Evolution

I've heard it said that American is evolving, changing, becoming something new, something different. I do not disagree for change is evident it is inevitiable. It is not change that I take exception to but rather the term evolving. For evolving implies progress, a maturing or perfecting. For me the government is not evolving but eroding. In my mind the changes are not evolutionary but better described as the results of entropy.

Evolution as defined by Wordnetweb.princeton.edu, is "a process in which something passes by degrees to a different (especially a more advanced or mature state.)" In biology, evolution is the theroy of how life came to be. When applied to governemnt it is the refinement process that moves us towards perfection.

Newton's second law of thermodynamics introduces the term entorpy. Entropy is an extensive concept but carries with it the notion that nature moves from a state of order to disorder. Entropy can be viewed as the opposite of evolution. If we believe that the changes in government are a result of entropy then the changes are breaking down, destroying, our government rather than building it up.

Viewing conservatives metaphorically as Entropist and liberals as evolutionists, yields surprising insights into the conflicts that exist bwtween the two groups. We can see that one group believes they are creating something building towards a utopia, while each change carries the other group further away from their ideal government. The metaphor shows that liberal success is dependent on change, while success for conservatives is predicated on remaining the same. Evolution and entropy helps us understand our nation's beginning, our end and the struggle in between the two. They highlight liberalism's strength and its' weakness. We are shown the weakness in conservatism but also its source of power. In the end we see why and how our nation will die.

The first key to understanding the minds of conservatives and liberals is to understand the differenece between a law of nature and a theory. Entorpy is part of a law, a rigid, unbreakable law. Evolution is a theory, a developing, soft, malliable forgiving and unproven theory. Liberals live in a world with no absolutes, where everything is open to question. Conservatives live in a world that has been tried and proven, where the consequences of actions are known.

If we are to discuss conservatives, if we are to understand them, we should first try to define them. A conservative in the limited scope of this paper is best defined as an ideoligcal child of the forefathers, for it is their tenents, their dogmas that conservatives cling to. Conservatives have an almost paternal love for the forefathers. They believe that the forefathers created something far better then what we have today.

The definition of entropy is that nature moves from order to disorder but how did nature first get order. Order only comes from intelligence. Our forefathers were that intelligence that first organized or created this nation.

Creation is not soley the product of intelligence. Creation requires, among other things, energy and power. The fortathers had a source of power that we as conservatives, the populace and our leaders do not have today. That source of power, which the forefathers used to create this nation, was also the source of their intelligence or more precisely knowledge. That source was pain. Oppression, caused pain, which resulted in resolve or will power, enough to send this country to war. That oppression, that pain was also the source of the knowledge which formed our founding documents. Those documents were meant to protect and provide for freedom, but freedom from what? Essentially it is freedom from pain. Our founding documents provide that no one, including your government is allowed to cause you pain. Pain is a broad term and must be defined. For our purposes let's define pain as a body's attempt to preserve life. So our founding documents are a means to perserve life.

So what of liberals, how do they see the beginning of this nation? Evolution begins with a single cell, somethiing small insignificant to which a spark of life is applied. Liberalsim began as just a spark, an idea in someone's mind. This nation's forefathers are not the father's of liberalism but rather are despised for the simplicity with which they saw this nation and its' government. Our nation to liberals was just a simple organism crawling from the primordial wars. You know who the forefathers were, men in pain with a solution and a piece of paper. You know who the father's of liberalism are? Men with an imagination, a desire and a piece of paper. Do you know what the founders and evolvers of evolution are writing on their pieces of paper? Answers to questions no one could possibly know. Where did that first cell come from? Where did that spark of life originate? What is life? If scientists, are going to be able to get us from today to eternity past, where evolution began, there are an infinite number of questions to be answered. Suffice it to say, for evolutionist the past remains a mystery.

Our metaphorical analysis so far shows that, in the beginning conservatism was at its' strongest while liberalsim was at its' weakest. Conservatives were in charge they were government, they founded this country on pain. Liberalism existed as a spark in the minds of men. It was in the beginning that conservatives created their utopia and it was in the beginning that liberals were as far from their utopia as thy would ever be. Liberalism is change, conservatism is resistance to change. Conservative are children of the forefathers.

Our nation had a beginning and everything with a beginning has an end, essentially as soon as the founding documents were signed this country began to die. When you are at the top, as conservatives were in the beginning, once you have created something, there is only one way to go. Liberals in the eyes of conservatives begin to destroy what they have created. Order begins to break down. Conservatives are at a disadvantage in that they are not the aggresssors. They wait for liberals to attack and hope their defenses hold. The end is inevitable. That is entropy, small changes, over time, culminating in destruction.

Luckily for liberals when you are the bottom there is only one direction to go. When you start with nothing, like in evolution, you can only really build. It was sometime after our creation that liberals came into existence and shortly thereafter they got their first taste of victory. Conservatives conceded some point to a growing liberal faction. Liberalism began to change to evolve the government towards something more akin to what they wanted it to be, their utopia began to take shape. they planted seeds, won small vistories, made the changes, they wanted. It mattered not if they lost a fight with conservatives all they had to do is wait and try again. Any form of a compromise on the part of the conservatives is counted as a win for them. After all that is what evolution is all about, small changes over time. With time it is theorized that anything is possible and therefore time is the liberal's greatest asset. Evolution and entroypy do not agree on much except that in the middle of the life of a nation liberals will, generally speaking, win.

Liberals are in the driver seat. They drive the evolution. But where are they headed? What does this utopia, this ideal government, this objective that they envision look like? Let me begin the answer with more questions. What is the end of evolution? Where does it stop? Those questions are never asked. In evolution the only question asked of the future is, "What is next?" a question they have no real answer to but which answers our utopian question. There is no utopia, no long term objective, only small objectives which drive the change. This becomes one of the biggest mistakes that individual liberals make, believing that there is an end. That the evolution stops once the objective they are vying for is reaching. It doesn't. As long as there is life evolution continues on indefinitely, going down unimaginable roads. You see the beginning of evolution and the end of evolution are the same consisting of only an eternity of questions.

While individual liberals fail to understand the perpetual nature of evolution, liberals as a whole fail when they misunderstand time, their greatest asset, and pain, conservatives's greatest asset. If you have no beginning and no end then you have only now and now does not understand time. Time is both an asset or enabler and or restraint, for while liberals may win in time, it will take time for liberals to win. It is because they only understand now that they use the courts to press their issues. They want it now, they have a desire that needs fullfilled and since they do not understand the future, they do not precieve that the body or rather this nation has not properly been prepared, is not ready for the change. It is when they push too hard that the body is put in pain and the body percieves the source of the pain that the loose, when if they had simply allowed time to work they would not have lost the fight. That is after all evolution, small imperceptible changes spread out over time. You see time is their greatest asset. Their success is not so much a reflection of the brilliance, credibility or power of their ideas but rather a reflection of the effects of time on pain.

So what of pain, the conservatives greatest asset, what is it that the liberals do not undertand? Liberals errantly believe that any crisis is an oppurtunity. It is not. Crisis can be classified by the pain it causes. Pain is the greatest assest of the conservatives, when it is defined as the body's attempt to preserve life. Life has needs and when one of those needs goes unfullfilled then a body is in pain. Liberals believe that pain can be caused by an unfullfilled desire. Unfullfilled desires do not place the body in peril. Real pain needs a real solution. To find a real solution we need to identify the source of the pain and more often than not that source is liberalism. We must define pain beauce this generation has no knowledge of it. You see that is the effect of time on pain. We forget. We forget why it is, or even that we hurt and when we forget then we lack the knowledge and/or reason to fix the problem. That is why time is the liberal's greatest asset.

Liberals can use a crisis. The best crisis for a liberal is one in which there is little to no pain such as one that is imagined or promised. The difficutly with an imagined or promised crisis is that it must be sold and selling a crisis when the pain cannot be felt is a difficult road to hoe. But they try nonetheless. Newscasts, newspapers, scientific reports, docuementaries all pummel us with their crisis in an attempt, not to inform but to sell us on it. We mock the idea at first, then we ignore, consider, accept it and then we ourselves peddle the crisis.

So why, if the liberals have a difficult road to hoe, do they even try? The why of liberalism can be summed up with one word, desire. If you have no beginning, then you have no end and if you have no future then you have only now and if you have only now then you have no consequences and if you have no consequences there is no pain and desires which previously thought dangerous due to the costly, painful consequences can now be explored. Desire is the why liberals do what they do. Desire is now, desire is instant gratification. Liberals do the things they do becuase they desire to.

So why do conservatives do the things they do? Conservatives know their beginning and since they have a beginning they have an end and entropy says the end is death and death is painful. Conservatives do what they do because they fear pain. Conservatives understand life and death and they want to live.

Now we ask the how. How do conservatives maintain that which the forefathers created? It is through education, the spreading of wisdom. We decided that knowledge, which we must clarify, is understanding only as the result of first-hand experience, has its' source in pain. But today's conservatives have no knowledge of pain. We discuss it over lattes and scones but we may never truly know what pain is. But what we do have is wisdom. Which is knowledge written or passed down, codified in laws, religious texts, and shared from parents to children. Conservatives make laws and form governments restrict the activites that cause pain or death. Family, government, religion, morality all of it is wisdom from the past meant to preserve life by regulating desire and maintaining wisdom. We spoke of liberals having no beginning. This is that past that liberals are missing. That record of success, that body of knowledge, that history, that consensus of ancient humanity that says " This liberal idea is good, it will succeed."

So how do liberals evolve a nation? They make changes in the family, government, and religion, anything that stands in their way, anything that maintains the wisdom of the past, anything that stops them from fulfilling their desires is attacked.

So does evolution have any wisdom from the past? Evolution from the beginning was built upon nothing. Things they could not possibly understand, things they cannot duplicate, a history they cannot possibly know was just made up, imagined, fabricated from thin air. The beginning of evolution and of all liberalism, boils down to a man with a piece of paper jotting down, and lets drop all pretense of liberal credibility, they jot down a lie and then lie is built upon lie.

Do you know what those lies constitute? Those lies are how liberals change this country. Each small lie is a mutation, a failure of intelligence, a failure to correctly pass on information. From the angle of a conservative, from the angle of entropy each small change destroys America. Each small lie is a little piece of death.

Do you know why our sons and daughters die in Iraq and Afganistan, why our daughters walk into abortion clinics? Do you know why our sons look longingly at one another only to be decimated by AIDS? Do you know why our economy falters and why our nation dies? All of it is because someone lied. Each time someone, be it a politician, a scientist, a school teacher, a parent, a priest, each time someone lies and someone believes them, even if it is only the teller believing the tale, this nation dies just a little bit more. You see that is evolution that is liberalism, incremental death, one small lie at a time. You see a lie causes desire, desire caused pain and pain, ignored, eased or numbed, which many believe to be the purpose of government, results in death. It is because of the lies of liberalism that our nation dies.

Moderation

It is imperative that we, as conservatives, have an accurate, consistent, perception of liberals, conservatives and the relationship between the two groups. It is the lack of consistency that results in moderation, waffling and compromise. If we knew that the relationship was settled in the minds of our candidates then we could have confidence and faith as we elect them.

The problem with consistency is that we must generalize, paint all issues with the same broad brush. Consistency does not allow us to examine each issue on its' own merits. There is an obvious danger in labeling an issue as conservative or liberal and thereby writing it off without examining the details, but perhaps not as much as examining an issue too much. It is the words and emotions, of people with agendas and opinions of their own that easily confuse and muddle the issue in our minds, minds which are prone to failures of logic. Since our minds can be so easily tricked then there is an inherent danger in moderation for in delving too deep into an issue and/or confidence in our own understanding, we get duped.

Consistency can be achieved by understanding that there is a central core, a connection, a reason why conservatives for the most part in an almost knee-jerk reaction, united against liberalism time and time again. That core, that common thread, is the knowledge that liberalism kills, weakens and destroys and if that is the core, then what validity has any argument built there on?

We are conservatives must realize that is was conservatives that built this country. It was our forefathers, their tenants, their laws, that drove this country to greatness. This country was built without liberals. Liberals live in our nation not the other way around. We are the source of life for this nation. We do not need them but they are dependent on us.

If conservatives were removed, if homosexuality, abortion, well-fare or any socialistic endeavor ever infected 100% of mankind, it could destroy out entire species. It takes a considerably less of a percentage to destroy this country and even less of a percentage of each poison when they are united. If this country is destroyed then they die too. Therefore they need conservatives to stop them, slow then down, tell the nation we cannot pursue this agenda and in so doing prevent them from destroying themselves.

So if it was conservatives who created this country in which liberals live and it is liberals who are dependent on conservatives to keep them alive, then what value is there in liberalism. There is none. They are of no use. They only destroy. There is no life in the. If that is the case then we should not be seeking a compromise with them, for we are right and they are wrong. We need to realize that there is no check and balance system between liberals and conservatives. There is no equilibrium created by balancing the power. There is no symbiotic relationship where each one is dependant on the other. There is only liberalism, a cancer or rust, eating away, destroying this country.

Conservatives should be seeking unapologetic victory over liberals and therefore that last thing we want to see in out candidates is the slightest hint of moderation.

Teachers and Taxpayers

How often has the question arisen "Are we paying teachers enough?" The answer is both yes and no. No we don't pay hard working, talented teachers enough but yes, we pay untalented, indifferent and lazy teachers way too much.

The problem arises from the fact that educators are not part of the free-market. Educators are for the most part in a union that operates in a publicly funded, state controlled, monopolized bureaucracy. Free market essentials such as hard work, self-reliance and risk, keys in the free market that both open and shut doors play no part in our public institutions of learning.

Irrelevant of effort or brilliance, within the schools you will earn a predetermined amount. Set wages, which guarantee a paycheck also cap your income. Show-up and they pay you. Set incomes and the lack of correlation of efforts and rewards, indicates that the only real commodity you have that the schools are interested in is your time. So while you may be heads and shoulders above your fellow teachers to the system your time is of no more value than any one else's. Hard-work, brilliance and talent, none of it matters. There is no economic struggle driving excellence. Schools do not cherish your work but your time. The free-market, where tax dollars and teachers incomes are generated, pays for results. The tax payers are not so keen on sharing their hard earned incomes just because educators have a lot of time invested in a student.

What the taxpayer does see are the result of the efforts of a group whose only value is time. The group is comprised of good teachers and bad teacher indistinguishable from one anther. The end product, an educated youth, is not attributed to the teacher. Teachers are not held accountable for their results. Weak and strong teachers, co-exist, their efforts mingled. The public has no way to determine who is who or reward them accordingly. The individual superiority, achievements, talents and abilities of some educators, which in the free market could demand higher incomes, are used to cover for other educators, inadequacies and/or indifferences.

When schools attempt to sell to the free-market their commodity, the educated youth, in exchange for the capital needed to run their program, they present to the taxpayer the results of the labors found in a tepid, collective pool, when the assiduous efforts of some are mingled with the slothfulness of others. The taxpayer then balks at the idea of rewarding the modest collective results.

If we could correlate the end results to an individual teacher few would complain about rewarding superiority. In addition we could sift out some of the educators on whom our money is being wasted. Consequentially, correlating teachers to results may be enough of a motive to compel average teachers to improve.

My intent is not to belittle or berate teachers, far from it. Teachers are the most valuable asset in our public schools. A good teacher can overcome a child's mental or physical disabilities, home life, attitude, etc. They can deal with the inadequacies of the facilities, can overcome a poor curriculum and make up for a poor administrator. My intent is to merely point out that teachers are seen as whole not individuals. We in the public do not see how much you put into your job. We have no way of judging whether you are a good teacher or not. All we see is the modest results of the group. As long as unproductive members of that group are allowed to remain they will drag down the entire group. As long as you are in a system that rewards time over hard-work, diligence, talent and results, then you will receive a modest income because society does not reward mediocrity.