There Is... Another...

*Gasp* It can't be! All this time, I thought I was so special, too...

Folks, it appears there's another Neo in the blogosphere. It's alright though... for this ex-Liberal, the name is short for "neo-neocon." A "lifelong Democrat mugged by reality on 9/11," Neo is an excellent writer, and I have been enjoying her blog since I found it a couple of days ago.

Go check it out!

The Best of Neo?

Since we're gearing up for a new round of Blog awards, it has occurred to me that I should probably create a list on my Sidebar of Doom for my best posts. That way, anyone coming to my blog would not have to spend their time sifting through my archives just to find a decent post.

Also, this new list will for the most part keep people out of my archives, where many dangers lurk. You might not believe it, but studies have shown reading my old posts can actually be dangerous to one's health, as those posts almost exclusively deal with John Kerry. Those that do not deal with John Kerry usually deal with John Kerry's chin. And in the event that the subject of my post has nothing to do with Kerry or his chin, it probably involves me ranting about terrorists, finding creative new names to call them (such as pig, dog, barbarian, troglodyte, animal, etc.). Not that any of this is necessarily bad... I simply wish the old posts were not so poorly written.

So, what are your favorite posts on Strangely Normal? Let me know, and I'll try to include them on my "Best of Neo" list.

Homeschooling Blogger Awards 2005

Okay, I know what you're thinking: "Didn't we just go through this?" Well, sorta. You might remember the Kings Highway Blog of the Year Awards, where I came in third... This time though, the host of the award is Spunky Homeschool.

Here's the list of categories:

Best Homeschooling Mom Blog

Best Homeschooling Dad Blog

Best Homeschooling Family blog

Best Homeschooling Teen blog

Best Informational Homeschool blog

Best Inspirational Homeschool blog

Best Homeschooling Humor blog

Best Team / Group Homeschool Blog

Best Homeschool Curriculum / Business Blog

Best Homeschool Blog Design

Best Canadian Homeschool Blog

Best International Homeschool Blog

Best Current Events Homeschool Blog

Best Homeschool Arts Blog

Best Homeschool Photo Blog

[end of list that serves no purpose except to make me feel important]

If you have a blog (or blogs) to nominate (hint hint), go here and nominate it (or them).

And yes, as a matter of fact, I AM a glutton for punishment.

A Logical Truth: Three Fallacies of Liberal Thought

Nine days ago, I posted a question for all my readers, in hopes of using their answers to illustrate a point. I received a total of twelve responses in among 47 comments, and Seanny will be glad to know that the point of my question was not to make an argument for gun ownership (I’ll leave that to Grizzly Mama...)

Here’s the breakdown of my responses:

• I received 2 responses from individuals with a Liberal history, 9 responses from individuals with a Conservative history, and 1 response from someone with a more or less apathetic history.

• Conservatives unanimously voted to take some sort of action against the criminal, either warning him before blowing his brains out, or shooting first and asking questions later.

• The apathetic individual joined the Conservatives in favoring swift, and if necessary, lethal action.

• The two Liberals, however, were divided. One Liberal (the younger and more moderate of the two) joined the Conservatives without hesitation, while our friend Toad concluded that swift, lethal action would be a very bad idea.

What do these (admittedly rudimentary) statistics reveal? Well, as Toad astutely observed, they do a fine job of illustrating “the difference between the liberal and conservative mind.” This difference lies at the heart of our respective worldviews, and helps determine all of our actions.

We can pin down the difference I speak of by examining the reasons behind the answers my question received. As Seanny McShawn noted, there was only one logical answer to my question; some action must be taken to save the woman and children. This was the reasoning behind the answers given by the Conservatives, Clive, and Swede. Toad’s response, however, revealed a very different kind of logic.

Toad’s response was first that there are too many possibilities for us to assume the most probable scenario, that a thug has killed a family man and is prepared to do the same to his family. This logic was followed by the claim that to help would simply be too dangerous, as it could be an elaborate trap. The final bit of justification that he offered is that any evil that could be done would have been done already. These are all fairly typical Liberal stances; they are not universal, but Liberal leadership has shown that these considerations come well before any consideration for the lives of the victims of the crime. I will illustrate this point later.

Allow me to clarify now that this post is not intended to be an attack on Toad. He was simply the most forthcoming with his answers, and provided the example that I needed. I’m glad he participated and provided us with honest answers.

Let us now deal with the three fallacies of Liberal Thought, which Toad provided us with in his argument:

(1) There are just too many possibilities... This is the First Fallacy of Liberal Thought. It is the idea that we simply can’t be certain of who’s the good guy and who’s the bad guy in a situation, or of anything else for that matter, so it’s best for us to just sit on our hands. Rather than believing what is obvious, this fallacy forces adherents of Liberalism to fear what might be more than they fear what is apparent.

It is unclear what causes this fallacy. Its roots could lie in Postmodernism, the idea that because of the random nature of the universe, Truth is unknowable in any situation. In other words, there are so many possibilities that it is impossible to know all the facts about a given situation, and therefore any swift action would be irresponsible. This philosophy is irrational, however, because it ignores all laws of probability, and would rather allow evil to happen than believe the logic that says evil will happen.

The First Fallacy of Liberal Thought may also be a simple cop-out; perhaps its adherents are too lazy, too cowardly, or too selfish to deal with any evil that does not directly affect them. I cannot say, because any one of these motivations (or Postmodernism) could lead someone to avoid engaging an apparent evil. No matter the motivation, however, there is no justification for the First Fallacy. Laziness, cowardice and narcissism could never justify it, and Postmodernism would be an irrational justification as well, so the idea that “there are just too many possibilities” can, in most cases, be laid to rest.

(2) It would just be too dangerous (or costly) to get involved... This is the Second Fallacy of Liberal Thought. It is the idea that, no matter how noble the cause, no good work should be done for another if it involves an element of risk. “Always look out for Number One” is another way of phrasing this philosophy, which places more value on the life of the would-be helper than that of the victim. It allows the potential savior to avoid risking his life to prevent the almost-certain death of another.

This fallacy can sometimes be combined with the First Fallacy, which produces an argument like the one Toad presented. Essentially, such an argument states that “We can’t know everything about this situation; there could be some danger we don’t know about yet, so it’s best not to get involved.” Either way, this fallacy has little basis in logic.

The Second Fallacy, like the First Fallacy, could be an excuse for laziness or cowardice. If taken at face value, however, such an argument is a blatant admission of narcissism, which is easily established as a fault. After all, what possible justification can one have for not taking a chance at death to save another from certain death? To fail to save a life on impulse is one thing, but it is quite another to live according to this Fallacy of Liberalism, having your mind made up that in most cases, risk of personal injury outweighs the value of another human life.

(3) Any evil that could be done would have been done already... This is the Third Fallacy of Liberal Thought, which is defeated by the First Fallacy. How is it possible that there are so many possibilities as to the cause of this evil, but only one possibility as to when any resulting evil will be committed? If we can’t immediately know everything about a situation, then how can we assume that no more harm will come from it?

The only possible cause for such an assumption to be made up-front is that it is convenient. Someone doesn’t want to get involved, so he convinces himself that it’s all over and he would only be risking his own skin if he stepped in. Obviously, this fallacy is rooted solely in narcissism (not to mention self-delusion), without a bit of logic.

These three fallacies are evident in much of Liberal philosophy, but show up most notably in cases involving foreign affairs. Consider the Rwandan Genocide, where Clinton, Blair, Chirac and Annan failed to do anything except save the white foreigners who were trapped in Rwanda at the time of the genocide. The UN, with its American and Western European military force, was perfectly capable of ending the genocide, being better armed and trained than the Interhamwe, who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Tutsi Rwandans. However, the UN and all the Western powers neglected to do anything to stop the slaughter.

In their apathy towards the plight of the Rwandans, the Liberal-led Western powers succumbed to a sort of national narcissism, called ethnocentrism. Even though they were better armed and trained, as was the person in the scenario I posed nine days ago, they decided it would be too dangerous or too costly to protect the weak. They knew no one else could stop the genocide. They knew that if they didn’t help, the genocide would continue. They knew who the offending party was, and STILL, they didn’t step in. As the Clinton presidency and the rest of the UN allowed the First, Second, and possibly Third Fallacies of Liberal Thought to guide their foreign policy, more than 800,000 people were being senselessly killed.

The same could be said of the War in Iraq: There is a legitimate argument to be made against the War, but it is not an argument that Liberals will make (I will address it in a later post). Instead, most Liberals will refer to the war in terms of one or more of the Three Fallacies.

They may say the war is for oil, or that we had no way of knowing whether or not Saddam still had WMDs, which is to succumb to the First Fallacy, ignoring what is obvious in favor of a conspiracy theory.

They may also say the war is simply too costly in terms of lives or money, which requires belief in the Second Fallacy; in other words, they are saying that the victim group just isn’t worth risking our lives or money for. Ethnocentrism at its finest.

Finally, the Libs may say that Saddam had definitely disposed of his weapons and would not seek or use more, which is an example of the Third Fallacy. According to true Liberalism, however, we couldn’t know WHAT he would have done, and logically, his history of genocide does not in any way prove that he would not commit genocide again.

These are not the only examples of the Three Fallacies of Liberalism being put into action, but they are two of the more recognizable ones. They illustrate for us the mistakes that have been repeated throughout the history of modern Liberalism, from the ceding of Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union all the way to the Bay of Pigs fiasco. These mistakes even continue to be made, and what’s more, they are still defended by many Liberals in the United States and around the world.

It is time that both Conservatives and Liberals alike began to recognize these Three Fallacies of Liberal Thought. Any intellectually honest person will agree that they are fallacies. Any intellectually honest person will agree that they are based out of narcissism, which is the common bond running through all of them. Any intellectually honest person will conclude that a philosophy founded on narcissism can never be legitimate.

Therefore, could it be that Liberalism should be renamed? Is it really the philosophy of narcissism, the Philosophy of the Self? It seems that way. With three narcissistic fallacies to govern the interactions of all true adherents of this philosophy, there seems to be no other way to describe it. When the individuals who claim Liberalism as their own philosophy determine their actions based on what they can positively know (according to them, nothing), how much harm could possibly come to them (according to them, too much), and how much evil they could prevent for the future (according to them, none), there is no word to describe them, except narcissistic.

It’s time to start calling the Liberals on their lapses in logic. The Three Fallacies which have propped up Liberalism thus far need not go unchallenged, and should be attacked at every opportunity. Narcissism has never been a strong basis for a philosophy, and it is a horrible foundation for foreign policy; this has been proven by the modern Liberal movement time and again, and now is the time to call the Liberals on the shortcomings of their philosophy. If we want to end world hunger, genocide, oppression and poverty, we must not allow ourselves to fall into the trap of narcissism, whether we call it by its name or seek to conceal the ugly truth behind it in terms like “Liberalism.”

For after all does not a narcissist by any other name govern as poorly?

Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test?

You Passed the US Citizenship Test

Congratulations - you got 10 out of 10 correct!

Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test?

Hat Tip: Rabenstrange

We Are Gathered Here Today..

...To mourn the loss of one of the greatest bands of all time. It is a sad thing to have to announce, but ladies and gentlemen, the O. C. Supertones are no more.

Unfortunately, to most of you, this will mean nothing. Either you've never heard of them, or you just couldn't get past the fact that they played ska... Either way, the Supertones were easily one of the most underappreciated bands of their time (1995-2005).

With a sound that evolved as time went by, the Supertones were the final remaining members of the Christian Ska Triumvirate that formed during the Third Wave Ska Revolution. This triumvirate also included Five Iron Frenzy, the most popular band to never win an award, and the Insyderz.

The Supertones owed their longevity to a combination of factors. First and foremost, there is songwriter and lead singer Matt Morginsky's powerful lyrics. Never shy about his Christianity and never afraid to defend it, Mojo frequently delved into theological topics that most bands would never touch, such as the Fall of Man and the significance of Jesus' sacrifice (Everything's Broken). This uncommon depth in the Supertone's lyrics is what made them one of the underground greats in Christian music.

But the Supertones also knew how to have fun. Blasting brass solos and adrenaline-pumping beats provided a perfect avenue for both their apologetics-themed music and their "battle-cry" songs. Even when the Supertones happened to sing about themselves (yes, they sang about themselves), the energy in their music was enough to carry the song, and carry it well.

Thus the Supertones were truly great, combining wonderful music (brass or no brass) with Matt Morginsky's powerful lyrics, which continue to go virtually unmatched in both Christian and secular circles. This combination was a great asset to Christian music, and will undoubtedly leave a gaping hole within the genre. This is a band who, love them or hate them, will be sorely missed.

Please, anyone... I have two questions that need to be answered. First, DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE I CAN GET THE SUPERTONES' FINAL EP? And second, is there a band whose lyrical quality can match that of the Supertones? I am dying to find a band (preferably punk/rock) to replace the Supertones now that they are gone. If anyone can help, I would very much appreciate it.

A Moral Question

I have a question for you all. Please give me your opinions; feedback is critical, as I plan on using this information in a later post. The more responses, the better, so links would be appreciated.

Here's the question: Your views on gun-control notwithstanding, please consider the following scenario...

You are taking a walk late at night. As you come around a corner, you see four people: a man, a woman, and the woman's two children. The man is holding the woman up at knifepoint; he is threatening to kill her and her children if they do not give in to his demands. Nearby on the pavement, you spot a man you assume to be the woman's husband, stabbed to death. As you reach down and feel your gun in its holster, and you are faced with a decision: Do you help the woman and children?

There would certainly be an element of danger for you, but you have the advantage of superior firepower. Is it worth the risk? Would you be justified in simply walking away, since any number of variables could make the situation more dangerous, or would ignoring the problem make you as guilty as the thug who commited the crime? Let it be stipulated that there are no police in the town, so if you do nothing, the criminal will never be caught.

Please give me your answers; I'm interested in everyone's opinion.

Recent Writing #1

Well, as you all might have noticed, posting time has been scarce around here lately. Since my last post, The King's Highway Blog of the Year Award went to a very deserving Agent Tim. Second place in the competition went to world-class blogger Spunky Jr., and third place went to yours truly. Click here to read the final vote distribution and click here to read Agent Tim's very gracious acceptance speech.

Wow, it was a fun competition! Congratulations to Agent Tim, and thanks to all you folks who voted for me! I can't wait 'til next year...

Well folks, until I can satisfy my essay-happy teachers, here's a bit of writing I put on one of my Xangas. It's directed more towards people who know me in person, but I guess it's fit to post over here...

My Philosophy

I'm not what you'd expect. I'm quite smart, but good luck figuring that out on your own; like a secure man wearing pink, I am secure in my intellect, and thus I have no qualms with acting the part of the random idiot. So long as it makes people laugh, anyway... You see, I've found that unless someone is willing to lay down his pride and make a fool of himself, he will inevitably be made a fool of, by a crowd of fools who are too self-conscious to open up and be themselves. That's why I act crazy; you either make a fool of yourself, or are turned into a fool, so if we are all fated to seem like fools, why not make a joke out of the absurd concept of what is or isn't cool?

In this world where we're all too full of ourselves to admit that we act stupid sometimes, that we occasionally slip up and do something geeky, that we have that tendency to babble stupidly in front of the opposite sex, I say the best way for us to all get along is to admit these things freely. We must admit that sometimes we all do stuff that's not cool, or make a joke that's not funny, or trip over our own feet, and we must laugh *with* those who happen to do these things, not at them. But first we must learn to laugh at ourselves.

If you're tired of feeling awkward, stupid, and alone, just remember that everyone feels that way, they're just too insecure to admit it; if you really want to do some good, accept yourself for being the way you are, complete with your occasional geekiness. It's time to drop the mask: We're all uncool, so stop killing yourself to measure up to what everyone else pretends to be. Life is much better when you're not trying to live a lie.