I used to think that conservative meant that a person tends towards upholding traditional values—things like kindness, humility and honesty. But lately I’ve been rethinking what it means to be “conservative”, especially in light of comments by people like Rush Limbaugh.

I picked up a copy of Time magazine today that highlighted Limbaugh’s take on Cho Seung-Hui: “If this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was? This guy had to be a liberal.”

Limbaugh’s worldview seems to be pretty simple: “If he’s not conservative, he must be liberal.” If that’s the case, then maybe it’s time I update my definition of “conservative.” How about, “You are conservative if you believe that anyone who does not share your beliefs must be liberal.”

Perhaps Liberals, on the other hand, uphold values such as caring about, conversing with, and including others?

There was a great debate between the Democratic presidential candidates a few days ago (Apr. 26th). Overall, I was quite impressed. There is intelligent conversation going on in democratic circles. Even though I’m more of a Libertarian, I have to hope that several of these candidates get more attention.

One of the first things I noticed was that everyone had a very clear anti-war platform. No one was for the war. That’s a good first step, I think. It seems that our current president has at least one merit—he’s definitely taught the next commander in chief what not to do.

As I took notes on the debate, I was keen to see who grabbed the crowd’s attention best. Biden was able to make everyone laugh when he countered the accusation, “some say you are too verbose. Have you changed?” with a simple “Yes.”

Former Senator Mike Gravel was a surprise candidate that drew a crowd. I resonated with his very direct and very powerful opposition (even anger!) at the war. He was definitely the most energetic of the bunch. He also drew laughter when the host asked why he had earlier made the statement that he was surprised he’d made it so far. To this, he replied:

You’re right–I made that statement. But that’s before I had a chance to stand with them a couple three times. It’s like going in to the Senate. the first time you get there, you’re all excited–my God, how did I ever get here? Then about six months later, you say, how the hell did the rest of them get here?

Gravel says he would make a 180 degree turn for America with regard to the war as his first item of business. Here is a video comprised only of Gravel’s (short) contributions to the debate at South Carolina State, as well as an interview with him afterward.

I like how Kucinich referred to himself as a “healer.” He’s right to point out that we need one. Maybe he’s the guy to do it—I don’t know. I certainly approve of his initiative to impeach Cheney, and I am entirely impressed that he voted against the war in the first place!

Chris Dodd seemed to be the Senator I agreed with least. He accepts lobbyist funds, is against assault weapons and seems to endorse more gun control.

Senator Clinton seemed kind of in the background to me. I didn’t really hear anything I was really for or against. Maybe she intended to be a neutral player?

Senator Edwards was more of the same to me.

I liked Governor Richards’ candor, but I didn’t feel a lot of strength coming from him.

I really liked Barack Obama’s comment that we need to “move away from divisive issues” and focus on areas where we agree. He cited prevention of teen pregnancy as an area where we can all put positive energy in to, rather than draining ourselves in the fight on government regulation of abortion.

Intelligent conversation and good moderation. I’m glad this wasn’t on Fox News channel.

Update: Apparently, CNN is barring Gravel from joining in the debate there, so here is a petition we can sign to encourage a fair and inclusive debate, specifically to encourage CNN to rethink this decision.

So I hate it when some new evidence confutes my assured perspective. But alas, learning is a never-ending endeavor, and I’m an avowed truth-seeker. So here’s a link from Nathan McDonald to a documentary called the Global Warming Swindle. There’s also a counter-documentary that I have yet to watch that claims it’s a scam. I haven’t reached a conclusion on this yet, but I wanted to bring awareness to both sides of the issue. (I’ve been very pro-green lately, a perspective I’m glad to have acquired from “An Inconvenient Truth”, and one I intend to keep simply because I appreciate and love the earth).

The video has some good points, however, regarding the lack of evidence for a CO2-caused global warming effect. It seems to match the data better if we look at it the other way around—that is, increases in CO2 have always followed increases in global warming.

There was a surprising point made in passing near the beginning of the documentary—that the politicized “green campaign” may actually be a way of keeping the rich nations rich and the poor nations poor. Once again, I haven’t reached a conclusion on this point either; however, I find it sad to see how much we’ve done to our environment in the name of progress and comfort, but even sadder to see how our fellow human beings in third-world countries have so little. I suppose that if they are forced to depend on imported “green” products from other countries, they will never be able to attain to the same level of industrialization as the West has.

I’d be curious to hear other perspectives if you’ve watched the documentary and have something to contribute. I know very little about the science behind climatology.

This discussion between Ron Paul and Bill Maher last week proved to be an interesting debate on small government vs. big government on such issues as global warming, foreign policy and self-protection.

One of the points I liked from Congressman Paul came when Bill suggested, “There are some jobs that are so enormous that only governments can do it,” citing global warming as an example. Said Congressman Paul:

Then you have to deal with the volcanoes, and you have to deal with China… so what are you going to do, invade China so they don’t pollute? … But that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do what we can to slow up the emissions and stop subsidizing big oil companies. I don’t like subsidizing oil companies. They’ve been doing that for years. We go to war to protect oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more oil. So I say our foreign policy contributes to global warming—by subsidizing a policy that is deeply flawed. And that’s why we’re in the Middle East, to protect oil interests. So that’s one of the first things you would do if you were serious.

Watch the debate on YouTube.

So there’s going to be a protest against having Dick Cheney speak at this year’s commemoration commencement tomorrow between 11:00 am and 1:00 pm at the BYU Provo campus. I’ll be attending and possibly some friends.

Apparently BYUs protest was highlighted on CNN news this morning—my history teacher noted today that it’s like a “canary in the coal mine” when the most conservative college within the most republican state protests against the vice president. That sounds newsworthy to me—so there’s a possibility we’ll have cameras there tomorrow.

The BYU Democrats have taken a role in promoting the event. They’ve asked that we:

• Say what we like, as long as it isn’t about the Church’s First Presidency.
• Wear a white shirt (not necessarily a tie, but that might be fun!)
• Bring picket signs and that sort of paraphernalia.

I wonder if you have any ideas with regard to point number 3 above. So far, I’ve thought of a couple of signs I might make:

“Darth Vader doesn’t belong among the Jedi Knights”

and

“Does BYU support the crook along with the office?”

If you wish you could attend but can’t, please feel free to brain storm with me until tomorrow morning.

For those following the recent flurry of 9/11-related news (most of it related to Rosie O’Donell), I found this website of military officials, government officials, professors, 9/11 survivors and media professionals who question 9/11 to be quite interesting as well as substantial. Of course, it’s intended as a resource for understanding the one side of the argument, so please forgive the lack of opposing views (of which there are many).