Andrewbreece’s Weblog

A former professor of mine once told me that you can identify an honest politician by looking at his tie but the problem is it’s not the tie that’s looked at it’s the name of the party. I can not tell you how many times I have come across voters that only vote for their own party. I spoke to a voter like this a few weeks ago and they asked why that was wrong, the point is to get as many democrats into office so we can vote on the bills that we want passed. The problem is that the opinions aren’t balanced, if too many politicians of one party are in office whether it is Republican or Democrat the government’s political actions and opinions become to weighted on one side without the consideration of the other.

 

When a group of identical thinking people become to strong or to isolated they will become narrow-mind towards opposite views, to determinate of what they observe to be right and wrong, corrupted, and many times become radical. Evidence of this is the KKK, religious groups such as Muslim terrorists and Christian extremists that protest at military funerals, Nazis, and other radical groups.

 

One reason why government politics was broken into multiple parties was to ensure that the policies and bills will be argued to find the best solution and to limit the power of a party as the constitution did for the different branches. The parties are a categorization of similar opinions not the answer to solve a problem. A man who calls himself a Democrat is not certain to make a good or honest politician as is the same for a man who calls him self a Republican. To find the best candidate possible for a position we must research and study the individual not the party. A thorough research of a candidate acts as a filter. A good filter blocks bad and unqualified candidates or politicians and filters in good potential candidates (or at least a better one). A good filter does not discriminate against a party, religious beliefs, ethnicity, etc. If discrimination should occur, then poor filtering will result in blocking potentially great candidates and letting potential bad, unqualified, and corrupt candidates in without examining them first.

 

All of this is not to say that claiming to be in a party is a bad thing because it is not. Separate parties are very good to have. Not only is it a method of organizing voters and categorizing candidates but it organizes and builds common thought. In researching candidates, considering the runners in your party and then researching the others is a good way to start. Our vision is a lot like how think; straighten your hands and close your fingers. Place your hands on the sides of your face so it blocks your eyes from seeing left and right without turning your head. Your view has decreased into tunnel vision which is like the view-point of a narrow-minded person. Now remove your hands from your face and your vision is much wider like the views of an open-minded person. More open we are to policies and views the better judgment we will have. However, being an open-minded person does not mean that you should except every opposite view that you come across but it means to give every opinion an equal chance on being heard and giving every opinion an equal consideration. Many times this might mean that we alter ours opinions in some ways and not necessarily completely change our views.

 

Voting is like buying a car, if you only buy a car because it is a Ford without checking its mechanical condition you’re going to run into problems.    

 

 

People often use the term left and right handed for democrats and republicans. I think this is a perfect metaphor because often opinions become so wrapped around one political side they become one handed. What is wrong about being one handed, well it means your handy caped. You would not want a one handed man building your house (hopefully) so why would you want a one handed man build your country?

 

Republicans and democrats remind me of two men that are tied together back to back since birth, one facing the east and the other facing the west. They remain facing the same direction their entire lives never knowing what’s behind them. The man facing the east is called Republican and the man facing the west is called Democrat. Every day they argue between each other about what is more beautiful the sun rise or the sun set, the east or the west, when the sun is above them they argue about who can see the furthest and who has the best view.

 

Republican watches the sun rise and says “I see the sun rise to its highest point while giving power and light to the land”.

 

Democrat watches the sun set and he says “it is becoming dim but the sun brightens the land beyond us giving the other lands light like it has for us”.

 

Republican says, “the sun rise is more important because it gives us sight and the plants around us life”.

 

Democrat says, “No, the sun set is more important because it spreads an equality of light through out the world and not just ours”.

 

The next morning when the sun begins to raise Republican says “if the sun does not rise then the sun can not set”. Democrat was stunned by this comment and did not reply because he did not know what to say. Republican felt much pride in his argument but did not dare to gloat fearing that Democrat would find something else to say.

 

When the sun staggered above their heads during mid-day the heat grew immense. Democrat was soaking in sweat and his mouth grew dry as he became more dehydrated. Democrat looked around the west observing all of the plants and animals flourishing from the sun then said, “if the sun should never set and should stay above our heads the heat will dry up the river beds, turn the green grass yellow, and we will all die from thirst and hunger as our bodies bake underneath the hot sun”. Republican was surprised by Democrat and could not think of a reply.

 

They remained silent the rest of the day, and it was not until dark when the silence was broken by Republican, “the air is cold and every minute it becomes colder. The sky is dark and every minute it becomes darker. What if the sun should never raise again, the plants around us would die without the sun and we would surely freeze to death while never being able to enjoy the last bit of our surroundings”. Shocked once more, Democrat had no reply, he did not expect Republican to raise such a point.

 

Republican and Democrat were never able to see what each other saw. Therefore they could not understand the over’s point of view. They could only see the beauty of the sun rise or set never the beauty of the whole day from beginning to end. If they would untie themselves then they would understand each other. They were never able to know the importance of what they could not see. Together they were right and left handed but they were never able to work together to find a conclusion. If we would try to understand each other and meat each other half way then we will no longer be one handed. We will be stronger and more proficient.

 

Stay tuned for my next political segment The Sin in Voting.

 

 

 

 

What is selfishness? It has so many bad connotations but does that mean it is a bad thing? Should we be completely unselfish and think only of others? On the beginning of a plane flight the flight attendant gives a brief demonstration of what to do in a emergency situation. During instruction they say if you have small child to take care of your self first and then the child, why? Because if you do not save your self first then the child will most likely die as well. It is better to save one than none. Although selfishness has bad connotations it is not a bad thing but when you are too selfish then it becomes wrong. There must be a balance between selfish and unselfish but where do we draw the line? Could we ever define the perfect balance? What do you think? Another Question if being too selfish is wrong then could being too unselfish be wrong as well?

After work I took a short detour to the bookstore on my home. Like always I walked over to the Philosophy section first and something caught my eye. I saw a book entitled The Atheist Bible. Just the title is ironic which may have been done purposely but it was not the title in which I am writing about but its context. I examined the book front to back and then opened up to the first page. I was hoping for some strong pieces of text countering the bible like I thought it would. I thought there would be very intelligent points made and very good questions but instead it was a collection of quotes from a assorted number of authors such as Walter Emerson. I read a few quotes and how great they may have sounded they had no potency. There was no swaying arguments no great points or questions just bitterness, hatred, and ignorance. It clearly reminded me of a young teenager rebelling and criticizing his parents for his hardships and disappointment when things did not go his way.

I would have bought the book if it had something more than just quotes because if your where at war wouldn’t you want to know your enemy’s plan of attack. Besides, if they brought up or asked a good question that i did not know the answer to i would know my ignorance and fix it my doing some research and study so i am prepared for the question.

The reason i am writing this is because i have become to wonder why Christianity is so criticized and watched over like a hawk when no other religion or even cults. Anti-believers spend so much time trying to disprove Christianity but never the Muslim faith. When was the last time you saw a show on the Discovery channel going into the past in attempt to to destroy their religious stories? Now when was the last time you’ve seen this done to the christian faith? I’ve seen a lot of those shows. How many times do you here people say they hate the Muslim God and how many times do you hear the same for our God. I believe that it is because deep down they really know that God is their father. Because the Christian faith is so disputed and hated, it is more reason for me to believe that the bible is indeed the words of God. If our religion is just of a lie as the Muslim, the Buddhist, or an Native American faith then why would christian faith bethe only one that is so focused on attack. Granted Christianity is a big part of the western culture but if Atheist believed that there was truly was so God then why would they work so hard to prove something wrong as they do. For example if a person told me that the ocean can not support life i would know they were wrong. I would question what they said and counter their statements but i would not spend more than a few seconds talking to them if they do not realizes how wrong they were because as I say there’s no point in taking a blind man to an art gallery.

I come to believe that it is the devil that pushes doubt on what we know to be the truth. Emerson said that any person with intellect would question the faith and more intellect would lead to more questioning. But it is not intelligence that questions the faith it is perhaps the lack of intelligence with the replacement of another. Socrates said, “I am more ignorant than wise”, what we do know is much less than what we do not know. It is the choice of your intelligence to what you bend it to believe, all of what mankind knows is based on speculation( for they do call it hypothesis). Albert Einstein was not only one of the greatest thinkers alive but was a christian. The more he studied space and science the more faith he had in God(this would disprove Emerson’s believe in the bible).

God lets the bantering of the atheist continue because more doubt that is contributed among Christians and non believers stronger the faith must be in a believer and stronger is he.

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!