Dining Hall Philosophy

You wouldn't think that one of the most interesting lessons I've learned in college thus far has come from the dining hall.

But it has.

Living on campus means that, three times a day, I-like most freshmen-am faced with a perplexing conundrum: where to sit in the dining hall. We stand, tray in one hand, drink in other, scanning the dining room for the most advantageous seat.

There are two mistakes the inexperienced diners can make when selecting their table.

The first is to select a packed table, with one lone seat beckoning to the inexperienced freshman. It seems perfect. Diners are talking and laughing and generally having a great time. But beware the lone seductress. Take a nice, long look at that happy table as you turn to grab a Coke, because when you come back, it will be empty. You were too late for the party. Everyone has already eaten and is off to study, attend class, or watch football.

After making that mistake several times, freshmen (me included) usually will attempt the other extreme. "If I sit at a table FULL of people, they all leave," you think. "AHA! I shall put my new reasoning powers I gained in logic class to solve this problem." Instead of bellying up at a packed table, you sit alone, waiting for the crowd to come and join YOU. But no one comes. Sure, you may pick up one or two stragglers who can't find a place to sit, but you'll never achieve the party status of other tables.

The secret to a fantastic mealtime is to pick a table with a handful of people from a wide variety of social circles. Sit, back, relax, and enjoy your french fries as you watch your table fill up and achieve Par-T status.

The lessons learned carry over well into social trends. Jump on the bandwagon when it's popular, and you're too late. It's bloated with hangers-on and has a limited lifespan. The party won't be on for much longer. On the other hand, however, if you're alone, the party will never start. The secret, whether it's a business idea, social trend, fad, or idea, is to get on board when a small but diverse presence has been created.

Happy Birthday...

William Wilberforce!!! Today marks the birth of one of the most influential leaders in the cause of freedom ever. Take a moment to learn about Wilberforce if you're uninformed. You'll be floored.

I am a Centrist

Yeah. It's true. I'm in the middle.

But it's not what you think. You see, for years, people have misunderstood the whole left-wing right-wing centrist depiction of the political landscape.

In reality...

On the left wing is Socialism: government control over every aspect of life. Rather than a specific political system separate from other left-wing institutions, socialism is the foundation on which the ideologies of Communism, Marxism, Nazism, Liberalism and Fascism are built. USSR, Nazi Germany, Italy, and present-day North Korea, Cuba, China, and Venezuela are all left-wing states. Rather than being "right-wing fanatics," Mussolini and Hitler were as left-wing as they come. If you think about it, what exactly was the difference between them and Stalin? All followed the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto, whether or not they were willing to admit it. The problem with Socialism is that it eliminates progress because it eliminates incentive to produce.

On the right wing is Anarchy: the lack of government control over anything. France during the Revolution and present-day Somalia and areas of the Middle East and Africa are perfect examples of right wing ideology in practice. There really are no "right-wing" leaders or ideologies, as the term itself would be oxymoronic, although libertarianism is center-right. There are a couple of problems with anarchy: (1) It is a vacuum that leads to tyranny, since leaders will always rise in a void (2) there is no law and order, thus might makes right and violence and thievery abound.

In the center is Conservatism: the balance between too much government control and too little. The early United States and Founding Fathers were the leading proponents of centrist policies. As the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers attest, the Framers of the Constitution wrestled with what the perfectly balanced government is. Today, the defenders and champions of conservatism are NOT the Republican party, which is simply slightly less left than the Democrats (making our present political battles somewhat laughable). Rather, they are men like Rush Limbaugh, William F. Buckley, Thomas Sowell, Michael Medved, and a whole host of others. Conservatism works because it allows enough government control to protect people without crushing them. It's the perfect balance between freedom and liberty. But that's another blog post.

Take off the Blinders

What I don't get with the universal healthcare battle is why NO ONE will stop and think for a minute. Beyond all the debating over "rights" "entitlements" "what's good for our country" and "what people need," politicians really need to examine whether or not their rather ambitious plans will work. And the best way to do that is to see if anyone's tried it before. And there's no scarcity of nations who have attempted nationalized healthcare. Heck, even Hawaii tried for a while, but had to quit because it was unsustainable.

Which is the key.

Show me ONE instance where nationalized healthcare has worked BETTER than a free market system, and I might believe you have some clout. Until then...

LEAVE ME ALONE!