My opening address at the debate between the UNLV College Republicans and UNLV Young Democrats.
When we as Americans look at the two opposing schools of political thought in Conservatism and Liberalism, we see that the major divergence in ideology happen in describing what the proper Role of government ought to be. And ironically, it is in this broad and far ranging question that we see the intrinsic and unique qualities of the American democracy in comparison to the rest of the world. It is in this very question in which we find the answer to why so many people from every corner of the world flocks to the land that guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
To analyze what exactly is so intrinsic about American democracy and its role of government is, it is important to start at the very beginning. At our foundation, our forefathers were able to learn from the examples of what happens when power is consolidated and the sovereignty of the state is able to hold its people accountable to its whim. And so when our government was crafted, our forefathers built us a government in which the separation of powers were evident, and gave us a union where the right of the individual was given greater gravitas than ordinary.
And herein lies the difference. The conservative school of thought believes that the smaller the role of government is, the more free and prosperous our citizenry can be. The opposite can be said of the liberal movement. Their strangely skewed trust in government, which they present as the best solution, leads them to place the government and not the people, first. The conservative movement believes that decisions should be made as closely as possible to the people that are affected by it, and that the ones who make the decisions should be elected as directly as possible by the people affected. The liberal movement in stark contrast to such basic principals, attempts to create an umbrella in which generic standards are set and the people are ordered to fall in line.
As conservatives, we believe in a system in which standards are driven up by choice and competition opposed to a society that is supposed to simply be grateful for what is handed to it.
As Thomas Jefferson once said, “the government that can give you everything is a government that can take everything.” Our movement centers on the ideals of individual responsibility where every citizen is given the opportunity to strive for a better life.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
The Art of Eating Meat in Front of a Vegetarian
Recently, as I was reading my University’s student run paper, the Rebel Yell, I found a rather amusing article titled: “From the other side: Veggie delights change social views.” How could anyone avoid reading such a grandiosely titled article? Hopeful to gain an insight as to how vegetables managed to change the perspective of human society and its views, I was left standing aghast by the end of the article. Basically, the author Shane Collins simple trapezes about the article gloriously announcing the delectable tastes of various vegetables and how he was proud that he and his vegetarian brethren are showing compassion and are “reducing [the] suffering,” of animals to quote his words.
Wait, wait, wait a minute. Reduce suffering of animals by becoming vegetarian? This smells like fishy PETA business to me.
I fully understand the concept of vegetarianism for those who follow a faith that calls upon it. I even begrudgingly understand those who are vegetarian for its supposed health benefits. But those who are vegetarian to respect animal rights and end animal suffering? That’s a laughable idea in my book.
Remember that one of the basic lessons in biology taught to us is that we as a human species are supposedly classified as mammals. We are also designed as omnivores. If you look at everything from our digestive organs to the way our teeth are designed, we are clearly built to devour both meat and vegetables.
With this in mind and using this ideology, don’t we as human beings have every right to eat meat from cattle as an endangered cheetah is entitled to hunt antelope? In comparison, the way we slaughter swine for consumption is similar in many respects to wild felines or dogs hunting its prey in the wild.
If the natural cycle that we learned in the movie, the Lion King holds true, why are vegetarians out there propagating this idea that eating meat is a guilty pleasure and that they are above such cruelty to animals. Ask any semi-coherent vegetarian (a possible contradiction), if a lion is able to sustain on a vegetarian diet. That vegetarian should answer you by saying no. You should ask them why not. Its because lions are designed to be carnivores, a beast that only eats other animals.
Then why should humans, a supposed natural creature of this world, be suppressed from living as it’s built to live: as an omnivore? The next time your sitting with a vegetarian friend who’s lecturing you about the barbaric nature of eating meat, remind that person you’re simply doing your part in helping reduce global warming by stopping cattle from releasing methane gas in their flatulence.
Wait, wait, wait a minute. Reduce suffering of animals by becoming vegetarian? This smells like fishy PETA business to me.
I fully understand the concept of vegetarianism for those who follow a faith that calls upon it. I even begrudgingly understand those who are vegetarian for its supposed health benefits. But those who are vegetarian to respect animal rights and end animal suffering? That’s a laughable idea in my book.
Remember that one of the basic lessons in biology taught to us is that we as a human species are supposedly classified as mammals. We are also designed as omnivores. If you look at everything from our digestive organs to the way our teeth are designed, we are clearly built to devour both meat and vegetables.
With this in mind and using this ideology, don’t we as human beings have every right to eat meat from cattle as an endangered cheetah is entitled to hunt antelope? In comparison, the way we slaughter swine for consumption is similar in many respects to wild felines or dogs hunting its prey in the wild.
If the natural cycle that we learned in the movie, the Lion King holds true, why are vegetarians out there propagating this idea that eating meat is a guilty pleasure and that they are above such cruelty to animals. Ask any semi-coherent vegetarian (a possible contradiction), if a lion is able to sustain on a vegetarian diet. That vegetarian should answer you by saying no. You should ask them why not. Its because lions are designed to be carnivores, a beast that only eats other animals.
Then why should humans, a supposed natural creature of this world, be suppressed from living as it’s built to live: as an omnivore? The next time your sitting with a vegetarian friend who’s lecturing you about the barbaric nature of eating meat, remind that person you’re simply doing your part in helping reduce global warming by stopping cattle from releasing methane gas in their flatulence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
