I am not a "Gourley operative," as some have characterized those who support Davidson. I have met both Michael Davidson and Paul Gourley, and perhaps more importantly talked with people who support them. At the Delaware Convention (being a College Republican in Delaware, I was there, and am partly responsible for the postponing of the Davidson endorsement), I met Dan Centinello, and the minute he stepped out of his black Saturn, I knew I didn't like him. It turns out that I'm a pretty good judge of character. After talking to both sides at CPAC and now my home convention, I have made up my mind.

I think Gourley is the better man, the better choice, and that the whole fundraising thing has been blown out of proportion by those who seek to grab power in anyway they can. Michael "Judo" Davidson was once described to me as a "Rockstar," and that's exactly what he is. Glamourous and shinny from afar, but see him backstage, as it were, and he's just a sleaze on tour.

That's why I am supporting Paul Gorley for CRNC Chairman.

If you want to borrow the logo I made, feel free, just let me know, and link back here. Thanks!

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:55 PM | Permalink | |

When you have people saying things like this:

How can anyone blame the Michigan GOP for removing a leader not fit to serve? Cassin’s endorsement of Gourley proved that he lacked the judgement to represent republican youth politics in Michigan. The state party had no choice.
Comment by Anonymous — 3/24/2005 @ 11:28 pm (SavetheGOP.com)

It has really just gotten out of hand. Cassin was elected was he not? He was not removed by any democratic process. Sure, I think people who voted for Kerry were more than somewhat delusional, I also believe that it is their right to think so. CR Vets for Truth is just as outraged, and has a lot more detail on the subject.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:04 AM | Permalink | |

Bush has been soft on immigration. This is insane! Vicente Fox says he wants an open border, and Bush seems to be giving his South of the Border Buddy everything short of it. The Dubya has come out against the "Minuteman," Border Project, the aim of which is to find illegals and call the authorities, as "vigilanties," but what he doesn't realize is that if he had delivered those 2, 000 Border Patrol Agents he promised, the project wouldn't be necessary.

It does not seem that the President understands that security and sovereignty are directly tied to illegal immigration. Legal immigration is a good thing, and as Newt Gingrich has said, we should let anyone into the country who is willing to obey the law, and give us a fingerprint and a retina scan.

The worst part of it? The judiciary's protection of illegals. They now say that illegals have te same rights as citizens when it comes to due process. Why don't we just deport them? They clog our emergency rooms, our prisons, our courts, and our welfare systems. We need tight border control now, both with Mexico and Canada. I just wish that Bush would see it that way.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:13 PM | Permalink | |

Why Conservatives and Libertarians need to work together to make sure the GOP doesn't derail itself.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:45 PM | Permalink | |

It seems like the media is constantly in a state of frenzy. "Summer of the Shark," "Scott Peterson," "Michael Jackson," and now Terri Shciavo. Even the Almighty Drudge Report has six headlines dedicated to this story right now. I am being quiet on the issue, beacue for me it isn't cut and dry. It is a very complex case, that has many layers and dimensions to it. I am not sure I could ever have a really informed opinion because there are so many unknowables. I have not watched the news in days because there is never any news on. It is ridiculous that genuine news like this is being ignored. It seems like Iran hostage fever once again. It is not about the stories, it is about the ratings.

By the way, there is a new estimate on Social Security out by the trustees, saying it will run out earlier than expected, and new North American Economic and Security agreement.

Seems Glenn Reynolds agrees.

In case you are looking for an opinon about the Schiavo case, here's one by a friend of mine.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:57 PM | Permalink | |

1. I am a member of the University Chapter of the Delaware Federation of College Republicans.
2. I attended the convention.
3. I was in the room during the debate over the Davidson endorsement..

As far as I know, none of the guest speakers were not supposed to speak about the election, except obviously Davidson (because it was either that or judo, and he talked about both). The first out of state Chairman to speak was Dan Centinello of New York. Centinello ended his remarks (mainly consisting of Delaware jokes) by endorsing Davidson. Centinello was sacked later that night, and will not be voting for Davidson (how ironic). Dan Schuberth of Maine was wearing a Gourley pin, but he only spoke about building a state organization, and of the importance of motivating chapters to get involved. Neither he, nor any others there in support of Gourley, passed out any Gourley material during the convention, with exception of Utah State Chair Tom Robbins, who was asked to pass out a letter on Gourley's behalf. I have a copy of this, and a scan appears in the previous post. I was not solicited for any support by anyone supporting Gourley or Davidson, except when Centinello made inappropriate remarks to me about soliciting grandmothers for money. Christian Berle, who wrote this e-mail containing half-truths about what happened in Delaware, demanded a moment of personal privilege and stumped for Davidson. Robbins asked for a moment of personal privilege (he was not allotted for on the agenda, nor was any pro-Gourley speech), and then passed out the Gourley letter. Michael Davidson then gave his campaign speech.

As soon as Davidson concluded, the current University of Delaware Chapter President demanded the floor to announce a resolution for the Delaware Federation of College Republicans to endorse Davidson for CRNC Chair. Chaos ensued.

Chaos was broken by newly-elected Delaware State Chair Seth Wimer, who to my knowledge, has not committed to supporting any candidate for the position of CRNC Chairman. He asked Michael Davidson to ask the UDCR President to withdraw the resolution so that the question of endorsement could be debated by the floor. Davidson, to his credit, volunteered to leave to allow the process to continue, and all non-voters left the chamber and the doors were closed.

Debate continued, and I, as well as enough other members to constitute a simple majority, pushed for a delay in the vote so that more people could make up their minds. Seth Wimer merely said he was not ready to commit to any candidate, and said that if the resolution passed, he would have felt it unfair for him have to endorse a candidate before he was ready. He never pushed for a delay in the vote, it was a majority of others who got ex-Chairman Jeff Mapson to cede defeat. Centinello certainly did not participate in this debate, as I would have personally tossed him and his comrade Jeff Mapson out of Legislative Hall.

A compromise was reached, and a delay in the vote that amounted to an e-mail vote of the members who were there by midnight April 15. There are three separate lists of e-mails and names, and the votes will go to three separate parties.

It was fair, and I await the results of the vote like everyone else.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:13 AM | Permalink | |

The Gourley Letter

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:12 AM | Permalink | |

Some liberals just don't get it:

In my view, all marriage should have children stem from it. However, the idea of legislating it would be ridiculous.

The Ten Commandments does cover homosexual acts. "Thou shalt not commit adultery," meaning no sex outside marriage. Since marriage is between a man and a woman, homosexual acts violate the Ten Commandments.

"Allowing homosexual "marriage" would force me to recognize something I philosophically, religiously, and morally do not recognize, and view as illogical. " (See previous post)
I believe in the Rule of Law, and so as a citizen under the law, I would have to recognize any union the law does. That's just basic legal "rights."

The Constitution was written by those who came from the Judeo-Christian tradition, and follows many conventions of my faith. So my faith does not "trump" the law, but in fact our law stems from tradition and religion.

If you removed any legal benefits that marriage holds, would gays still want to get married? Unmarried gays are treated no different from any unmarried individuals.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:01 PM | Permalink | |

Ahem. It seems that my last post was not completely understood by some liberals in the audience. My "lofty rhetoric," seems to confuze them, though this is all college-level stuff, thus proving one of my points in this post from last week. I don't think my point from that post was clear enough, that students today are not getting a well-rounded enough education, I point I brought up to some elected representatives in Delaware earlier tonight when they asked about the "Three Tiered Diploma" system that lies in wait to further hurt public school students. But I digress.

They are not sure how my argument applies to gay marriage, so I am going to try to make it simple., and do it premise-conclusion format, for ease of reading.

Premises (The "I" here represents not only me, but the countless others who do):

1. I Believe in the Judeo-Christian God, that He is good, and everything He made is good.
2. God made Man & Woman, for the purposes of procreation (being fruitful and multiplying). This premise is also known as the "Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve" argument.
3. I believe that marriage, as a religious/cultural institution, is the recognition, by the community, of the love between a man and woman. Here in the United States, this is recognized by the Church of which the couple belongs and the State.
4. Being homosexual in and of itself is not wrong, but following homosexual urges is sinful (or at the very least, none of my business)
5. Allowing homosexual "marriage" would force me to recognize something I philosophically, religiously, and morally do not recognize, and view as illogical.
   
6. I am oppressed by others forcing their values on me, in what may be an essentially non-democratic manner due to the activism of the Courts.
   

Conclusion: Gay "marriage" hurts marriage because it takes away the value of the union of man and woman in the eyes of God.

Now, if you (for whatever reason) believe this is not true, and believe that there is no God (who killed him? I suspect Ché), and believe all moral is objective, and do not value human life, Western values, or equality, then you may disagree, but this is where I stand and why. I think it is a sound argument, given the premises.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:59 AM | Permalink | |

The new conservative group on campus (SAVE, of which I am VP), welcomed Dr. Katherin A. Rogers, our faculty advisor and conservative philosophy professor extraodinaire (I have a class with her, and she's just great). She spoke on the topic of why human life is special/sacred, and then opened up the room for discussion.

Her main point is that if you believe that you, as a human being to be a certain kind of thing that is reasoning and thinking, then all other things that are human beings are as well. This extends from the unborn to the very old. If one human life is to be preserved due to its place in the moral realm (those things that should be protected), then so is every human life.

She sees that there is a reason that the left and right being so far divided on these issues, like abortion and gay marriage, things that are considered immoral by the Judeo-Christian tradition, yet trumpeted by the secular Left as foundations of "choice" and "tolerance." Rogers argues that it is hypocritical for the Left to say they are being tolerant and that the Right is trying to impose their views on others and should step aside. Why? Becuase by allowing such practices as abortion and gay marriage, the society as a whole endorses it. Imposing your views through a majority is what democracy is all about, says Rogers, and the Left spinning it otherwise is just preposterous.

Rogers also doubts that the two views of Left and Right can really be resolved at this point, becuase you have Deists, who belive that human beings were created special by God, and naturalists, whether they be Kant-followers, Utilitarians, or some odd breed of what I call "psycho-feminism," they all essentially believe that values are a social construct. This huge gap between left and right are irreconcilable, especially when you have Kantists saying that infants and small children aren't people because they can't "think morally." How do you argue that? It seems that we need to keep the general public with a strong belief in objective morality and truth.

This is how "Multiculturalism," which is really just a guise to subvert Western Civilization, comes into the picture. Those who believe that values are subjective to society, cannot believe that people are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights," a Western notion that this country was founded on. The argument I hear often is, "Democracy will never work in the Middle East because it isn't in their culture." Democracy is not a culture thing. Democracy, while it existed in Athens, was an anomaly until the 18th Century, as the West was under the rule of monarchy and other supremeist governments. While I respect others cultures and cultural values, some here on campus think I'm crazy when I say that morals are objective across all cultures.

What needs to resonate here is that this is more than a ideological battle. It comes down to philosophy, and you won't hear the politicians talking about it, they leave it to the think tanks and the more jargony journals. But it needs to be communicated that voting for someone who supports abortion or gay marriage or secular values is a major philosophical choice, not just a political one.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:37 PM | Permalink | |

All this talk about "saving" Social Security has me bummed out. Rather then worrying about "saving" Social Security, I'd rather phase it out. People need to figure out thier own retirement, and I fear that Social Security has become a crutch, that people think of it as a retirement plan, rather then a retirement suppliment. We need to cut programs to offset this ridiculous amount of spendig the GOP majority has tacked on. Federal spending is up $404 billion since 1998! Under a Republican Majority! Who voted for a tax-and-spend liberal? This is ludacris! Hell, even David Brooks of The New York Times noticed it! The New York Times! If they notice it, is has to be problem.

The GOP leadership should be looking to cut things like the Departments of Labor, Education, Transportation, and Agriculture. Rework the really important ones into Commerce! Stop worrying about Campaign Finance Reform and let people spend their money. Cut useless social programs like the National Endowment for the Arts, and break up large union monoploies like the teacher's unions. Reform the tax code to help small businesses.

The point is, be productive. Government spending does not bolster the economy. It hurts it, beacuase the government has to get money from somewhere: taxes. Maybe if people were not taxed so much, they wouldn't have to rely on Social Security.

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:53 PM | Permalink | |

I work in the Library here at school, and my job consists of sitting behind a desk and retrieving materials that professors put on hold or give to the library. Most of the time, I get to read, and get paid for it, which is great.

I just finished Freefall of the American University, which is a history of why and how campus and schools are so liberal right now. I got it at CPAC, and it paints a disturbing picture. I now realize that University of Delaware could be much, much worse. I also know how kids are being de-educated of American values and morals. It starts as early as kindergarten, as children are stripped of morality and indoctrinated into the liberal idea. Scary stuff.

Now, to bring this post back to relevancy, I was at work yesterday, and reading In the Beginning...Was the Command Line by Neal Stephenson. A girl who came in needing materials saw the cover, and asked what it was about. I told her, "computers and culture," and she asked what class it for. I told her none, and she became mystified that I was reading an "educational," (I'd definately call In the Beginning... informative, but I'm not sure how truely educational it is. It scares me to think how many students here feel that education ends outside the classroom.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:03 PM | Permalink | |

This is another student on campus, who blogged in response to my call to take back campuses nationwide.


While he makes the horrible statement of calling for "quotas" on abortion, (1 abortion is a human rights crime, and we all know how well quotas worked for immigration), he does something miraculous, by calling on the states to decide on gay marriage. At least the people would have a say, rather than activist judges who legislate from the bench.

He and "delacrat," do not realize that Ann Coulter says things for a couple reasons:
1. To fire up conservatives
2. To get liberals very, very angry
Coulter is not so much a pundit, though I believe she has a sharp political mind, as a humorist. She uses the he's-so-responsible-for-it-he-could-patent-it technique of Rush Limbaugh, pointing out, through common sense and extreme case examples, the absurdity of the Left. She seems to be doing a good job, or she wouldn't have so may New York Times Bestsellers, would she?

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:09 PM | Permalink | |

Jeff Jacoby of The Boston Globe:

Listen to Claus Christian Malzahn in the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel: ''Could George W. be right?" And Guy Sorman in France's Le Figaro: ''And if Bush was right?" And NPR's Daniel Schorr in The Christian Science Monitor: ''The Iraq effect? Bush may have had it right." And London's Independent, in a Page 1 headline on Monday: ''Was Bush right after all?"
Even Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's ''Daily Show" and an indefatigable Bush critic, has learned the new lyrics. ''Here's the great fear that I have," he said recently. ''What if Bush . . . has been right about this all along? I feel like my world view will not sustain itself and I may . . . implode."

I'm not saying we should get cocky at all, and I think the Middle East has a long way to go, but it is nice that democratic achievements in that region are recognized from the Left. Afghanistan and Iraq are good starts, and it seems Lebanon could join them, as well as Egypt, but the bigger fish of Saudi Arabia and Iran are still a long way off. That doesn't mean we should not celebrate the sucesses of 2004 and 5, but we should still recognize that this is long term, and it may not be easy. I know I am in support, and I hope this signals a change from the Left. If there is not support from both sides of the spectrum on this issue, then it will fail, and we're doomed to the continuation of religious tyranny across the Middle East.

Posted by Ryan S. at 6:24 PM | Permalink | |

I am helping to start a team-blog with some College Republicans.
It's Red, White, & Blue Hens, and should start rolling along.

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:20 PM | Permalink | |

I am tired of hearing about Michael Jackson. I can't watch cable news for 15 minutes without hearing about it. I believe Michael Jackson, regardless of whether or not he molested kids, is a sick sick man. I think he needs psychological help, regardless of a criminal trial. Just by glancing at headlines and cable news crawls, it seems to me that the prosecution has a weak case, and the star will either get a light sentence or go free. Honestly, I don't really care. I feel bad for his "victims," but like I said, the man needs help more then prison. I just wish everyone would do me and others like me a service and stop talking about him incessantly.

Everyone knows what they think about Michael Jackson, and I don't see why a trial is necessary. Just get him off my TV. Please.

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:26 PM | Permalink | |

HEY! Anti-God Proto-Communists! BUSH WON!

Lately I've been noticing about campus that though we may have won the election, liberals are alive and well on campus, confident that they are the status quo, destined to rise to power in their 21st Century Anti-God Welfare State called the United States Who Love France. We have professors like Ward Churchill run amok, Academic Freedom and Free Speech being violated, and students like this being the only "voice" of students.

It is time for change. I am helping to get the conservative movement in full swing on campus. We now have (not counting College Republicans), a Pro-Life group, Students Advocating Values and Equality (a conservative group), and possibly another group in the pipeline. If a University can sponsor this and not have any outrage, that is wrong. It is time to fight back. If there is a peace vigil, do a 'Support Our Troops' signwave. If the 'Vagina Monologues" come to your school, try to get a screening of The Passion of the Christ. Liberals supress the ideas of those they disagree with. They claim they love free speech, yet get "offended" when I say that Affirmative Action is discriminatory, or abortion kills the unborn. Don't they realize that I get offended when they chide me for believing in God, loving America, and not liking the United Nations?

This is a call to arms. This is a rallying cry. We need to get the conservative voice back on college campuses. Do some reasearch! Argue with your professors! Get a bad grade because you believe Bush is a good leader? Call FIRE. We have every right to our opinion. The first amendment applies equally. Use it. They want diversity? We'll give 'em academic diversity, and force-feed it if necessary, like they force-feed us Marxist theory and radical feminist agendas. Liberals don't win elections, and they sure as hell can't win arguments based on fact.

"It's time for a New McCarthyism." --Ann Coulter

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:53 AM | Permalink | |

Steve Milloy is defending NASCAR from the envirodoctrinists:

Lead was eliminated from most gasoline in the U.S. during the 1970s and 1980s. In 1990, however, Congress exempted the aviation and racing industries from the lead ban. The exemptions made sense since no one wanted airplanes falling from the sky because of stalled engines and auto racing would only add an insignificant amount of lead to the environment.
NASCAR engines run on a high performance fuel designed exclusively for competition called 110 Leaded Racing Gasoline. Not only does the "Official Fuel of NASCAR" make stock cars run better, but its components make it resistant to explosion, which naturally makes things safer for drivers in racing accidents.

In contrast to the sound reasoning used to permit racing cars to use leaded gasoline, the Clean Air Trust drags out the usual myths about lead in its attack on NASCAR.
"According to the EPA, lead causes damage to the kidneys, liver, brain and nerves, and other organs," claims the letter. What it omitted mentioning was that you would have to be exposed to unusually high levels of lead for it to affect your health.
The classic lead poisoning scenario involves chronic ingestion of lead-contaminated dust from deteriorating lead-based paint that is chipping, peeling or flaking in older homes in poor condition. NASCAR fans and the communities surrounding NASCAR racetracks are far removed from such high exposures to lead. There is no evidence that anyone has ever been overexposed to lead because of NASCAR racing.

As toxicologists say, "it's the dose that makes the poison." Exposures to low levels of lead are not known to cause health effects.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:04 PM | Permalink | |

I knew about this from my English Professor, who assigned my class to critique a New Republic article that mentioned the subject, but here is an excellent bashing of Sen. Ted "Quagmire" Kennedy on his opposition of the Cape Wind Project, which would damage the view from his really expensive estate. Yes, even the great Ted Kennedy falls to NIMBY.

An astounding 17 governmental agencies are involved in reviewing this project, all but ensuring that if Cape Wind is ever built, it will be years down the road. How does the environment benefit from Ted Kennedy stalling or killing a wind power project?

Apparently preserving the environment goes out the window if it interferes with views from the Kennedy compound.So what type of power production do they support? Traditional, polluting, plants that use coal? Or do they think a tiny magic energy cube will soon be invented to take care of the world's electrical needs?

This proves once again that those in government on the Left love the enviroment a political advantage that lines up with its constituentcy's beliefs.

Hat Tip: GOPBloggers

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:27 PM | Permalink | |

The Indepundit:

"NBC'S TODAY, 7:10am PST March 7, 2005.

KATIE COURIC: Let's turn to Lebanon, if we could for a moment, Governor. Because as you know, Syrian President Assad has announced that his troops will withdraw from Lebanon, a country that Syria has occupied since the mid-70s. For people who may not be foreign policy experts, how significant is this?

NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR BILL RICHARDSON (D): Well, this is very significant. I believe the Bush Administration deserves credit for putting pressure, and saying that authoritarian regimes have to go. What is happening here is, the assassination of a very popular former prime minister in Lebanon, has fueled massive demonstrations in Lebanon, that hopefully will lead to all 14,000 Syrian troops out of Lebanon, plus their intelligence agents, by May. It means that in Lebanon, in Egypt there's some potential new elections. The Palestinian Territories; in Iraq; I think there's a wave of democracy caused by internal pressures, of young people in the Arab world, rooting against these authoritarian regimes--and pressure from the Bush Administration--

KATIE COURIC: I--

BILL RICHARDSON: They deserve credit.

KATIE COURIC: I was going to say, because a lot of foreign policy experts are hailing the Bush Administration's policies, and saying the Bush Doctrine, of spreading democracy throughout the world, there's clear evidence that it's working. You agree with that assessment?

BILL RICHARDSON: Well, it is working. Whether by design, or by accident, it is working. The fact that the President has spoken out, where in the past the US policy has winked at Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, because of their massive security, and we have energy interests there, we have military bases, we kind of said, 'OK, it's alright not to be democratic. The President, in talking about freedom and democracy, is sparking a wave of very positive democratic sentiment that might help us override both Islamic fundamentalism that has formed in that region, and also some of the hatred for our policies of invading Iraq. So, this is not only bringing a good result in the Middle East, potential democracy and full elections, but also it is helping our security, perhaps making us safer, by having less Islamic fundamentalism--

KATIE COURIC: Right.

BILL RICHARDSON: ...because democracy provides an outlet against it. And also, younger Arabs that are fueling this discontent throughout the Arab world, becoming pro-US, which is a good sign for the future.

KATIE COURIC: Alright. Good news indeed.

I have praised Richardson here, and here in the past, and if he keeps saying stuff like that, then I will be praising him in the future. He's an example of what the Democrats need to do, which is hop on board the process of spreading democracy in the Middle East. It may be the only way that they hold on to any respect in Foreign Policy. The Middle East Deomcracy Project is going to be longterm, and somewhat costly, especially in the beginning, where we are, but the dividends to the entire world will be astounding. If the DNC wants to challenge GOP supremecy, they need to get on board.

Hat Tip: Instapundit

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:52 AM | Permalink | |

My friend has a new blog, Reeves Register, and his newst post is quite hilarious, as he discusses possible theories as to why President Clinton slept on the floor:

Read My Lips: "I want the Bed"
It seems like the Former President's Bush and Clinton trip to the Tsunami devastated regions were pretty interesting. Especially the fact that Clinton gave Bush the bed, due to 41's age. Although Clinton enjoys sleeping on the floor, because he was already used to sleeping on an uncomfortable couch.Former President Clinton respects 41' for his age, its too bad that he can't respect his marriage with Hillary.

Read My Lips: "I want the bed, you little adulterer."

Seems other conservatives still don't have respect for Clinton. Either of 'em.

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:59 PM | Permalink | |

jester

Posted by Ryan S. at 6:30 PM | Permalink | |

Mike Rosen is glad academia is at the center stage.

"Thank you Ward Churchill! As the poster child for so much of what's wrong with higher education today, you moved this issue from the back burner to the front burner of public policy. Whether you stay or go is merely another battle. This is about the war of ideas.

Richard Rorty is a philosophy professor at the University of Virginia. He's also editor of an unabashedly socialist magazine, Dissent, and a hero of the academic left. Here's his political assessment of academe: 'The power base of the Left in America is now in the universities, since the trade unions have largely been killed off. The universities have done a lot of good work by setting up, for example, African-American studies programs, Women's Studies programs, and Gay and Lesbian Studies programs. They have created power bases for these movements.'

Movements? If you had any illusions that these programs were simply 'studying' these areas, now you know better. Like Churchill's Ethnic Studies program, they're all 'movements.' And American universities have become 'the power base of the Left.'

The debate stimulated by the Churchill affair has escalated into a long overdue exploration into the politics and processes of higher education. The sacred cow of tenure is under review, along with the limits of academic freedom and the shameful lack of ideological balance within college faculties. It's like peeling off the outer layers of an artichoke to get to the heart of the issue.

And this is it: 1) Ideology and politics. As Rorty proudly proclaims, the Left has taken over academe. We want it back. 2) Accountability. Self-important academics believe themselves to be beyond reproach, sitting as philosopher-kings, dispensing their wisdom to the ignorant masses. Nonsense. They're ordinary people, government employees dependent on their customers and the taxpayers for their income, and ultima"

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:33 AM | Permalink | |

Tonight I attended an event called "Politically Incorrect" by a group called Students in the Public Interest. This was beyond their normal meetings, as it was at a local pizza parlor, and refreshments were provided. I think the idea is that if you get enough people in a room together, and give them a topic, arguments may happen.

The rules were given, the first topic introduced. Syria and Lebannon. This brought about discussions about the Middle East, and Foreign Policy in general, and when that got out of hand, domestic policy was discussed.

Ideologues arguing ideologues is always fun, at least for me, becuase you know you are not going to convert the other person, but shouting at them sure makes you feel better about it. I just never realized the amount of anti-God secular, communist (or at least communist-sympathizing), anti-majority liberals there were on campus, nor how manny communists are in the "Democratic" Party (and yes someone did say Che was their poltical idol). And apparently, liberals really don't believe in censorship, even in public where children were present. We were in a back are of the restuarant, but shouts could easily be heard by other patrons. Still, the liberals dropped the "f-bomb" a couple dozen times in two hours. Using extreme language (on top of extremist rhetoric) only serves to offend people. Maybe this is why liberals don't win elections.

In any case, it was fun, and I'll do it again.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:20 PM | Permalink | |

Instapundit summarizes some poll numbers.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:37 PM | Permalink | |

I am backing Seth Wimer for the Chair of Delaware Federation of College Republicans (DFCR). Seth is a great person, but more than that, he is the right man for the job. I have discussed with him personally what vision he has for the future of an organization that has squandered it's potential thus far.

He plans to grow the leadership of the group, so that more people get involved with the organization. Seth offers leadership, and making the DFCR better by getting more people inolved on the state level. Right now, DFCR works mainly on it's own, a renegade group of college kids who help out by happenstance and hope it works. We need to create partnerships with other groups like the State Committee and High Schoolers to ensure the Republican Party has a future in Delaware.

The finances for DFCR right now are crude at best. Seth has proposed a "comprehensive, easily understood budget," that would allow DFCR monies to be easily tracked and handled by the Treasurer. He also wants to revolutionize the way DFCR rasies money, by creating an 'Associate Membership' program.

A core mission of the DFCR is to help college chapters (like University of Delaware, Wesley College and Widener Law) better serve their members in spreading the conservative message on campus. Seth's core vision is practical and fiscally conservative, centered on growing the organization and helping to realize it's full potential.

This is why I am fully backing Seth Wimer for Chair of DFCR. I feel that the DFCR needs a change in direction, and though we have a had an okay start, it is time to kick it into high gear, and help the organization, as well as the Republican Party into a bright future in Delaware.

-Ryan, March 1, 2005, author Jokers to the Right

The views reflected in this post are not necessarily that of Seth Wimer or his campaign.

Quotes from Official Campiagn Website.

Posted by Ryan S. at 6:53 PM | Permalink | |