot."
A few days ago, Senator Obama and the press were wandering the streets of a small town, doorbelling, if you will. Joe, whose first name is actually Sam, was tossing a football around with his son in their front yard when the presidential hopeful approached, moving down the street.
Joe saw his chance, and leaped at it. He thought he'd ask Obama a "harder question" that no one else would ask. Joe feels that the media was too soft on the Messiah, too, I guess.
The question (in my words): "do you know your tax plan punishes people like me, who work sometimes ten, twelve hours a day? I work in the plumbing industry, and because I want to buy my own business, under your tax plan I get penalized because I'll make over 250,000 dollars a year."
Obama's answer (summarized with all the stutters and ums edited out): "why is it such a bad thing to give those less fortunate a chance do as well as you? It's not fair, so I don't think it's such a bad thing to, you know, spread the wealth around a little, so they get the same chance as you."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Now the word is out. My fans, look at this opportunity! We have a chance to expose this guy for what he really is with his own words.
This is brilliant. I can't believe it--Obama could have possibly given this election away on a silver platter. Pay no attention to the polls people, when it really comes down to it, my country is still not quite liberal enough to elect one the most radical and cunning socialists since F.D.R. We had a fascist once (Woodrow Wilson), and then there was the average yet spooky socialist, the great Franklin D. Roosevelt (a raw Deal if there ever was), but we haven't had a full-fledged Marxist and we won't for at least another ten years. Spread the wealth around? If that's not a red flag for those dazzled Obamakins and enchanted independents, I assume nothing will pull them out of their lala land.
So kudos and diddos to Joe the Plumber. He has unveiled the principles of Barack Obama and his radical agenda, and his life, logic, and demeanor speak for the silent masses of workers who defy the polls on election day.
G. C.
Quote of the Day #3
Sing, rejoice for everything you've got,
and if you lose that sing louder.
---Anonymous
and if you lose that sing louder.
---Anonymous
Quote of the Day #2
We have no guns, no religion, and no self-pride, and yet we remain the greatest country on earth.
--G. C.
--G. C.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Newsflash of the Day
This morning Rush Limbaugh announced (gloated sarcastically, actually) that the U. S. Communist Party just endorced (or supported at least--I can't be sure if they sent money in. Because if so that's probably a deal-breaker for the Messiah.) Barack Obama.
No, my fans, I am not joking.
What to make of this?
I'll let you decide. But I will give you the link to a very impressive and moving slideshow to the music of "Comfort Eagle (Building a Religion)" by Cake. Watch it NOW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFeMAzWyHQg
Hope you enjoyed the video. I watched it three times, each with chills.
G. C.
No, my fans, I am not joking.
What to make of this?
I'll let you decide. But I will give you the link to a very impressive and moving slideshow to the music of "Comfort Eagle (Building a Religion)" by Cake. Watch it NOW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFeMAzWyHQg
Hope you enjoyed the video. I watched it three times, each with chills.
G. C.
Quote of the Day
"When you stop believing in God--they don't believe in nothing--they believe in anything."
G.K. Chesterton
G.K. Chesterton
Friday, October 10, 2008
Something Not About Politics!
I went to Mt. Rainier with my sisters and parents today. My mother said we were planning on doing a 4.5 mile loop around one of the peaks to "see the fall colors." So we spent at least two and a half hours in the car driving all the way up there, parked, got our stuff out, and headed up the trail at a brisk march--our backpacks on, our necks swathed in scarves, our hands be-gloved, and our feet fitted with the finest quality three-year-old sneakers.
Everything went fine for the first couple hours; we mosied along the trail, admiring the glassy shallow lakes and the marsh grass and the giant nobles and snapping the occasional picture of we siblings doing something goofy. Despite my criticism and outright dislike of the day's hiking agenda (for some reason I just didn't want to go wilderness wandering. I actually usually love that kind of stuff, seriously), the relatively unpolluted air and blood-pumping excercise did wonders for my mood. I was practically giddy.
We hopped off the path to a tiny area where the old lava rock poked out of the soil and sat down, pulling out the salame and crackers and cheese my mother had packed ou of the tiny little kid's backpack. Salame actually gives me a headache, though it's a mystery why. I ate it anyway.
Then we passed a girl wearing a really weird beanie, sitting down below a ledge a few yards from the path. We mistaked her head for a mushroom at first--she was sitting so still we thought it was either a really exotic fungus, or it was a propped up corpse. It turns out she was meditating.
Our bad.
Anyway, it all turned south when at about three, past the time when it seemed we should be getting back, we came to an intersection and instead of looking at the map, we just went down the trail we thought was the right one. Two of them had the same name, but obviously they led to very different places.
Needless to say, we took the wrong trail. We spent like an hour and a half going down the wrong trail, after our legs were already siezing up from constant walking. That trail was way longer than 4.5 miles. So we finally figured out we were going completely the wrong way after we pulled out the trail guide my mom said we hadn't brought. So back up the path we went, my legs throbbing, everybody dragging their legs forward inch by inch as we tried to beat the setting sun back to where we were supposed to be.
Around half past five we made it back to the trailhead. I think my thighs were actually seizing up by that time. This time we TRIPLE checked the map and chose the right path. The wind was picking up and the temperature was going down, and I was sooo not giddy anymore. I just prayed the whole time, beseeching God to help get us back before the sun set and we couldn't find our way.
The real trail that led back to the parking lot wound along the side of a peak for a length that seemed much too long to match the little tick marks on the map. Ice slicked practically the whole thing, and strangely as I dragged my feet foot by foot, the only things I could think about were reaching the car, and tatertots. Dad taking an icicle to his forehead and pretending to be a unicorn hardly lifted my mood. That little path dragged on and on and on, up, down, sideways, rocky, muddy, frosty, dark and miserable.
But we did make it back to the car, but not before I seriously contemplated laying down to die. The AC never felt so good. I stuck my hands in front of the heater and crashed in the backseat, still mumbling my tatertot chant.
I did end up with with a chocolate shake and french fries, the second best cousin of the tatertot. So in the end, it was all good. My expenditure did remind me how utterly dependent on God I actually was, however. It reminded me that without God I was nothing, and that faith was everything, because I seriously didn't know if we would be weathering the night on the mountainside.
So thanks for reading my random story.
G. C.
Everything went fine for the first couple hours; we mosied along the trail, admiring the glassy shallow lakes and the marsh grass and the giant nobles and snapping the occasional picture of we siblings doing something goofy. Despite my criticism and outright dislike of the day's hiking agenda (for some reason I just didn't want to go wilderness wandering. I actually usually love that kind of stuff, seriously), the relatively unpolluted air and blood-pumping excercise did wonders for my mood. I was practically giddy.
We hopped off the path to a tiny area where the old lava rock poked out of the soil and sat down, pulling out the salame and crackers and cheese my mother had packed ou of the tiny little kid's backpack. Salame actually gives me a headache, though it's a mystery why. I ate it anyway.
Then we passed a girl wearing a really weird beanie, sitting down below a ledge a few yards from the path. We mistaked her head for a mushroom at first--she was sitting so still we thought it was either a really exotic fungus, or it was a propped up corpse. It turns out she was meditating.
Our bad.
Anyway, it all turned south when at about three, past the time when it seemed we should be getting back, we came to an intersection and instead of looking at the map, we just went down the trail we thought was the right one. Two of them had the same name, but obviously they led to very different places.
Needless to say, we took the wrong trail. We spent like an hour and a half going down the wrong trail, after our legs were already siezing up from constant walking. That trail was way longer than 4.5 miles. So we finally figured out we were going completely the wrong way after we pulled out the trail guide my mom said we hadn't brought. So back up the path we went, my legs throbbing, everybody dragging their legs forward inch by inch as we tried to beat the setting sun back to where we were supposed to be.
Around half past five we made it back to the trailhead. I think my thighs were actually seizing up by that time. This time we TRIPLE checked the map and chose the right path. The wind was picking up and the temperature was going down, and I was sooo not giddy anymore. I just prayed the whole time, beseeching God to help get us back before the sun set and we couldn't find our way.
The real trail that led back to the parking lot wound along the side of a peak for a length that seemed much too long to match the little tick marks on the map. Ice slicked practically the whole thing, and strangely as I dragged my feet foot by foot, the only things I could think about were reaching the car, and tatertots. Dad taking an icicle to his forehead and pretending to be a unicorn hardly lifted my mood. That little path dragged on and on and on, up, down, sideways, rocky, muddy, frosty, dark and miserable.
But we did make it back to the car, but not before I seriously contemplated laying down to die. The AC never felt so good. I stuck my hands in front of the heater and crashed in the backseat, still mumbling my tatertot chant.
I did end up with with a chocolate shake and french fries, the second best cousin of the tatertot. So in the end, it was all good. My expenditure did remind me how utterly dependent on God I actually was, however. It reminded me that without God I was nothing, and that faith was everything, because I seriously didn't know if we would be weathering the night on the mountainside.
So thanks for reading my random story.
G. C.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Reality Checklist, Presidential '08
This is post is for a friend, who is one of those confused and dangerous 'swing voters.' (No offense. Just a joke.)
So, being the careful and thoughtful person I am, who put a lot of time into that carefulness and thoughtfulness because I wanted this post to possibly have an affect on you, I chose a question format, with explanations of the correct answer after each question.
DIRECTIONS: Get out a piece of paper and a pen, and write down the question numbers. Next to each number write down your answer. It should be a yes or a no answer excepting the first one, but since you're officially classified as swing voter to me, and knowing how swing voters are, you'll probably end up with some non yes-or-no answers. If you have a maybe, or at least a one word answer, that's progress to me. ;) There are ten questions. If you answer correctly to at least one of the ETHICS questions, or at least two of the other questions, you should vote for Mccain.
Remember that I put a lot of thought into this, so I want you to take it seriously. I've been following this race a long time, and I know a lot of stuff about the candidates. But a lot of it doesn't matter nearly as much as you think when it comes down to the values of Christ's followers. I want you to use common sense, and apply everything you have gathered from the Scriptures. I believe that what the Bible says on government (and it says a lot, believe it or no) should be taken into consideration, and where the Bible is silent, apply common sense.
Let me be honest with you: if this blog doesn't change your presidential preference, we have serious problems.
So without further ado, The Reality Checklist, Presidential '08:
ECONOMY:
#1 On a bare bones scale, what creates more wealth in the American economy: 25% capital gains tax, or NO capital gains tax?
The answer should be NO capital gains tax. Fewer taxes lets businesses invest more in growing their companies, which means making more jobs available. More jobs at hand means more people working and contributing to the system. That's what most democrats don't understand. If more people are employed, essentially more people pay income tax, and less people are leeching welfare from the government. A double wammie that just might help close up that gaping wound of a deficit. At least if you have a capital gains tax, give those businesses a tax credit back to re-invest, if more regulation and less sharking and wasting is what you want. But either way you look at it, if people have MORE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS they tend to go make like consumers and, well, consume. It kicks up other parts of the economy, which can cause them to expand too!!
So if you answered correctly, that's one point for Mccain. He wants to at least lower the capital gains tax. Which is the next best thing to no capital gains tax.
#2 Is it fair to tax the wealthy much more than the middle class, and give that money to minimum wage earners or the unemployed?
NO. Liberal democrats abuse this word "fair" to mean that if you earn more, you should be taxed at a higher rate. As Jo Biden said at a rally, 'it's patriotic to pay higher taxes.' It's just not fair, liberals say, for poor people to be poor while you are rich! You know how I translate that? It's not fair that you are SUCCESSFUL! It's not fair that you worked hard and are living your vision of the American dream! You should be punished for your success-- we'll take money from you and prop up other people with it, because unlike you, they need us!!
Now I know what you're thinking. There are indeed exceptions to every rule. There are 'fat cats' who ride all the way to the top on other people. A few con artists and slum lords slink and slither up the financial ladders, ducking the taxes and weaving through loopholes and working off the books. But that's not our fault, and hard working people who achieve their goals shouldn't have to pay for them. Prosecute the guilty; don't punish the class!
Most conservatives call this transfer of money the "redistribution of the wealth." That's exactly right. It's as self-explanatory as you can get. But I have a better name: The Robinhood Effect. Sound familiar? Of course. Everyone knows who Robinhood was: he stole from the rich (and that's what the government is doing--you can't call it anything else!) and gave to the poor. Even though he was trying to do good, what he was doing was unbiblical. Thou shalt not steal. It comes down to ethics, and the libs don't like it that way, because apparently political correctness is their god or something. But absolutely everything boils down to morals, and government--oh shock and horror--is based on two things: order and morals. And voila, we have the case for people keeping what they earned.
#3. Is it appropriate to bail out companies that cooked their books or dealt rotten loans on the single premise that if they went under, we'd hit a hard recession?
NO. Unfortunately, Mccain voted for the big black bailouts too. That's one of his many stupidities. But Obama will do even more unethical and UNCONSTITUTIONAL similar stuff if he gets in office, which is why we simply cannot afford his presidency. Mccain will try to limit Big Government interference, however. (I claim this on the basis that he IS a conservative, albeit a twisted one. His voting record shows he's for less government involvement overall.)
Let me drill this into your head, as someone who is currently studying the Constitution in U.S. Government class: NOWHERE in it does it provide for the bailing out of the private market. All the Founding Fathers, who have been found truly reliable on the subject of government (duh), were for a private, capitalist market. And as a side note: rewarding corruption seems unethical, don't you think?
And then you say, "But Georgieporgie! We would have awful consequences if we hadn't!"
Duh. But newsflash: we're having awful consequences in spite of the so-called "rescue package." The DOW plummeted 689 points today! It hasn't really rescued our economy, has it? Remember that he who holds the purse strings holds the puppet strings. If we let the government into the private market by letting them bail out whole institutions, we give them clearance to start controlling it. Both candidates plan on nationalizing the mortgage system by scooping up the loan of every poor soul who couldn't actually afford it. Look back in history. Every time socialism has gotten into the market, it's failed. And oh shock!! Capitalist economies are vastly more wealthy than socialist ones! Remember this: the only time capitalism fails is when corruption seeps in. That's why morals, biblical ones, are so important to a society. You can't have a functioning society without morals, and you can't have morals without a God.
HEALTHCARE:
#4 Is it appropriate in this country for everyone to have government run healthcare mandated to each citizen?
NO. Strike 3 for Obama. Despite those juicy adds saying he's 'in the middle' on healthcare, and that you'll keep your own doctor and hospital and so on and so forth...those chances are slim to none. Do you think a bureaucrat can run your healthcare better than you? The truth is, socialized healthcare is so big, so expensive, and so complicated, that it would be an utter disaster. No way exists for everyone to get what they want in their plan. Everyone would end up with poor to mediocre care at best. I know this, because I did a big fat research paper on this very subject. Europe's national healthcare programs are in tatters.
Another point for Mccain, please. He wants to give tax credits to families without healthcare so they can go buy the insurance they want. Now, being an oober conservative I don't even agree with that, but it is much much more effective than Obama's plan. And if people don't want healthcare, they should have that choice. It's a free country.
EARMARKS:
#5 Are earmarks dealt out by the federal government acceptable?
NO. Another point for Mccain. One of his better qualities is he hates pork-barrel spending. Not to mention earmarks are unconstitutional. The fathers of our great constitution deliberately left most funding up to the state legislatures. Only such taxes payed to the feds were for national defense, federal salaries, and basic finances needed to just keep the national government together. Taxes from the states weren't meant to be doled out however the federal government pleases. Did you know three million dollars goes to fund grisly bear research in Montana? I think it was Montana...NOT acceptable.
Obama is the biggest supporter of pork their is--he practically hands out bacon on shishkabobs... Just look up his record. Seriously, I don't have time to write down every spending vote. He did a whole bunch in the Illinois Senate. Look it UP!
ETHICS:
#6 Should abortion be legal?
NO. Killing human life willingly constitutes as murder, or at least that's how it's supposed to go. (Murder is illegal, in case you didn't know...) Apparently, if the the baby is still in womb, it's not human. It's, like, a sheep or something.
Once again, Mccain wins this one. When asked when he though [human] life began, he said, "at the moment of conception," without the slightest hesitation. You know what Obama said? He said answering that question was quote, "above his pay grade." Yeah, that's REAL presidential. Way to nail the issues...
Now, a certain head quizmaster says that we're not a theocracy. True. But every nation has morals, and like I said, those are based on a spiritual orientation. Too bad, so sad, atheists. This is a religious nation with Judeo-Christian morals, whether you like it or not. Without religious principles, nations fall. Greed and anarchy take over, people suffer and are enslaved... You see that all through the past.
Abortion is not a matter of choice. It's not a matter of whose beliefs should be accepted and applied. It's a matter of right and wrong, and most importantly, a matter of life and death. I believe every baby, even as a single cell, has just as much a right to life and the great freedoms of this country as a baby a week old, in the second trimester, right before birth, and as a toddler. Obama doesn't believe that. And when you mess with fundamental morals, you take a swipe at the foundation of truth, the right to live, and the foundation of this country. It's a slippery slope from killing embryos to killing infants. Obama is a perfect example, he voted 4 times against legislation that would more fully and permanently protect babies born alive after botched abortions.
#7 Should gay marriage be legal?
NO. I don't care if the Bible isn't our national rulebook, homosexuality is not an American value. And if you think this should be an approval-by-census issue, you are wrong there, too. Most Americans do not approve of homosexuality, though often they are pressed by fear into acting like it's okay, because they would be frowned upon for not being "tolerant." (In case you didn't know, I absolutely DEPLORE political correctness. It makes people not feel they have freedom of speech anymore, because they get harassed for not going along with what people think are common threads. )
The constitution doesn't define marriage, and I'll tell you my theory as to why they probably never considered inserting one: they didn't think it was an issue. 1 woman + 1 man =marriage. It's that simple. But now with secularism mainstream, and immorality popping up beastly heads all over the country, apparently it is an issue.
I support a redefinition of marriage--the definition that every nation has accepted since way back when, and the one that the Bible, from whose text many founding American principles have been taken, clearly supports. One man and one woman joined in holy matrimony. I don't think the government should condone homosexuality by letting it redefine marriage its own way. By using tax dollars to support their marriages (which taxes do. Don't married people get breaks?)
Moreover, redefining marriage pulls the carpet from under my country's table legs. The nuclear family is an essential part of any society. If we ruin it with skewed same sex couples raising kids (which is very imbalanced) we have immorality run rampant. God designed men and women specifically for marriage, and for raising a family around that marriage. That's why societies with flesh-and-blood children and heterosexual marriages tend to have stronger bonds and therefore stronger nations. Sorry, head quizmaster, but the best fams have a mom AND a dad. There are exceptions to every rule, but not so many that marriage should be redefined. This formula should be upheld not just because its Biblically moral, but because it works.
Score for Mccain. He doesn't support gay marriage, and neither does Palin. Obama believes the feds know best, and that it should be nationally legal. Bad for our society.
As a side note on the ethics portion, I think that a one-strike-you're out policy should be held to molesters and rapists. You ruin one kid's life, you traumatize and perhaps impregnate one girl, your DONE. You're in a cold hard cell without a tv, computer, or video game, or comfy couch, or tennis court for LIFE, unless you've been evaluated after a minimum of 10 years and shown to be repentant. Then you get monitored heavily, and can't leave the state. That's what I call crime and punishment, and it's one of the few things I'd be glad to pay higher taxes for.
ENERGY:
#8 Do you believe in global warming, and does it constitute as a crisis?
NO and NO. Aahhh, why waste my breath? There is no solid evidence for global warming--I've done the research. You should do the research, too, so you can know for yourself. It's all a bunch of panic mongering. And coincidentally, it all stemmed from liberal scientists. A lot of the same ones who cried "ice age" back in the sixties. Not a crisis. Until someone can prove to me that the earth warmed a total of one degree strictly because of the industrial age, and that global warming will kill us all, it's a no go. True, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which can be an insulator, but this is a big ole world, and the algae and plants eat a whole lot of carbon. And by the way, people point their fingers at we Americans and say we should be ashamed, but China actually has way less stringent emission policies and keep building factories, so I say lay the blame on them...
No point for Mccain this time. He's shown signs of buying into the whole carbon emission footprint thing. Obama, however, is a hardcore believer in the "crisis" of global warming, and false premises never lead to sensible conclusions. He would definitely support all the environmentalist wackos who say drilling would cause hurricanes, so I don't think I want someone who engages in the worship of junk science in the Oval Office. I'll leave it at that.
#9. Do you think drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife and Refuge as well as for shale drilling and offshore drilling is acceptable?
YES. Of course. Point for Mccain. It's acceptable because the more energy we produce her in the States, the less we send to people who really really really don't like us. Let's not be dependant on bullies for our lunches, okay? And if you think about it, getting completely off oil in ten years is absolutely impossible. The entire trucking industry that gets Albertsons its bread every week and Wal-Mart its Circo shirts and you your mail runs on DIESEL. That comes from oil, fyi. And so do all the machines that make the fancy hybrids, and all the machines that help make airplanes and transit buses. Got it? Not possible. Think of getting billions of machines to somehow magically switch from oil based fuel to wind or solar or whatever in that short of time. Unless we come up with an easily and inexpensively produced fuel that can go directly into these tanks without alteration, it's just not plausible.
And if your worried about the caribou or whatever lives up in ANWAR, don't. There's hardly anything up there. And in fact, the caribou that the hippies screamed would die if we installed a pipeline actually replicated by two thirds because the pipeline made it somewhat warmer up there. In fact, we'd only be drilling in a tiny section of that vast space, hardly disturbing anything. Technology has advanced so far that we can even drill in places like ANWAR and the Gulf, and into oil shale with very very little harm to the environment.
Did you know much more oil seeps into the ocean from natural oil leaks in the earth's crust than is spilled by accident? Most of those spills occur from barges that ship foreign oil back and forth from people like the Saudis to the States. Another reason to get off foreign oil however we know how. And this is not to say we'll be on oil forever--no, Americans are to smart and ingenuous to let that happen. But the point is, we MUST drill. For energy security, for national security.
So point for Mccain, who favors an all-of-the-above approach heavy on drilling. Although he is against drilling in ANWAR, Palin is trying to convince him. I think someday he will indeed allow drilling up there.
Obama claims he is for drilling, but his record consistantly betrays him. No point for Senator Obama.
#10 Should the U.S. build more nuclear and clean coal plants, and if so, should it be funded and performed by the government?
YES, then NO. Nuclear energy is clean and effective, and anyone who thinks otherwise is herethither dubbed a PINHEAD (Bill O'Rielly style). Just look it up. I don't have time to lay out all the facts. Also, I don't have to, cuz I can do what I want on this blog. As for coal plants, clean coal is, well, clean. Comprende? The energy sector of our economy should not be run by the government because I believe that private organizations handle producing energy much better than the government does, mostly due to the economic principles I mentioned above. Competition is the root of progress, incentive is the root of production. That should be applied to the energy sector.
Obama's record has been consistantly against both clean coal and nuclear power. And do I need to remind you he wants the government to run virtually everything? Mccain has always been for all sources of energy; as to government operating these institutions, as far as I can tell from Mccain's energy plan posted on his official website, he doesn't want to take over the energy sector. I want you to read or at least skim the plan when you get the chance. It seems to me he doesn't want to government mandate everything to do with energy, but he does want to keep the CAFE (Carbon And Fuel Efficiency) standards in place, which you should like. As you know, I like as little government intervention as is necessary for a properly functioning system, but Mccain, being all maverick-y like he says (more like liberal-y), wants to fund clean coal plant construction and administrate the construction of nuclear plants. You should like that, too.
Here's the link to the energy plan:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
RADICALISM:
#11 Is it acceptable for a President of the this great nation to have strong ties that go past mere association to radicals such as William Ayers (known for bombing the pentagon and trying to institute true socialist education--re-education camps, in fact, and served on the same small board overseeing the financial workings of Chicago education. Works as a teacher. Look it up.),
Rev. Wright (apparently Jesus is black and white people use AIDS for black genocide and try to squelch African American success. Every white person secretly harbors bitter racism. Obama had his kids baptized by him, and sat in his stinking church for 20 years.),
'
Tony Rezco (shady slum lord who helped Obama get his multi-mil house and is currently on trial for about 30 counts of corruption.),
Saul Alinsky (dedicated his handbook for radicals to Lucifer--no joke. Obama channeled him lots of money for some radical projects.),
ACORN (radical leftist organization engaged in frequent voter fraud in practically every state, bank loan anarchy, and more radical education ideals. Obama worked as a leader-ship trainer for them, served as their attorney on an occasion of alleged disrimination by banks, and channeled them money, too.),
Planned Parenthood (100% liberal approval rating from those guys),
Franklin Raines (got a load of greenbacks from failing FannyMae in a not-so-innocent way. He was a head advisor on Obama's campaign.),
and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi (consistantly opposed and covered up the growing crisis of the sub-prime mortgage industry, and in fact encouraged banks to dole out risky loans without qualifications according to the Community Reinvestment Act. All democrat, by the way.),
and Louis Farakhan (openly sympathetic to terrorists, thinks Obama will bring about a "universal change"...something about a Messiah...)?????????????
NO.
That's it. Unless I think of something else. Think hard on these questions, friend. They are extremely important. What is important to you? What is important to the the country? What kind of character do you expect and does the Bible expect from a national leader?
Thank you for your time. I stayed up til 11:30 writing this for you, so I hope you really contemplated these issues.
G. C.
So, being the careful and thoughtful person I am, who put a lot of time into that carefulness and thoughtfulness because I wanted this post to possibly have an affect on you, I chose a question format, with explanations of the correct answer after each question.
DIRECTIONS: Get out a piece of paper and a pen, and write down the question numbers. Next to each number write down your answer. It should be a yes or a no answer excepting the first one, but since you're officially classified as swing voter to me, and knowing how swing voters are, you'll probably end up with some non yes-or-no answers. If you have a maybe, or at least a one word answer, that's progress to me. ;) There are ten questions. If you answer correctly to at least one of the ETHICS questions, or at least two of the other questions, you should vote for Mccain.
Remember that I put a lot of thought into this, so I want you to take it seriously. I've been following this race a long time, and I know a lot of stuff about the candidates. But a lot of it doesn't matter nearly as much as you think when it comes down to the values of Christ's followers. I want you to use common sense, and apply everything you have gathered from the Scriptures. I believe that what the Bible says on government (and it says a lot, believe it or no) should be taken into consideration, and where the Bible is silent, apply common sense.
Let me be honest with you: if this blog doesn't change your presidential preference, we have serious problems.
So without further ado, The Reality Checklist, Presidential '08:
ECONOMY:
#1 On a bare bones scale, what creates more wealth in the American economy: 25% capital gains tax, or NO capital gains tax?
The answer should be NO capital gains tax. Fewer taxes lets businesses invest more in growing their companies, which means making more jobs available. More jobs at hand means more people working and contributing to the system. That's what most democrats don't understand. If more people are employed, essentially more people pay income tax, and less people are leeching welfare from the government. A double wammie that just might help close up that gaping wound of a deficit. At least if you have a capital gains tax, give those businesses a tax credit back to re-invest, if more regulation and less sharking and wasting is what you want. But either way you look at it, if people have MORE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS they tend to go make like consumers and, well, consume. It kicks up other parts of the economy, which can cause them to expand too!!
So if you answered correctly, that's one point for Mccain. He wants to at least lower the capital gains tax. Which is the next best thing to no capital gains tax.
#2 Is it fair to tax the wealthy much more than the middle class, and give that money to minimum wage earners or the unemployed?
NO. Liberal democrats abuse this word "fair" to mean that if you earn more, you should be taxed at a higher rate. As Jo Biden said at a rally, 'it's patriotic to pay higher taxes.' It's just not fair, liberals say, for poor people to be poor while you are rich! You know how I translate that? It's not fair that you are SUCCESSFUL! It's not fair that you worked hard and are living your vision of the American dream! You should be punished for your success-- we'll take money from you and prop up other people with it, because unlike you, they need us!!
Now I know what you're thinking. There are indeed exceptions to every rule. There are 'fat cats' who ride all the way to the top on other people. A few con artists and slum lords slink and slither up the financial ladders, ducking the taxes and weaving through loopholes and working off the books. But that's not our fault, and hard working people who achieve their goals shouldn't have to pay for them. Prosecute the guilty; don't punish the class!
Most conservatives call this transfer of money the "redistribution of the wealth." That's exactly right. It's as self-explanatory as you can get. But I have a better name: The Robinhood Effect. Sound familiar? Of course. Everyone knows who Robinhood was: he stole from the rich (and that's what the government is doing--you can't call it anything else!) and gave to the poor. Even though he was trying to do good, what he was doing was unbiblical. Thou shalt not steal. It comes down to ethics, and the libs don't like it that way, because apparently political correctness is their god or something. But absolutely everything boils down to morals, and government--oh shock and horror--is based on two things: order and morals. And voila, we have the case for people keeping what they earned.
#3. Is it appropriate to bail out companies that cooked their books or dealt rotten loans on the single premise that if they went under, we'd hit a hard recession?
NO. Unfortunately, Mccain voted for the big black bailouts too. That's one of his many stupidities. But Obama will do even more unethical and UNCONSTITUTIONAL similar stuff if he gets in office, which is why we simply cannot afford his presidency. Mccain will try to limit Big Government interference, however. (I claim this on the basis that he IS a conservative, albeit a twisted one. His voting record shows he's for less government involvement overall.)
Let me drill this into your head, as someone who is currently studying the Constitution in U.S. Government class: NOWHERE in it does it provide for the bailing out of the private market. All the Founding Fathers, who have been found truly reliable on the subject of government (duh), were for a private, capitalist market. And as a side note: rewarding corruption seems unethical, don't you think?
And then you say, "But Georgieporgie! We would have awful consequences if we hadn't!"
Duh. But newsflash: we're having awful consequences in spite of the so-called "rescue package." The DOW plummeted 689 points today! It hasn't really rescued our economy, has it? Remember that he who holds the purse strings holds the puppet strings. If we let the government into the private market by letting them bail out whole institutions, we give them clearance to start controlling it. Both candidates plan on nationalizing the mortgage system by scooping up the loan of every poor soul who couldn't actually afford it. Look back in history. Every time socialism has gotten into the market, it's failed. And oh shock!! Capitalist economies are vastly more wealthy than socialist ones! Remember this: the only time capitalism fails is when corruption seeps in. That's why morals, biblical ones, are so important to a society. You can't have a functioning society without morals, and you can't have morals without a God.
HEALTHCARE:
#4 Is it appropriate in this country for everyone to have government run healthcare mandated to each citizen?
NO. Strike 3 for Obama. Despite those juicy adds saying he's 'in the middle' on healthcare, and that you'll keep your own doctor and hospital and so on and so forth...those chances are slim to none. Do you think a bureaucrat can run your healthcare better than you? The truth is, socialized healthcare is so big, so expensive, and so complicated, that it would be an utter disaster. No way exists for everyone to get what they want in their plan. Everyone would end up with poor to mediocre care at best. I know this, because I did a big fat research paper on this very subject. Europe's national healthcare programs are in tatters.
Another point for Mccain, please. He wants to give tax credits to families without healthcare so they can go buy the insurance they want. Now, being an oober conservative I don't even agree with that, but it is much much more effective than Obama's plan. And if people don't want healthcare, they should have that choice. It's a free country.
EARMARKS:
#5 Are earmarks dealt out by the federal government acceptable?
NO. Another point for Mccain. One of his better qualities is he hates pork-barrel spending. Not to mention earmarks are unconstitutional. The fathers of our great constitution deliberately left most funding up to the state legislatures. Only such taxes payed to the feds were for national defense, federal salaries, and basic finances needed to just keep the national government together. Taxes from the states weren't meant to be doled out however the federal government pleases. Did you know three million dollars goes to fund grisly bear research in Montana? I think it was Montana...NOT acceptable.
Obama is the biggest supporter of pork their is--he practically hands out bacon on shishkabobs... Just look up his record. Seriously, I don't have time to write down every spending vote. He did a whole bunch in the Illinois Senate. Look it UP!
ETHICS:
#6 Should abortion be legal?
NO. Killing human life willingly constitutes as murder, or at least that's how it's supposed to go. (Murder is illegal, in case you didn't know...) Apparently, if the the baby is still in womb, it's not human. It's, like, a sheep or something.
Once again, Mccain wins this one. When asked when he though [human] life began, he said, "at the moment of conception," without the slightest hesitation. You know what Obama said? He said answering that question was quote, "above his pay grade." Yeah, that's REAL presidential. Way to nail the issues...
Now, a certain head quizmaster says that we're not a theocracy. True. But every nation has morals, and like I said, those are based on a spiritual orientation. Too bad, so sad, atheists. This is a religious nation with Judeo-Christian morals, whether you like it or not. Without religious principles, nations fall. Greed and anarchy take over, people suffer and are enslaved... You see that all through the past.
Abortion is not a matter of choice. It's not a matter of whose beliefs should be accepted and applied. It's a matter of right and wrong, and most importantly, a matter of life and death. I believe every baby, even as a single cell, has just as much a right to life and the great freedoms of this country as a baby a week old, in the second trimester, right before birth, and as a toddler. Obama doesn't believe that. And when you mess with fundamental morals, you take a swipe at the foundation of truth, the right to live, and the foundation of this country. It's a slippery slope from killing embryos to killing infants. Obama is a perfect example, he voted 4 times against legislation that would more fully and permanently protect babies born alive after botched abortions.
#7 Should gay marriage be legal?
NO. I don't care if the Bible isn't our national rulebook, homosexuality is not an American value. And if you think this should be an approval-by-census issue, you are wrong there, too. Most Americans do not approve of homosexuality, though often they are pressed by fear into acting like it's okay, because they would be frowned upon for not being "tolerant." (In case you didn't know, I absolutely DEPLORE political correctness. It makes people not feel they have freedom of speech anymore, because they get harassed for not going along with what people think are common threads. )
The constitution doesn't define marriage, and I'll tell you my theory as to why they probably never considered inserting one: they didn't think it was an issue. 1 woman + 1 man =marriage. It's that simple. But now with secularism mainstream, and immorality popping up beastly heads all over the country, apparently it is an issue.
I support a redefinition of marriage--the definition that every nation has accepted since way back when, and the one that the Bible, from whose text many founding American principles have been taken, clearly supports. One man and one woman joined in holy matrimony. I don't think the government should condone homosexuality by letting it redefine marriage its own way. By using tax dollars to support their marriages (which taxes do. Don't married people get breaks?)
Moreover, redefining marriage pulls the carpet from under my country's table legs. The nuclear family is an essential part of any society. If we ruin it with skewed same sex couples raising kids (which is very imbalanced) we have immorality run rampant. God designed men and women specifically for marriage, and for raising a family around that marriage. That's why societies with flesh-and-blood children and heterosexual marriages tend to have stronger bonds and therefore stronger nations. Sorry, head quizmaster, but the best fams have a mom AND a dad. There are exceptions to every rule, but not so many that marriage should be redefined. This formula should be upheld not just because its Biblically moral, but because it works.
Score for Mccain. He doesn't support gay marriage, and neither does Palin. Obama believes the feds know best, and that it should be nationally legal. Bad for our society.
As a side note on the ethics portion, I think that a one-strike-you're out policy should be held to molesters and rapists. You ruin one kid's life, you traumatize and perhaps impregnate one girl, your DONE. You're in a cold hard cell without a tv, computer, or video game, or comfy couch, or tennis court for LIFE, unless you've been evaluated after a minimum of 10 years and shown to be repentant. Then you get monitored heavily, and can't leave the state. That's what I call crime and punishment, and it's one of the few things I'd be glad to pay higher taxes for.
ENERGY:
#8 Do you believe in global warming, and does it constitute as a crisis?
NO and NO. Aahhh, why waste my breath? There is no solid evidence for global warming--I've done the research. You should do the research, too, so you can know for yourself. It's all a bunch of panic mongering. And coincidentally, it all stemmed from liberal scientists. A lot of the same ones who cried "ice age" back in the sixties. Not a crisis. Until someone can prove to me that the earth warmed a total of one degree strictly because of the industrial age, and that global warming will kill us all, it's a no go. True, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which can be an insulator, but this is a big ole world, and the algae and plants eat a whole lot of carbon. And by the way, people point their fingers at we Americans and say we should be ashamed, but China actually has way less stringent emission policies and keep building factories, so I say lay the blame on them...
No point for Mccain this time. He's shown signs of buying into the whole carbon emission footprint thing. Obama, however, is a hardcore believer in the "crisis" of global warming, and false premises never lead to sensible conclusions. He would definitely support all the environmentalist wackos who say drilling would cause hurricanes, so I don't think I want someone who engages in the worship of junk science in the Oval Office. I'll leave it at that.
#9. Do you think drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife and Refuge as well as for shale drilling and offshore drilling is acceptable?
YES. Of course. Point for Mccain. It's acceptable because the more energy we produce her in the States, the less we send to people who really really really don't like us. Let's not be dependant on bullies for our lunches, okay? And if you think about it, getting completely off oil in ten years is absolutely impossible. The entire trucking industry that gets Albertsons its bread every week and Wal-Mart its Circo shirts and you your mail runs on DIESEL. That comes from oil, fyi. And so do all the machines that make the fancy hybrids, and all the machines that help make airplanes and transit buses. Got it? Not possible. Think of getting billions of machines to somehow magically switch from oil based fuel to wind or solar or whatever in that short of time. Unless we come up with an easily and inexpensively produced fuel that can go directly into these tanks without alteration, it's just not plausible.
And if your worried about the caribou or whatever lives up in ANWAR, don't. There's hardly anything up there. And in fact, the caribou that the hippies screamed would die if we installed a pipeline actually replicated by two thirds because the pipeline made it somewhat warmer up there. In fact, we'd only be drilling in a tiny section of that vast space, hardly disturbing anything. Technology has advanced so far that we can even drill in places like ANWAR and the Gulf, and into oil shale with very very little harm to the environment.
Did you know much more oil seeps into the ocean from natural oil leaks in the earth's crust than is spilled by accident? Most of those spills occur from barges that ship foreign oil back and forth from people like the Saudis to the States. Another reason to get off foreign oil however we know how. And this is not to say we'll be on oil forever--no, Americans are to smart and ingenuous to let that happen. But the point is, we MUST drill. For energy security, for national security.
So point for Mccain, who favors an all-of-the-above approach heavy on drilling. Although he is against drilling in ANWAR, Palin is trying to convince him. I think someday he will indeed allow drilling up there.
Obama claims he is for drilling, but his record consistantly betrays him. No point for Senator Obama.
#10 Should the U.S. build more nuclear and clean coal plants, and if so, should it be funded and performed by the government?
YES, then NO. Nuclear energy is clean and effective, and anyone who thinks otherwise is herethither dubbed a PINHEAD (Bill O'Rielly style). Just look it up. I don't have time to lay out all the facts. Also, I don't have to, cuz I can do what I want on this blog. As for coal plants, clean coal is, well, clean. Comprende? The energy sector of our economy should not be run by the government because I believe that private organizations handle producing energy much better than the government does, mostly due to the economic principles I mentioned above. Competition is the root of progress, incentive is the root of production. That should be applied to the energy sector.
Obama's record has been consistantly against both clean coal and nuclear power. And do I need to remind you he wants the government to run virtually everything? Mccain has always been for all sources of energy; as to government operating these institutions, as far as I can tell from Mccain's energy plan posted on his official website, he doesn't want to take over the energy sector. I want you to read or at least skim the plan when you get the chance. It seems to me he doesn't want to government mandate everything to do with energy, but he does want to keep the CAFE (Carbon And Fuel Efficiency) standards in place, which you should like. As you know, I like as little government intervention as is necessary for a properly functioning system, but Mccain, being all maverick-y like he says (more like liberal-y), wants to fund clean coal plant construction and administrate the construction of nuclear plants. You should like that, too.
Here's the link to the energy plan:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
RADICALISM:
#11 Is it acceptable for a President of the this great nation to have strong ties that go past mere association to radicals such as William Ayers (known for bombing the pentagon and trying to institute true socialist education--re-education camps, in fact, and served on the same small board overseeing the financial workings of Chicago education. Works as a teacher. Look it up.),
Rev. Wright (apparently Jesus is black and white people use AIDS for black genocide and try to squelch African American success. Every white person secretly harbors bitter racism. Obama had his kids baptized by him, and sat in his stinking church for 20 years.),
'
Tony Rezco (shady slum lord who helped Obama get his multi-mil house and is currently on trial for about 30 counts of corruption.),
Saul Alinsky (dedicated his handbook for radicals to Lucifer--no joke. Obama channeled him lots of money for some radical projects.),
ACORN (radical leftist organization engaged in frequent voter fraud in practically every state, bank loan anarchy, and more radical education ideals. Obama worked as a leader-ship trainer for them, served as their attorney on an occasion of alleged disrimination by banks, and channeled them money, too.),
Planned Parenthood (100% liberal approval rating from those guys),
Franklin Raines (got a load of greenbacks from failing FannyMae in a not-so-innocent way. He was a head advisor on Obama's campaign.),
and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi (consistantly opposed and covered up the growing crisis of the sub-prime mortgage industry, and in fact encouraged banks to dole out risky loans without qualifications according to the Community Reinvestment Act. All democrat, by the way.),
and Louis Farakhan (openly sympathetic to terrorists, thinks Obama will bring about a "universal change"...something about a Messiah...)?????????????
NO.
That's it. Unless I think of something else. Think hard on these questions, friend. They are extremely important. What is important to you? What is important to the the country? What kind of character do you expect and does the Bible expect from a national leader?
Thank you for your time. I stayed up til 11:30 writing this for you, so I hope you really contemplated these issues.
G. C.
Monday, October 6, 2008
The Alternative Homeschooler
It's time I faced the overwhelming majority of you public-schoolers who at the mention of "home-schooler" get this ridiculous picture in their head of plain girls with long flat hair, ankle-length prairie skirts, and oversized pastel T-shirts. You might also think of small remote farms and Wellington boots.
The acne feature is optional.
DISCLAIMER: I usually don't do disclaimers because this blog isn't responsible for the reactions of my viewers to my apparently outrageous comments. However, I have a special place in my heart for stereotypical homeschoolers. They DO have a place in this world, and I know some wicked sweet prairie-skirt wearers. So no bashing the baggy-shirted and nineties high-water panted, running-shoe wearing people. I repeat, these people are COOOOOOOOOL. Just because people don't look like you, it doesn't mean you look at them funny. That's called DISCRIMINATION. The stereotype is all down with me. But I and many others just don't appreciate being stamped as someone we are clearly not. Would you like being called a nerd if you're a goth? No! Exactly. Wow, this is a long disclaimer in tiny print that old people can't see.
Anyway, you guys have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about. Or thinking about. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary reads as follows:
Main Entry: home·school
Pronunciation:
\ˈhōm-ˌskül\
Function:
verb
Date:
1980 intransitive verb
: to teach school subjects to one's children at home transitive verb : to teach (one's children) at home
So there you have it. The definition of homeschooling says nothing about a sheltered, far-removed small-town farm kid stereotype. If someone is homeschooled, it doesn't mean he's a Quaker or a Catholic or part of a cult or anything, and no it doesn't mean he's in a witness protection program.
Yeah, I know--what a letdown.
But point being, home-schooling is just one of many ways to cram school stuff into developing blobs of gray matter. Got it?
Good.
So you might be asking now: So what the heck is a homeschooler then? You've told me what homeschooling is, but how can I identify one of these anomalies?
Good question. There are many types of homeschoolers, just like there are hundreds of versions of an average public-schooler or private-schooler. The truth is, though, that perhaps 90% of the time, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the teachered and the parented.
To dumb it down: I'm just like you.
Mostly.
There are some differences between us and you. Like, we actually have attention spans longer than three minutes, we're more articulate, we learn faster, and we have better table manners and grammar use.
In your face. (No offense or anything.)
Also, because the relatively normal majority of the homeschooling population usually does way more acedemics in way less time than public-schoolers, we're COOLER. 'Cuz we have more time to do "stuff."
Oh yeah. I went there.
I and a small band of friends like to call ourselves "alternative homeschoolers," which is a fancy made up name to prevent us from being labeled anything else. I'm working on the formal definition right now...ha, not. I'll probably plunk that task on another alternative homeschooler.
I invented this ridiculously awesome term for the primary reason that my poor self has been called everything from overachiever to prep to shunk (chic/punk) to emo to the insulting stereotype homeschooler. (Don't forget the disclaimer. It's insulting strictly in the sense that I'm being called things I don't consider myself to be.)
The horror.
So since no one could properly catagorize me according to the natural laws of the child education social networks, I just decided to put myself in an imaginary clique. I actually don't do the whole clique-y group thing (there's me, and there's my friends--that's why it's imaginary).
Again, this group doesn't envelope all non-stereotype homeschoolers. Just a few people with a few characteristics that deem them worthy of my esteemed title.
Those characteristics have yet to be established and defined. All I know is that I can call certain people alternative and certain people other, so that means something.
So the purpose of this rant was firstly to make the point that not all homeschooled people are the stereotype many of you have, secondly to explain the point that I don't think of myself as anything other than a certain made up term and don't like being called anything other than said term, and thirdly to post something random because I'm procrastinating posting that really important ACORN piece I promised....
G. C.
The acne feature is optional.
DISCLAIMER: I usually don't do disclaimers because this blog isn't responsible for the reactions of my viewers to my apparently outrageous comments. However, I have a special place in my heart for stereotypical homeschoolers. They DO have a place in this world, and I know some wicked sweet prairie-skirt wearers. So no bashing the baggy-shirted and nineties high-water panted, running-shoe wearing people. I repeat, these people are COOOOOOOOOL. Just because people don't look like you, it doesn't mean you look at them funny. That's called DISCRIMINATION. The stereotype is all down with me. But I and many others just don't appreciate being stamped as someone we are clearly not. Would you like being called a nerd if you're a goth? No! Exactly. Wow, this is a long disclaimer in tiny print that old people can't see.
Anyway, you guys have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about. Or thinking about. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary reads as follows:
Main Entry: home·school
Pronunciation:
\ˈhōm-ˌskül\
Function:
verb
Date:
1980 intransitive verb
: to teach school subjects to one's children at home transitive verb : to teach (one's children) at home
So there you have it. The definition of homeschooling says nothing about a sheltered, far-removed small-town farm kid stereotype. If someone is homeschooled, it doesn't mean he's a Quaker or a Catholic or part of a cult or anything, and no it doesn't mean he's in a witness protection program.
Yeah, I know--what a letdown.
But point being, home-schooling is just one of many ways to cram school stuff into developing blobs of gray matter. Got it?
Good.
So you might be asking now: So what the heck is a homeschooler then? You've told me what homeschooling is, but how can I identify one of these anomalies?
Good question. There are many types of homeschoolers, just like there are hundreds of versions of an average public-schooler or private-schooler. The truth is, though, that perhaps 90% of the time, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the teachered and the parented.
To dumb it down: I'm just like you.
Mostly.
There are some differences between us and you. Like, we actually have attention spans longer than three minutes, we're more articulate, we learn faster, and we have better table manners and grammar use.
In your face. (No offense or anything.)
Also, because the relatively normal majority of the homeschooling population usually does way more acedemics in way less time than public-schoolers, we're COOLER. 'Cuz we have more time to do "stuff."
Oh yeah. I went there.
I and a small band of friends like to call ourselves "alternative homeschoolers," which is a fancy made up name to prevent us from being labeled anything else. I'm working on the formal definition right now...ha, not. I'll probably plunk that task on another alternative homeschooler.
I invented this ridiculously awesome term for the primary reason that my poor self has been called everything from overachiever to prep to shunk (chic/punk) to emo to the insulting stereotype homeschooler. (Don't forget the disclaimer. It's insulting strictly in the sense that I'm being called things I don't consider myself to be.)
The horror.
So since no one could properly catagorize me according to the natural laws of the child education social networks, I just decided to put myself in an imaginary clique. I actually don't do the whole clique-y group thing (there's me, and there's my friends--that's why it's imaginary).
Again, this group doesn't envelope all non-stereotype homeschoolers. Just a few people with a few characteristics that deem them worthy of my esteemed title.
Those characteristics have yet to be established and defined. All I know is that I can call certain people alternative and certain people other, so that means something.
So the purpose of this rant was firstly to make the point that not all homeschooled people are the stereotype many of you have, secondly to explain the point that I don't think of myself as anything other than a certain made up term and don't like being called anything other than said term, and thirdly to post something random because I'm procrastinating posting that really important ACORN piece I promised....
G. C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
