So I met a real living, breathing, talking, shouting, offense-taking Hillary supporter the other night! Oh man, I knew I was in for a treat when we rolled up to his house after a long night of drinking (them, I'm driving) and I saw a poster-size Hillary sign in his window. The fun started a few minutes before, when the last bar, someone mentioned something about Mountain View, which is a generally well-to-do Silicon Valley kinda town, when (we'll call him Mr. Hillary) started going on about how suburban towns like Mountain View were what's wrong with America, that having big yards is just terrible and really only keeps us from interacting with our neighbors. It turns out that Mr. Hillary is married to Mrs. Hillary, who works for the California elect Hillary campaign. I was told he loves political conversation, and relishes in putting people in their place, so I decided to keep a couple of heavy guns at my side with their safeties off, just in case (I'm talking, of course, about Second Amendment rights).

He justified stealing more money away from rich people just because they "can afford it" and that won't have any adverse effects on the way things are going.  He used the words "it takes a village" to raise a person, that people should be more in love with their government and be eager and welcoming for it to hold everyone's hand from cradle to the grave. He does not believe that freedom is enough any one man or woman needs to succeed in America; in order for America to succeed, every child should attend Headstart before they go home because Headstart prevents crime. He thinks that allowing law abiding citizens to carry guns, in addition to the criminals and cops who would otherwise have them, is bad for society and increases our fascination with violence, murder, and mayhem. He firmly believes that the individual is inferior to the collective, and should sacrifice his individual motivations for the good of the community. The idea that citizens are capable of contributing individually to their communities mostly through commerce and charity is not agreeable to his understanding of political theory. In fact, he says that having a supportive conscience of such political views mentioned above may be grounds for dismissal of another person's future company.

In my honest opinion, this man is completely lost to us as freedom-loving, champion of the individual Americans. He is utterly and hopelessly lost to the belief in the power of one man to better reason his own life and those closest to him rather than any collectivist, bureaucratic society.

But if we are to compete with his ideology and prevent it from choking the nation our Founders carved out for us, from destroying all that our ancestors did to arrive here and build their own personal American Dream in the form of living free to achieve life's riches and from the tyranny of others, we need to do what we can to end his kind's ability to monopolize our children's education. Students learn his ideology as fact and often neglect to mention the existence of a rubuttal, even if that argument is fact. For example, he was completely disagreeable to the fact that states which offer Right to Carry permits to law abiding citzens to keep and bear firearms reduces incidents of violent crime.Teaching starts at a young age, younger if you're Hillary Clinton, hence all the efforts to support and expand early childhood government education programs like Headstart.

Granted, a few things are necessary for the common defense of life, liberty, and property, but if clearly and appropriately limited, the commonwealth can be something to be proud of because of its rich heritage and dedication to the cause of freedom for its citizens. We should learn from our history and realize the dangers of tyranny we experienced when deviating from this objective. The citizenry can only share in the common bond as Americans if they feel their accomplishments are their own and not somebody else's projected onto them.

People like Mr. Hillary who support such causes and candidates blindly refuse to believe they are attempting to project their vision from America on potentially vehemently disagreeable citizenry; in effect, they wish citizens would just morph into subjects and ameliorate the process of bureaucraticization. That is exactly what happened in the 1960s when thousands of baby boomers followed the example of the hippies on Haight-Ashbury who didin't want to conform. It's not a problem at all that they wanted out of the mainstream culture-- that's their choice, but it was a bit hypocritical to declare counter-culture and then try and spread the "enlightenment" to the masses. These same people who wanted America to be more like China or the USSR are the same ones today in Berkeley crying about how you should care more about what's happening thousands of miles away instead of four feet in front of their face.

When I left to meet my girlfriend across town, I shook his hand and inquired whether he would be good on his promise to terminate a potential friendship, to which he replied only if I come back with my political views changed. I think I got the last laugh when I told him I'd be more agreeable to just checking my beliefs at the door.

A couple of years ago, upon careful observation of friends and family, I've realized that most people can be classified as belonging to one of three groups: those who speak to hear themselves speak, those who speak when it is assumed someone else is listening, and those who speak generally only when spoken to. Furthermore, it is often the case that an individual belonging to one of the aforementioned groups will envy members of another group.

Living in Berkeley, CA for almost a year has solidified my belief in this classification of humans based on their speaking-listening ratio. Generally, it has been painfully obvious that people here are more likely to belong to the first group mentioned above than people from my home state of Georgia, who more often fit into the latter two categories. Seemingly everyday, the loudest among us in Berkeley make themselves heard, whether they think others are listening or not. I often stroll down to Sather Gate and Sproul Hall (the main South Gate and administration building made famous by the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s) on my way to lunch, the bank or the post office. Along the way, I am accosted by untold dozens who are freely trying to sell me their ideas. It is a well known fact that graduate students in the sciences are not interested in being solicited by undergraduates or the liberal activists that occupy Sproul Plaza on a daily basis; however, these people cannot tell the difference between myself and some unsuspecting individual who may be duped into their cause. All they see is another candidate to join their crusade against [insert mainstream media headline here]. The most humorous and apparent Category 1 types yell out expletives and hurl insults at passers-by, regardless of whether those people are even paying attention. Granted, at Georgia Tech (where I conducted my undergraduate studies) we had a Sproul Plaza-esque centre in Skiles Walkway; however, outspoken Category 1 activists were the exception, not the norm. If any of these classic Berkeley types showed up on Skiles, there would be considerable talk amongst the students during the day about such an event.

What people choose to display on their bumper stickers is also a telling sign as to the Category to which the driver belongs. Back in Georgia, the most common bumper stickers included tributes to President Bush and honor roll children, college decals, bands, and the occasional initials signifying a favorite place to visit (i.e. JH for Jackson Hole, WY). Here in Berkeley, the bumper scenery is quite different. More often than not, you'll see some snide political comment about the War in Iraq, the incompetence of our Commander in Chief, or the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, as well as a plethora of tributes to multiculturalism and diversity, in addition to the ubiquitous college decals and band logos. The bottom line: people here want to be heard, even when they are not speaking.

So which group are Berkeley Category 1 types most envious? I suspect these folks are jealous of the Category 2 individuals: those who speak to an audience. Maybe if the liberal left had some listeners, they wouldn't have to scream so loud. Interestingly, many would consider Berkeley, CA to be the bastion of liberal ideology in America (e.g. Code Pink's War on Warriors, to be discussed at a later date). So don't they have all the audience they couuld ever want? This is where my theory hits a dead end; I would assume that once these people found listeners, they would gravitate towards behaving as Category 2 folks would. My hypothesis, for the time being, is that most of them are screaming so loud that they can't tell whether people are listening or not. Tune in next time when I discuss my first-hand experience with the Code Pink at the Marine recruiting center on Shattuck  Ave.