We're surrounded by philosophy everyday. Shampoo bottles even espouse philosophy. We are at a point in history where two competing philosophies are battling for control of this nation.

I don't think many people really have a problem understanding Conservative philosophy because it's so simple. The Conservative philosophy is one of personal responsibility and individual freedom. People are flawed and because of this we must have some form of government to protect individual rights.

The liberal philosophy (modern liberalism) is one that I don't quite understand. I'm beginning to think that my misunderstanding is rooted in the vagueness that is modern liberalism.

While trying to understand the liberal mindset I have noticed a few repeating trends. Again this is based on my own experience.

• Liberals tend to defend things they don't fully understand. To me it's like people who will actually get in a heated argument over a sports team. Unless you are employed by that sports team, or make your living as a bookie, it's doubtful that the team's success or record will have an effect on you in real life.
• Liberals don't know what they stand for. I have seen more liberals run from anything which could represent any sort of structured belief system, religious or not. It seems that liberals will categorize just about anything except themselves or their beliefs. I think it has to do with not wanting to be pinned down. If you stand for everything you stand for nothing.
• Liberals often talk about how open-minded they are. If someone were truly open-minded they would never consider it. True character traits are most often not noticed by those who possess them.
• Liberals often talk of self definition; a want to "find themselves". I don't understand this at all. I have never wanted to "find myself". How many experiences must someone be exposed to before they understand themselves? Why would you want to base your life on your limitations, in a few circumstances, at any given point in time. That's depressing.
• Liberals think that nothing is black and white, but that there are solutions to every problem. It amazes me how many people I've talked to who say, "...someone will come along and fix it, they always do". Believing that someone will always correct things is dangerous. To believe that "someone will always fix it" means that you are putting your faith blindly in some unnamed person or persons to solve an issue. To follow man blindly means that you must believe man is naturally good, or naturally looks out for the best interest of others.

All of these traits are not necessarily negative, however; I would want none of them in a leader.

It seems to me that liberals are incapable of making most philosophical decisions as an individual. Liberals shun personal responsibility because someone else knows what's best, and will eventually come around and fix things for them. Perhaps that's why they are comfortable with someone else making the decisions for them.

When it comes to philosophy I would rather have a leader who believes that philosophical choices are individual choices -- not to be mandated. - JM

There's something deeply wrong with wanting others to provide for you; to take the fall for you. There's also something deeply wrong with those who want to control people because of their reliance on others. There's something downright evil about teaching people to rely on others as a direct means of controlling them. - JM

One more thing to consider. The most notable modern historical Conservative philosophers are The Founding Fathers of the United States of America. The most notable modern historical leftist philosopher is Karl Heinrich Marx. Which of these philosophies have most contributed to improving the human condition?

Tell me what you think...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

With all of the protesting in Egypt it's hard to keep track of who's doing what. In the midst of all this; there are some important news articles that most Americans are not seeing.

CAIRO (AP) -- About 10,000 protesters returned to downtown Cairo's Tahrir Square Friday for what they called a "second revolution," calling for Egypt's military rulers to speed up the pace of democratic reforms in a country that is still charting its political future.

Protesters carried banners reading the "Egyptian revolution is not over" and chanted the slogan.

This doesn't sound so bad does it. Just more "Arab Spring" right?

The military's leadership of the country's democratic transition has left many protesters dissatisfied.

"I came here because I didn't feel that Egypt changed," technician Raafat Hendi said, under huge posters calling for a new constitution.

Some critics accuse the military rulers of collaborating with the former regime and being too lenient in its prosecution of Mubarak, his family and regime members.

The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's best organized political force, opposed the protest and called it an attempt to drive a wedge between the military and the people. The Brotherhood's absence will test the ability of liberal and secular groups to launch their own sustained opposition movement.

Is the writer of this article saying that the earlier protests in Egypt were organized by the Muslim Brotherhood? I thought that the protests were organized by people who simply wanted freedom, that's what I was told in news report after news report.

The Brotherhood, banned in 1954, became a political force after renouncing violence in the 1970s. Eventually it became the most formidable opponent to Mubarak's regime, though it was still banned as a political party.

When Mubarak fell, the Brotherhood stood ready with a huge network of social services and supporters.

Thousands of protesters marched in other Egyptian cities like Alexandria and Suez, which also saw deadly clashes with security forces during the uprising. The army and police withdrew all their forces and vehicles from Suez before Friday's protest began.

It is likely that the most organized group will gain control of whatever government eventually manifests itself. The Muslim Brotherhood has been waiting for an opportunity like this for many years. Now it's time for them to act. Pay close attention to Egypt in the coming weeks.

I seriously doubt that the future Egypt will be friendly to the US or Israel.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Newt Gingrich has officially joined the 2012 presidential race. What's not clear is how Gingrich expects to actually foster Republican or Conservative votes.

On 05/15/11 Gingrich was on "Meet The Press" and said the following:

REP. GINGRICH: I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors. But there are specific things you can do. At the Center for Health Transformation, which I helped found, we published a book called "Stop Paying the Crooks." We thought that was a clear enough, simple enough idea, even for Washington. We--between Medicare and Medicaid, we pay between $70 billion and $120 billion a year to crooks. And IBM has agreed to help solve it, American Express has agreed to help solve it, Visa's agreed to help solve it. You can't get anybody in this town to look at it. That's, that's almost $1 trillion over a decade. So there are things you can do to improve Medicare.

Medicare itself is social engineering. Technically anything you do to change it, or even take it away could be seen as social engineering. Gingrich is trying to walk down the middle like Obama.

I don't think the American people have "improving Medicare" on their minds. I think most Americans are starting to realize that no matter what you do to bloated government systems, they are always going to become ever expansive and expensive.

When asked about the individual mandate question by Gregory, Gingrich went on to say.

REP. GINGRICH: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay--help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond...

He doesn't want the individual mandate, he doesn't want to get rid of the individual mandate, he wants some variation of it. On this issue Gingrich is again trying to walk down the middle like Obama.

I think that Gingrich is trying to be all things to all people. The only problem is that he is going to be watched closely by Conservatives, not the Independents he is attempting to attract. In other words; Gingrich is going to loose his base while chasing those who pay little to no attention to politics anyway. How else could one be "Independent" or "Undecided" with the way things are going today.

Towards the end of the interview Gingrich criticizes himself.

REP. GINGRICH: One of my great weaknesses is that part of me is a teacher analyst. And part of me is a political leader. And I've--one of the most painful lessons I've had to learn, and I haven't fully learned it obviously, is that if you seek to be the president of the United States, you are never an analyst, you know, you're never a college teacher because those folks can say what they want to say. And somebody who offers to lead America has to be much more disciplined and, and much more thoughtful than an analyst. Analysts can say anything they want to because there's no downside. But the person to whom you're entrusting the leadership of the United States had better think long and hard before they say things. I think that's a fair criticism of me.

Either Gingrich learns when and where to say what, or this is going to be one of the shortest bids for the Republican nomination in recent history.

There are, of course, a few sides to this. Either Gingrich actually has wild ideas he needs to keep to himself, or he is just wacky. Perhaps he just wants to be president, and will say anything to get there. Only time will tell. But I will be watching...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

There are now reports of inflation, and job losses.

Another report on Thursday showed a surprise jump in the number of Americans claiming unemployment benefits last week, which could cast a shadow on expectations for a significant pick-up in output in the second quarter.

Growth in gross domestic product slowed to a 1.8 percent annual rate after a 3.1 percent fourth-quarter pace, the Commerce Department said. Economists had expected a 2 percent pace.

The GDP report underscored the pain that strong food and gasoline prices are inflicting on households.

A inflation gauge contained in the report rose at a 3.8 percent rate -- the fastest pace since the third quarter of 2008 -- after increasing 1.7 percent in the fourth quarter.

A core price gauge, which excludes food and energy costs, accelerated to a 1.5 percent rate -- the fastest since the fourth quarter of 2009 -- from 0.4 percent in the fourth quarter. The core gauge is closely watched by Fed officials, who would like to see it closer to 2 percent.

Walmart has said that it has experienced its 7th quarter of losses.

Wal-Mart has struggled with seven straight quarters of sales declines in its stores.

Wal-Mart shoppers, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck, typically shop in bulk at the beginning of the month when their paychecks come in.

Lately, they're "running out of money" at a faster clip, he said.

"Purchases are really dropping off by the end of the month even more than last year," Duke said. "This end-of-month [purchases] cycle is growing to be a concern.

What does all of this mean? It means two things. One the US economy is not getting better. Employment levels are not going up, the number of job losses might have decreased, but jobs are still being lost.

The reason, I believe, for all of this is the "Stimulus Packages".

Think about it for a minute. How did the housing bubble pop? It popped because the mortgages fell through, people couldn't afford their houses. Once prices reached a point that the average person could no longer afford them, people stopped buying causing home values to drop suddenly. It was a house-of-cards, the homes were never worth what they were selling for. Property is worthless if there is nobody to buy it. Remember Beanie Babies; how much can you sell them for now?

The government's answer, a Stimulus plan. The government borrows money and puts it into the economy. In the short term this might seem good, but in the long term it's unsustainable. The sheer act of borrowing against the future devalues the US Dollar now (it lowers our credit score). The more the US borrows the weaker the dollar becomes on the world market.

It's another bubble, another house-of-cards. The money pumped into the economy is no different than the housing bubble; IT'S FAKE. The money is not real, it's borrowed with interest upon repayment. These loans are based on future earnings. The problem is that the money the government is printing is not resulting in wealth creation. We are not creating future earnings, nor are there signs that there will be any future earnings anytime soon.

The fake money is only effective in the short term, before the value of the US dollar drops. Just like the housing bubble, it works until you reach the tipping point. For the housing market the prices reached their ceiling, housing prices were so inflated that people could no longer afford to buy. For the US there is a debt ceiling. Once we borrow up to that ceiling, or even close to it, we are on the very edge of having the value of the dollar collapse on the world market. Increasing the debt ceiling will only further devalue the dollar.

The government is going to raise the debt ceiling no-matter what they say now. Because they have to keep the "house-of-cards" (which is the US economy) up. The hope is that things will turn around and the economy will again start adding value to the dollar. The problem is that hope doesn't cut it in the real world. Foreign governments are quickly realizing that the dollar is about to become greatly devalued. Foreign investors are going to pull their money out.

I covered all of this before, but there weren't quite as many visible signs in the media then. Also the writing is on the wall and that's why foreign investment in the US is dropping.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

So, what did Trump do? Trump just "took out" one of the best Democrat political weapons.

Now that Obama's certificate of live birth has been released it can no longer be used as a weapon against Republicans.

The birth issue is often the first question posed by the media when interviewing Republicans. No matter the answer, Republicans were portrayed as fools because of their intellectual honesty.

Nobody could honestly look at the situation and think that something strange wasn't going on. I think that the Obama campaign knew well-and-good that they could count on the birth issue to hurt Republican candidates. I don't think that the Obama campaign wanted to out the document yet.

The Obama campaign wanted to keep the document hidden to use it against a Republican candidate with higher poll ratings, and much later in the presidential race.

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.