Okay, the entire world isn't like this right? I just read a blog post by Donald Miller (who is one of my favorite authors) about what women really want from men. The fact that this is from Don breaks my heart because I really like the guy a lot. Instead of summarizing, here's an excerpt from his post:

And they also like mystery. But it’s not really mystery they like, it’s strength. Girls don’t want you calling them all the time. They don’t want to be your rescuer. If you call them all the time or let them know you are thinking about them all the time, you are going to turn them off. The truth is, you should already have a full life you are invested in, and you should invite them into that life. My friend John Eldredge says you should be on an adventure, and you should invite them into that adventure. A girl doesn’t really want you to stare into her eyes like a lovesick puppy (at least not for long); she wants you to put your arms around her and stare into the horizon, to the place you are going together. So before focussing on the girl, go find an adventure, a calling, something you can do and get good at, something that makes money to provide for kids. The girl will come along pretty easily after that.

The whole post is filled with things like this. And while I'm inclined to agree that it's not a good trait at all to be passive and have no self-confidence, this reinforces a lot of the same stereotypes that we have forced on people for generations. A man is supposed to be physically strong, able to lead and take charge. The woman then will be so attracted to the man because of his "take chargeness" that she can't help but jump his bones. Oh that's right, because I forgot that women can't set their own direction in life into a man tells them where to go.

The problem with this thinking is that when two people get together, it's assumed that the woman is going to drop her plans for the man because the man has "set the adventure" for the both of them. Oh really? Also, is it that big of a deal about who makes more money. I know conservatives say yes, but I've met plenty of couples where that doesn't matter. Instead of trying to make a ton of money, they pursue what they love. Do you know why it doesn't matter? BECAUSE IT'S JUST MONEY.

Hopefully what attracts you to a person is someone that you like and care for. Want to know a strange concept? Being in a relationship where both people equally get to make major decisions. Instead of one person deciding what those adventures will be, both people can paint that future together. Doesn't that sound more romantic and less oppressive?

It's thinking like this that forces people to keep a rigid view on how people are supposed to behave and function. Guess what folks? People change and times change. I think I'd rather live in a world where my future wife gets to participate in making major decisions. If I wanted a submissive wife, I could just buy a slave.

This week is the video game edition. Put a couple of quarters into the machine and brace yourself for some awesome video game stories.

Knock Knock. Can I See Your Xbox?Last week someone used Xbox live for good instead of throwing around racial slurs. A student at a Canadian high school was able to catch someone planning a school shooting at his high school. When he told the authorities, Canadian police investigated the boy and found out that he was indeed planning on doing a school shooting. Canadian authorities have rewarded the boy with a unique MW2 title of Mountie.

In the documentary The King of Kong, we followed the journey of Steve Wiebe to conquer the world record in Donkey Kong Jr. Spolier alert, but he did it. A couple of years ago this title was taken right from his hands by Mark Kiehl. But have no fear! Weibe reclaimed his record last week on Valentine's Day, how romantic. This may or may not explain why Weibe was seen earlier in the day having a candle lit dinner with a Donkey Kong Jr. machine.

Finally, conservatives are hoping to boost younger interest in the Republican party by installing "party" rooms with Xbox 360's and by having a "super cool" late night hip hop session with Mike Huckabee. Their next step? To have a giant Second Life party and invite everyone to be their friend on MySpace.

You may be surprised to hear me say such a thing, but this post is most likely not what you're expecting. Republicans have often touted as part of their logic that they are the most patriotic, that they uphold American values the best. And to that I say, they're right.

When we think about American values, we think of a highly individualized culture. You should be able to do whatever you want with your money, what's most important is that you feel good about things. But why do we attach ourselves to such values so readily? If we were to examine other cultures, we would find a much more collective feel to the people. While the individual is important, it is not so important that it forgets about the greater good of the whole.

Let's take a practical example in the news, Universal Health Care (UHC). One proposed idea for UHC is to raise taxes on people but provide health care for everyone in the United States. Immediately the individualistic part of ourselves cry out. We say, "No one should be able to tell me how I can spend my money." It's an interesting argument when you think about it, because you would be spending that same money on health care anyway. The only difference is that you are choosing to spend that money instead of it being spent for you.

Now individual choice and freedom is an important thing. Without individual choice and freedom, we become mindless drones. There is always room for critical thinking. But there is something interesting happening in the collective conscious of the people where perhaps focusing on individual values alone isn't going to cut it. Perhaps there are more noble goals to live for. As the world becomes a smaller place, it becomes harder to ignore the needs of the ones around us.

So I'll make the claim again: Republicans are more American than any other political party. But here's the question. Are those American values really what we should be holding to? It is immediately at this point when someone makes a comment like this that they are branded an anarchist or wanting to take down America. I don't want any part of that. But I have to ask, what are those values?

Freedom? What exactly does freedom mean? Does freedom mean wanting to have a free market economy, but not the freedom to allow people to make their own moral choices about abortion? What about liberty? Is there more than one specific way to choose to display one's patriotism for their country? Is it possible to be pro-America without abusing hegemonic power?

These are but a few critical questions about American values. I do think as a people, we need to do some serious examination about what exactly American values are and if we want them to be the things that we hold as our paradigm. When doing so, we may find that there are other values that are more important that the ones we've been told are true and good.