Wednesday, May 31st 2006
A Short Biography
Hello fellow members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy! My name is Tommy Owens. I’m from San Francisco. A sophomore this August, I am an intended Political Science-History double major. My hobbies are shred guitar (Malmsteen, Satriani, Vai, Lynch, Van Halen etc..), learning German, the Cal Greek system (Go Greek!), history, and, of course, politics.
I am a Conservative Republican, and have been for a few years now. I believe I became one in the days following 9/11, when I saw some very liberal members of my family and some of my moonbat high-school teachers blame the attacks not directly on Americans, but on U.S. foreign policy. They attempted to put themselves in the terrorist shoes (cough cough….Richard Reid) and justify not the attacks themselves, but the motivation for the attacks.
I had none of this. I joined the San Francisco Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign around May or June 2004. I voted for Dubya with pride, and despite all the bad news and scandals, I’m still glad I did. I joined Berkeley College Republicans within the first couple weeks that I arrived at Cal. I began to write for the Cal Patriot a few months afterwards; I currently serve as a Deputy Opinion Editor.
I’d like to acknowledge all the Bloggers and Cal Patriot Writers and thank them for allowing me to contribute. I look forward to blogging soon. My first will be posted in the next couple of days.
“I believe I became one in the days following 9/11, when I saw some very liberal members of my family and some of my moonbat high-school teachers blame the attacks not directly on Americans, but on U.S. foreign policy.”
..that doesn’t sound like a very rational basis for a personal political philosophy.
Comment by Yaman — 6/1/2006 @ 12:55 am
It will be fun to blog with you Tommy.
Comment by Chris Page — 6/1/2006 @ 3:12 am
That actually usually happens: people get involved in politics after they see something they do not like (Stamp Act? Slavery? Apartheid? Jimmy Carter?)
Comment by Tommy Owens — 6/1/2006 @ 12:06 pm
I understand Tommy, but the motivation you put forth was that people questioned US foreign policy and that was somehow insulting to you. It doesn’t sound rational to me. It’s one thing to lift blame off of the people who actually carried out the 9/11 attacks, but it’s an entirely different, and legitimate thing, to consider the negative repercussions our policies may have had.
Comment by Yaman — 6/2/2006 @ 2:40 am
Our policies were not to be blamed in the first place. We support Israel - that’s justified. We bombed the snot out of Saddam when he invaded Kuwait - that’s justified. We kept U.S. soldiers in Saudi Arabia, with the consent of the Saudi gov (we’ve since learned that the Saudi people don’t like us there) - and at the time, that was justified.
Comment by Tommy Owens — 6/2/2006 @ 11:32 am
Hillary only made common the phrase ‘Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!’ because she already knew of a ‘Vast Left Wing Conspiracy’. It was a natural reaction to the inevitable. Ponder that.
Comment by what — 6/2/2006 @ 11:41 am
It would seem that these alleged “leftist” views are not of the conventional definition of a leftist. I think its a dangerous thing to categorize sympathy as being a leftist ideal. Our policies are not simply abstract entities… they affect lives. There is a difference between sympathy for what we do and do not understand and you seem to base your beliefs on the idea of sympathizing for a lackthereof. I do believe there are certain universal human experiences base din our basic biological and psychological processes. It is then fair to say that we may understand the motivation but I would not say that understanding is equivelant to justification and you seem to take this reductionalist stance. Again, it is a dangerous thing. It is neccessary to really acknowledge what motivation terrorist orginizations have for attacks on israel and the United States and do something about it. As a clear example, maybe the U.S. should not have promised the Kurds U.S. military support in overthrowing Saddam and backing out at the last minute. How do you think this looked on U.S. credability when Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of Kurds with biological weapons we sold to him in the early 1980’s and then using that same pretext to attack him after 9/11 although it was initially a result of U.S. policy and action. Not to say this is good nor bad but simply think how society who experiences such adverse effects may feel about the United States. Your going to be a poly sci and history major, you will learn all this and more.
Comment by John — 6/3/2006 @ 11:14 am
“U.S. military support ”
Not the military, it was an executive decision.
“a result of U.S. policy and action”
Actually we sold them the raw materials, but they also bought the pre-weaponized made ones from the Russians in which they used on them - not the U.S. chemicals. You need to look deeper into intelligence.
Comment by what — 6/3/2006 @ 4:09 pm
“Your going to be a poly sci and history major, you will learn all this and more. “
The twisting of the truth is so fad today. U.C. Berkeley is right in the mix. Bottom up history, sometimes has wrong information that is passed on as legitimate because it doesn’t come from the correct channels. One will see that America was always stronger when History was taught at the big institutions of America of Top Down History. Today, no one understands Politics or governments, because we learn how Joe farmer struggled to keep his farm – not how America survived.
Comment by what — 6/3/2006 @ 4:14 pm
“There is a difference between sympathy for what we do ”
When America or any other great nationhood is strong they care less of what anyone thinks. Now we flinch which is a wrong foreign policy. Weak nations do not survive. This is a weal policy. Either you win the game or lose.
Comment by what — 6/3/2006 @ 4:17 pm
“It would seem that these alleged “leftist” views are not of the conventional definition of a leftist. I think its a dangerous thing to categorize sympathy as being a leftist ideal.”
Either you rule with courage against your enemies, and have sympathy for your nation, or you die-off – not the other way around. U.C. Berkeley will not teach one this. U.C. Berkeley is now flooded with international cooperation at the detriment of U.S. determinism. You cannot have it both ways. No society is perfect, but the left wants a perfect society. I have called on this board for people to explain a utopian society. This will weed out the propaganda. How do we run the perfect society?
Comment by what — 6/3/2006 @ 4:22 pm
Tommy, even if we consider those policy decisions to be justified, it doesn’t mean we can neglect the consequences or implications. It’s really a question of whether or not the cost is worth the benefit–making this determination is where the ideological playground is, if it’s possible to get past all the emotional stigma attached to allowing the thought in the first place. Interestingly enough, when Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened the Saudis, Osama (in SA at the time I believe) offered the royal government to gather his Cold War mujahideen to defend the country from Hussein, who Osama despised. The rejection of this offer and acceptance of US military presence instead really set Osama off, and caused his alienation from the Saudi government.
Sorry for the late response–haven’t been checking as frequently.
Comment by Yaman — 6/12/2006 @ 2:24 am