My gun control rant.

In the aftermath of what happened in Connecticut, I felt sick to my stomach.  Mostly because of what happened and thinking about the children that were killed.  I do not have any kids of my own but all I could think about were my own nieces and nephews and the things I would do to someone if they were to shoot them.  I also felt terrible for the families of the victims.  I know what its like to lose a family member unexpectedly and it is terrible.  My sister was killed in a terrible car accident 17 years ago, and when I remember the details of what happened to her body in the crash I still feel sick to my stomach not because of  it being gruesome, but because I think of the pain and fear she must have felt.  Fear and pain that I'm sure those children felt as they were shot.  I also feel terrible for the family of the shooter.  For his mother who I'm sure did her best to raise and love her son.  I even feel bad for the shooter who may not deserve any pity but I don't envy anyone who faces the punishment awaiting him.  So I mostly felt sick to my stomach for all of that.

Then I felt sick to my stomach because of what I knew the media and politicians were going to do in the wake of these events.  And because I knew that these events were so horrific that the only mature thing to do would be to mourn, but that I would need to be able to tactfully defend my rights.  I can't help but think of the events that came in the aftermath of 9/11.  The nation was brought together by a terribly tragedy, and in the wake of that tragedy, President Bush and congress passed the Patriot Act which took away many rights of privacy of American citizens and they were able to do so relatively unopposed.  I don't know if that's just because Democrats were afraid of what it might mean for them politically to vote against a nation of emotional Americans who were crying out for action.  Historically, rights have been taken away from American citizens more than once because of a national tragedy or emergency.  The most obvious one I can think of is the Japanese prison camps that were ordered by the President after the attack at Pearl Harbor.  After each shooting massacre, the argument of increased gun laws comes up again and again.  For this reason I simply want to clarify to those who support increased gun control, why I think gun control laws are already too strict and are in fact part of the problem.

For the sake of simplicity I'm going to use the term liberal as a person who supports gun control and conservative as a person who supports the 2nd amendment. The general vibe I get from liberals whenever there is a debate about this issue is that conservatives are stupid people who like violence, they stop listening to them and start lecturing them with an aire of self righteousness.  Are there stupid people out there that like violence?  For sure!  These are the people out committing gun crimes.  But they are not a majority.  I would like to use the following video as evidence of the typical liberal argument.  I want you to notice how this "journalist" first calls his opponent stupid as an argument and then accuses HIS OPPONENT of not having any coherent arguments.  Enjoy...



So that is what conservatives are up against.  Angry liberals who just think we are stupid.  Notice how often the liberal argument is also supported by convenient statistics which frankly, I'm sorry, don't prove anything other than that a study was done.  I can find statistics to support my argument as well.  But I don't want to get into all that.  The point I want to make is that conservatives don't love violence and they don't want absolute wild west anarchy when it comes to guns.  Gun laws are good and necessary in order for the 2nd amendment to truly work.  In fact let's look at the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Notice the amendment BEGINS by mentioning regulation.  That means laws.  So here's my translation.  Since its necessary to have people who are able to help protect the State, they need to be able to keep (own, store in their house) and bear (carry on their person) arms (weapons, including guns).

What kinds of regulations or laws should there be?  I'm all about not allowing ordinary citizens own tanks and bazookas and flame throwers and other heavy artillery.  There's no need for that kind of stuff to be able to protect one's self.  What about guns?  Do I need a sniper rifle?  Probably not.  Seems like if I'm able to take aim from a distance and calculate windshift etc, I'm probably not acting in protection of my own life in the heat of the moment.  I don't have a lot of deep knowledge about every kind of gun out there, so to simplify I'll say the follow ought to be freely available to anyone who can pass a background check and obtains a permit to own and carry a weapon.  Handguns and revolvers, rifles, shotguns, assault weapons.  Yes assault weapons.  What possible reason could one need an assault rifle for you ask?  First watch the following video.


Notice that the shop owners were not shooting people.  They were protecting themselves by deterring rioters.  So why assault rifles you still ask?  Imagine yourself in a similar situation.  Hundreds of angry people are rioting and threatening to come into your house and attack you and your family.  Would you rather have a short range shotgun that holds a few rounds and takes 10 seconds to reload or an assault rifle that can hold 30 rounds, shoot multiple rounds in a second and takes 2 seconds to pop in a new clip?  Remember that its you against hundreds of angry people.  I choose the assault rifle.  Granted this is a rare scenario, but if I live in a dangerous area shouldn't I have the right to decide how I want to prepare in case I need protection?

Next I want to talk about the misconception that if everyone owned a gun there would be chaos shootings everywhere. Why do people always assume this?  Well they've seen movies for one thing.  In movies, people with guns run around shooting people.  Let me present another possible scenario however.  Let's say that our culture was completely different.  We grew up learning about guns, seeing adults carry them, seeing them practice and use them safely, and being told that at a certain age of responsibility we would also have the opportunity to learn how to handle a gun and use it safely.  We reach the age and we are required to take a class where we are taught that guns are for protection and they should only be used for protection.  We are taught how to use them under supervision.  We are educated about the serious consequences of misusing a gun.  Breaking gun laws like brandishing, using them to threaten, using them unsafely say as a hammer or something, not keeping them up to code (cleaning etc), we are taught not that we should use them, but that we should know how to use them and hope we never have to, we are taught that there are places where guns are not allowed at all such as private facilities or other restricted areas, and finally we are given a permit to own and carry a gun.  Does this sound familiar?  I am talking about driving.  I know the comparison between gun deaths and car related deaths is a bad one, but I'm not talking about that.  I'm talking about setting up a system that teaches and regulates gun ownership in the same way that we are taught how to drive a car and have to pass a test to get a driver's license.  If such a system existed, suddenly gun carrying would be a common thing.  Everyone would have a gun.  And there would be gun related deaths just as there are car related deaths.  But in regards to criminals and crazy people busting into a school or mall and shooting everyone... well he might get one or two, but as soon as he starts shooting, I'm sorry but everyone in that place who knows how to responsibly use a gun is going to blow that sucker away and save lives.

This scenario is a little far-fetched I know.  It's highly unlikely that America is suddenly going to go "yeah Brandon's got a great point, let's start teaching gun safety and handing out permits to high school kids in Driver's Ed."  That would be the ultimate dream and vision of most conservative advocates of the 2nd amendment.  But we also know we have to compromise.  So let's look at the current situation.  Schools and malls (I know there's other places I'm just simplifying again).  What happened at the school in Connecticut?  I'm going off an article that purports to have the latest timeline.  Shots first came from outside the school through the front doors.  The shooter then entered and killed the principal (who some say was trying to stop him) and a school psychologist.  I'm assuming he entered the front door which would be right by the front office where parent's are required to check in to see their children, etc.  From there the shooter entered the school hallways passing one classroom and entering another, killing 14.  He then proceeded to another class of first graders and killed the teacher and some of her students and two teacher's aides.  He then committed suicide as the police arrived.  Liberals say we need to ban guns in order to prevent such a tragedy.  I will grant that in some cases and maybe even in this case, that may have prevented Lanza from killing the students with a gun.  I'm not willing to say that he wouldn't have come in with a different sort of weapon because I just don't know, but he doesn't seem like the type of person that would have taken the time to find an illegal weapon if guns were banned all together.  But there are plenty of massacres that would have still occurred with the same weapons if those weapons were illegal, they simply would have been obtained illegally.  Laws don't prevent criminals from committing crimes.  I'm sorry that's just a fact.  If they did then there wouldn't be any crime.  But I digress.  I want to present an alternate solution to banning guns that could have made a difference in Connecticut.  What if a well trained armed guard were stationed at our public schools?  Seems last I checked there was an issue with the unemployment rate among veterans.  Hmm... large group of unemployed people who are trained in the use of firearms...  In this scenario, Lanza would have been dead as soon as he fired shots through the front door.  No students or teachers killed.  What if school officials and teachers were trained and allowed to carry firearms on the job?  The principal could have actually done something when she tried to stop Lanza other than be killed herself.  The point I'm making is that there are much better solutions to solving these problems than taking away the rights of citizens.  Guns are dangerous, but when used properly, they can save lives.  We should be advocating for more conscientious and responsible ownership of guns and better protection for our children.

That's all I want to say.  I think I want to finish by adding a few rambling arguments.  Guns are not the problem, bad people who commit violence are the problem.  The only way you are going to eliminate gun violence is literally to take every gun in the world and melt them and kill all the people who know how to make guns and brainwash the rest of the world into forgetting that guns ever existed.  And even then, its likely that someone will eventually come up with the idea for guns again, and meanwhile crazy people are going to be committing mass murders in malls and schools with bows and arrows and swords.  And unless you ban those too, hopefully there will at least be a few master swordsmen in those public areas who can parry the attacks and stop the crazy people.  Otherwise we are simply going to be having the same argument about sword control and people in California aren't going to be allowed to carry pocket knives.

Democrats revealing their true colors

Let me preface this by saying that I know that Democrats are not the only ones that participate in attack ads and mud slinging. I for one can say that if a candidate uses attack ads in their campaign, it usually steers me clear of that candidate. That being said, where do Democrats get off this year? I am currently thinking of two examples.

The first is the DNC's ad saying that the GOP has been receiving foreign money from the Chamber of Commerce.


That is a pretty serious accusation! Now if someone was walking around telling everyone that you broke the law, wouldn't you want them to either prove it or shut up? Well David Axelrod was confronted on this issue by Bob Schieffer on CBS about this accusation because The New York Times looked into the accusation and had concluded it was false. What is Axelrod's response to the question of what evidence he is basing his accusation on? See for yourself.


Yes you heard him right. When asked to backup his claim he instead says we must prove that his claim is false. So with the DNC they can make baseless accusations and people are guilty until proven innocent. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Democrats once again are doing the opposite of what is moral, decent, and spelled out clearly in the Constitution.

Second example comes from Alan Grayson. I'll just let you watch the ad first.


Holy crap! He is saying his opponent is a Taliban and that he wants women to submit to him. They even have him saying so in his own words! Daniel Webster is a terrible person right? Wait for it. Let's listen to the entire quote from Daniel Webster.


So the quote in context is Daniel Webster saying THE OPPOSITE of what he was quoted as saying in the attack ad. He says, "DON'T submit to me," but is quoted as, "...submit to me..." He says when interpreting verses from the bible don't pick the verses that say, "wives submit to your husbands" but instead pick ones that say, "cherish and love your wife even as Christ loved the church." What a terrible guy huh?

I've got a verse for Alan Grayson and the rest of you Democrats. "Thou shalt not bear false testimony against thy neighbor." Exodus 20:16

Pete Stark's out of touch responses to illegal immigration

Again words fail me. These are the kind of people that we are electing to represent us and protect our rights? People who FALSELY blame AMERICAN CITIZENS for the violence on the border and say that its perfectly safe when there are americans being kidnapped and beheaded by drug cartels? The Constitution of the United States gives us the right to defend ourselves ESPECIALLY when our government won't. I can't tell if he is really just stupid, senile, or just doesn't care about Americans. Watch this video and be warned you might want to punch someone when you're done.

Nancy Pelosi's favorite word

I know this is old news but it is the perfect example of the corruption and lies of the federal government. Does she really expect us to take her seriously on this? I could go on forever on everything I find wrong with this but I'll just let you watch it and come up with your own fun conclusions.

5000 Year Leap and Utah Primaries

I had to take a break there for a while due to finals and other stuff. I haven't had a whole lot of specific topics that I wanted to talk about lately either because I've kind of fallen out of the loop with some of the current issues and feel like I'm two weeks behind. Anyway, I was able to finish reading the best book on our patriotic duties and the principles our country is founded on that I have ever read. The 5000 Year Leap. I highly recommend that everyone read this book. Especially if you feel like something is wrong with what is happening in our country, whether you are conservative or liberal, and this book will help you understand why you have that unsettling feeling. Its how I felt about Bush. I wanted to trust him, but there was always that feeling that I something was wrong. And sure enough, but I woke up before it was too late to do much about it. And frankly, I still think I would have voted for him over John Kerry, but that's beside the point. The fact is that because I've read this book and gone through this awakening period, I feel like I can make much more educated decisions about how I vote and about how I define my own political beliefs.

In other news... Bob Bennett is out, Bridgewater and Lee are in. Now I've got to do my research on them to decide how I vote in the primary. Or I may decide to not vote in the Republican primary and instead vote for Matheson in the Democratic primary so we don't get some extreme liberal representing a bunch of conservatives. Sad thing is, Matheson will probably lose the primary, which means the Democrats will lose a seat because there's no way my district will vote for a Democrat that is more liberal than Matheson. That's just my opinion though, I haven't looked at the polls or anything.

Jim Matheson, update

I just wanted to follow up on my previous post about Jim Matheson being on thin ice with me. I've been closely following him the past month or so and I have to say that while I have questioned some of his actions at times, I do believe he is a man of integrity. There are things he has done and ways he's reacted to certain allegations that I think I might have done differently if I were him, but I am able to look past personality when I think someone shares the same values as me. I got an email from Mr. Matheson today outlining his views on healthcare (obviously it was a canned response) but it really helped me to understand his views more and they closely match my own. Thanks Jim! You're not off the hook until you are out of office but for now you are on my good side :)

An olive branch: Resolving Conflict in America

I have been thinking a lot tonight about my feelings that past week ever since the passage of healthcare and the feeling of tension that has been in the air all week. I've gotten into arguments, I've felt like committing violent acts, I've wanted to just scream at certain people and let them know all kinds of wonderful ways for them to degrade themselves. But, I've decided that I'm going to tone things down. I apologize to anyone that I've offended or that I've called names. There was a guy on IMDb.com last night from Australia who was arguing with me about a post I had started, and I was too tired to really care about even trying to explain my point to him or argue and I almost immediately turned to childish arguing and name calling. And the thing is, I know he was just trying to be a troll and get me to do just that so that he could have the final say and feel like he had won the argument. the truth is neither of us won. He doesn't care what I have to say and I don't really care what he has to say. That is what is happening in America. The radical liberals (and I'm not saying that because you're liberal you're radical, I'm qualifying that what I'm about to say does not apply to all liberals) are the trolls. The media are the trolls. They are just trying to piss us off so that they have more to discredit us with. They are accusing conservatives in general as being out of control and violent simply because some teenagers smashed a window in AZ and some racist in a crowd of fifty thousand people shouted a racial slur. I wish racist people didn't exist, but they do and they are on both sides of the fence so come off it already. I wish we could work together to solve our differences. Conservatives, be peaceful. Its ok to protest, but do so peacefully and non-violently. No matter what happens, turn the other cheek. Think of Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and other great leaders who did nothing but turn the other cheek and practice non-violence.

As a Mormon, I can't help but think of my religious history. When Joseph Smith was martyred, Nauvoo Illinois had the largest militia in the state made up entirely of really pissed off Mormons, and who could have easily wiped out the state. And many of them wanted to. But they stayed home. They had done everything they could to be treated fairly by the government and fellow citizens, but they were driven from their homes time and time again and they were killed. They were ultimately driven out of their own country. They left, like the Pilgrims, to find somewhere they could live in peace without being oppressed. They are such an example to me of letting the Lord handle judgement in His own time. That knowledge helps me to let things go when I can't do anything about it. If some jerk flips me off, its not my responsibility to follow him until he stops and punch him. I often get angry, but I have to remind myself that there's no point to it and I have to just let it go and hope that things turn out for the best.

I have the right to vote for whoever I want (at least for now) and I will use it. But, I will not try to force others to believe what I believe. I will simply try to educate them as best I can. Many will disagree with me, but its ok to disagree with people. Just keep the bigger picture always in mind. It seems like things in our country are often viewed as win-lose situations. Only one side can get their way. And right now Republicans are losing. Why can't it be a win-win? I'm taking an Organizational Behavior course right now, and last night I read a chapter on intergroup behavior and conflict. Is that not what we have in D.C.? Let me lay out some principles here as best I can.

I could go into a lot of details and concepts but I want to focus on intergroup conflict. There are two types of conflict: functional and dysfunctional. Functional conflict is when competition between two teams encourages each to produce better results. It also creates cohesiveness within the teams. Dysfunctional conflict is when competition between groups ends up hindering productivity. You can only have functional conflict, which we want because it results in high overall organizational performance (ie, the whole country benefits), when the level of conflict is neither too high nor too low but as Goldilocks might say, "just right." Right now our nation is at a level of high conflict. This is bad because it keeps us from getting anything done. But the answer is not to get rid of those evil "No Republicans" or to completely vote out the incumbent liberals. When there is low conflict, which would be the result of completely discrediting either party, you once again have low performance because whoever is in charge just does whatever they want because no one is there to keep them from doing it. This seems to be the goal of a lot of radical socialist groups simply because they want the power to sit around and do nothing and get paid for it. Republicans were terrible too when they had a huge majority and I am against those who insist that we must vote out all the Democrats. Some people who I've argued with in the past few days might raise their eyes at that statement, but I've been thinking a lot about it and that is what I have come to. I realize I have the tendency to shoot off my mouth too much and that is why I am contradicting myself. Back to the point: conflict is good when the level of conflict is just right.

What are the consequences of dysfunctional conflict? I've already mentioned some. Here they are in detail.

Changes within the group
Increased group cohesiveness and increased loyalty: Liberals all become more liberal and conservatives become more conservative. The plane can't fly too well if you're jamming both of the rudders down as hard as you can. You want to keep things in the middle so you can fly straight. The eagle can't flap its wings if the only feathers it has are on the very tips of its wings.

Rise in autocratic leadership: Here is the direct quote from my text book on this one:

In normal conditions, democratic leadership methods are popular because they allow group members to participate in making decisions and to satisfy their needs for involvement and affiliation. In extreme conflict situations, however, democratic leadership is generally perceived as time-consuming and ineffective. Members demand strong leadership and not only tolerate, but seem to prefer, autocratic leadership.

Does that sound familiar? I'm not making this stuff up folks this is out of a text book on group conflict and based on research and studies! Is this not what is happening in our nation? We want our party to have all the power and we just want them to do everything for us. Liberals prefer socialist concepts in which the government takes care of everything and conservatives prefer facist concepts because once again, the government takes care of everything. Do you see the problem? They both involve big government! What happens when the nation is in a state of extreme danger? Martial Law! Autocratic leadership! What happened to Germany in their depression after WWI? Hitler! What happened to the US after our great depression? FDR! Its a natural reaction in times of great conflict. I think I've beaten that horse enough now. By the way, I just realized that my above statement might seem like I'm comparing FDR to Hitler. I'm not. I'm saying that tough times lead people to seek autocratic leadership.

Activity Orientation:

Groups in conflict tend to focus on achieving their goal. Groups are more concerned about identifying what it is they do well and then doing it. Talking or visiting is not allowed and is viewed as a waste of time because it keeps the group from achieving their goal.

So all you democrats who are against this healthcare thing, you better shape up and vote for it unless you want a mark on your back! And you Republicans who insist on pointing out flaws in the Republican Party, you'd better shut up and support the party or else the other guys are gonna win! Where's your loyalty? (I'm of course being sarcastic here to make a point)

Inflated evaluation:

The perceptions of group members become distorted and they tend to over evaluate themselves and under evaluate their opponents. You have a halo-effect creating a bias within the group so that members almost unconditionally consider other group members as good.

Republicans/Democrats are always right because I'm a Republican/Democrat so I'm just gonna vote for the R/D people and I don't really need to pay attention to current events or worry about whether my incumbent is corrupt or whether he represents my values or not. In fact I love how they have the option at the very beginning of the ballot to just vote all R/D so I don't have to waste my time deciding if I'm actually for or against what I'm voting on. (Once again... sarcasm intended) I think another term for this could be selective perception.

Changes between groups
Decreased communication:

At times when the groups have the greatest need of open communication to enable them to discuss the problem and resolve the conflict, the communication process becomes most strained. As the conflict increases, communication tends to decrease...The frequency of communication between the two groups continues to decline until it finally breaks down entirely.

Wow. I don't know if I need to elaborate much on that one. We're all guilty of it. I'm guilty of as much as anyone else and maybe more so. "Why should I even bother arguing with you crazy Democrats, you're only interested in calling me names. I'm just gonna listen to Glenn Beck and feel good about being on the right side." (sarcasm again)

Distorted Perceptions and Negative Stereotyping:

• "The tea party people said the 'N' word and broke a window!"
• "Glenn Beck is a terrorist and hates Jesus!"
• "Republicans are all racists!"
• "Liberals are all communists!"
• "Obama is the antichrist!"
• "Vote out all incumbents and prepare for war!"

Come on now people. Are we really getting anything accomplished with all the name calling and finger pointing? Obama himself has engaged in such practices! We are in big trouble when not only does the media and the citizens engage in this but our own President!

Now, what can we do to fix the high level of conflict in our nation? How can we resolve conflict? There are a number of methods.

Avoidance Strategies: Such as ignoring the conflict or physically separating the groups. Unfortunately these aren't really a choice unless you are taking care of two fighting siblings. Most parents it seems prefer to simply ignore them until either they snap or someone draw blood. But we need some other solutions. I guess sometimes we do tend to ignore some conflicts but we all know that they only go away for the time being and they come back later.

Power Intervention Strategies: Regulated interaction (I thought that's what the House and Senate rules were for...) and political maneuvering (we all know how well that one is working). So both of these are already being tried and not working too well. The main problem with political maneuvering is that it intensifies a win-lose situation.

The source of the conflict has not been eliminated, and both parties feel more committed to their position. Even after fair elections, the losers may feel resentment and continue to oppose the winners

Wow, so this basically describes what got us into our current position of conflict. Look at the two Bush elections. Look at the Iraq war and the whole WMD thing! And now look at the same stuff with the stimulus and healthcare! I think both parties are more committed to their own positions right now! Why? Political maneuvering.

Finally we have a few good solutions.
Diffusion Strategies
Smoothing: Accentuates the similarities and common interests between the two groups and minimize or rationalize their differences. Unfortunately this one is only a short term solution, and it isn't really going to work well on huge issues like healthcare or immigration or abortion because people feel very strongly about them. You aren't going to be able to convince people that you're really all on the same side when you come to issues like abortion! I'm pretty sure we disagree on that one. (But even on abortion we were able to reach a compromise in the Hyde Amendment)

Compromise: Well...? I think we know what that is. You give up some of what you want in exchange for another thing you want. You allow for some government regulation in the healthcare system as long as it is limited and there is open interstate competition with private companies. You allow for federal funding for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger. I haven't really seen much of that going on. Republicans are a party of No remember?

Identifying a common enemy: Look what happened after 9/11. Really! Look! Here is a chart (thanks to pollster.com)!

And another...

See that spike right at about 2002? That's 9/11 and Congress coming together to decide to work as one unit and not two parties, because there was a common enemy to focus on instead.

Resolution Strategies
Intergroup Interaction: And not just interaction, but bringing leaders together and letting them express their concerns and trying and come to a solution together. Not Pelosi and her cronies kicking doors closed and not allowing Republicans to have any say in what goes on. The term bi-partisan and the phrase "reaching across the aisle" come to mind.

Superordinate Goals: These are goals that are important to both sides and cannot be achieved without cooperation of the other side. The text book talks about a Robber's Cave study where a boy's camp was split into groups and pitted against each other, and the most effective conflict resolution strategy was superordinate goals, such as having groups work together to pick a movie, push a stalled truck supplying food to the camp, and preparing a joint meal.

Structural Change: This is one that I hope we never come to. Suddenly I'm being barraged with memories of "Change you can believe in!" ads. We don't want to change the structure of our country. Trust me. The Constitution is not perfect, but it is also definitely not "outdated". The Obama administration seems bent on trying to convince the American people that this is the only option. "How's that Captialism workin' for ya?" Well it was fine until the socialists came and messed it up! Why are we not taking the issues of our country and looking at them as superordinate goals? Aren't they problems we all feeling strongly about and want to have solved? Just because we have differences in how it should be done does not mean that the majority should just force their idea on the minority. In the Robber's Cave example, what happens if there are four boys from one group and one from another group involved in the discussion of what movie to watch? Should the one boy's opinion be completely ignored because he is only one? He represents more than just one! He represents a group of boys who are just as many in number as the other group who simply has more representatives. It is time for Congress and the Senate to stop representing their parties and start representing their constituents. And it is time for the Executive Office to stop inducing conflict and start working to diffuse and resolve it. Obama himself has said that without bi-partisan support, he cannot govern effectively. Yet he forces legislation down our throats with only bi-partisan opposition. It would appear that this is a President who can not govern. One who cares more about his own agenda than compromise and bi-partisanship. I don't believe I mentioned any strategies that included going to Iowa to try and blow hot air at people hoping it will change their minds. We've heard it all before. We don't trust you. We can't get straight answers from you and we have consistently been lied to. We are looking at a president who is as bad as or worse than that evil President Bush (and trust me I'm not defending Bush's policies at all). It is my opinion that this President is not interested in diffusing or resolving conflict, but seems to be intent on doing nothing but incite more of it.

I guess I'll conclude. This was a lot longer than I expected it to be. But I'm glad I wrote it. I realize I focused a lot of attention at the Obama administration and the current situation in Congress. I only do so because it is a relevant and current example and honestly, I was one of the sheep of the Republican Party during the Bush era and didn't pay attention to things as much. I admit that was a mistake and I will not let it happen again. My main goal is not to tear down one party or the other, but to point out where I see error. Be you a Republican or a Democrat or whatever else, I would hope that instead of being two groups with biases and prejudices against eachother we can find a common enemy: ignorance. Let's all fight against ignorance and try to work together to resolve our nations issues. I hope not too many of you are asleep at this point. Thanks for reading.

*Note: The text book I have been citing from is called "Creating Effective Organizations" and was written by David Cherrington and W. Gibb Dyer.