The esteemed economist Dr. Thomas Sowell states there are two types of questions in life, objective and subjective. He illustrates his point using the building of a football stadium. There is absolutely no question as to the dimensions of the field, how it is to be laid out, and marked. Those are objective questions for which 100% positively correct answers can be found in the NFL rule book. The question as to where to build the stadium, how it will be paid for, and who should benefit financially, those are subjective questions. Subjective questions are questions for which no definitive answer exists. Objective questions are based upon science, empirical evidence and cold hard facts. Subjective questions are based upon emotional appeal. One should be very careful to identify a question as objective or subjective prior to proceeding.
Does God exist? It can not be proved nor disproved. There is no way to know for sure, at least not in this world. It is a subjective question. The ancient Greek stoic philosophers figured that out some time ago. Their simple solution was since there is no definitive answer, its a waste of time to ponder the question. So they closed the door on the subject and went on to other issues. For some of us though, it's not that simple. For some of us, the question can not be closed like a door. For some of us, we feel compelled to try to open that door up. I'm one of those people. Ancient theologians have struggled with the question for centuries. One train of thought yields that the mere fact that humans can ponder such a thought, in itself proves something. Think of it as the old philosophical thought 'I think, therefore I am.' Other theologians opined this ability to ask the question is a residue or an echo of the divine. Before you laugh, that's what scientist have been doing for decades to prove the Big Bang theory, scanning the solar system and beyond for an echo or residue it. Ancient Hebrews declared this "echo" of God was so pure and so holy, that even attempting to discuss it in human terms sullies it. That's why they didn't even have a word God. In the Torah they mention the presence of God by using a string of constants that translate in English to YHWH, so it could not be promounced. When the Greeks translated the Torah to their language, they thought Hebrews were nuts and misspelled it. So they added some vowels and it changed to Yehwah. When it was translated again to Latin and then to English, the Greek and Latin letter "Y" makes a "J" sound, so they changed it to Jehovah. But I digress. I've done a lot of research into the origins of the Bible and religion in general, so yes, I'm showing off. I was raised in an extended Catholic family, who's particular branch wasn't overly religious, so we attended Church mostly because cousins, aunts and Grandma did. When I was in fifth grade we moved out of walking distance, so I was off the hook! I never gave Church much thought after that, proudly illustrating my superiority by stating I believed in God, just not organized religion. I was so smug. I did later rejoin the Church in order to become my niece's Godfather. The sum total of effort included cutting my Dad a check for six months worth of collection envelopes, which he would take care of, twice a year.
Fast forward about five years, and I was a father, who's fiance wanted a big church wedding. I decided I was only going to go through this once, so if she wanted it, then lets go for it. I learned the Church takes the vow 'till death do you part' quite seriously. So in order to be married in the Church, we had to attend a pre-marriage counseling session called Pre-Cana, after the site of Jesus' first miracle, turning water into wine at a wedding in Cana. I was quite nervous, but it turned to be a pretty fun day long session. The second to the last item on the agenda was a stern talking to by the Parish Priest. Basically he laid it all out. We were not simply putting on a
fancy dress up party. We were committing to marriage, and doing so not just in front of family and friends, we committing to marriage in front of God. Then came the knock out punch. Most people who wed do so planning to have children. (I had a 3 year old daughter.) And then the
Priest said that if we do have children, the only way they would know anything about God or the Church is if we taught them. No amount of Sunday school could fill the void. They would be missing something, an awareness of a relationship with religion and God. They may or may not
even realize it. Some adults pick up religion later in life, most don't, so if we, as parents, didn't make an effort, it would not happen. Pow, right between the eyes. I had a duty to my child. Head slapping moment. I know there's no way I can force my daughter to believe in God. That will be her decision. But what I could do is make sure she was educated in religion, the Church and God. I reasoned I could ensure her decision would be an educated one. So off to Church we went to learn about religion! I was surprised how much of my early experiences came back. When to sit, when to stand, when to kneel. I even remembered the Nicene Creed by heart. Then, after a few weeks, something very surprising happened. I started paying attention to what was going on. I started listening. I started learning. My pastor was a kindly old gentlemen who Baptized my daughter and married my wife and I. From time to time he would start a Homily with the line "One theologian has pondered...." and then he would launch into the most thought provoking ideas. It blew my mind. Just a short example, in the Gospel reading about the miracle of loaves and fishes, no where does it say Jesus waved his arms, spoke some magical words and the food suddenly appeared. It says Jesus told the Apostles to take what food they had, put it in the baskets and pass them around. And when it was done every one had eaten and there twelve baskets left over. Where exactly did that food come from? One theologian has pondered that among all the followers that day (5,000 men plus women and children), some of them had brought food with them. And when they saw Jesus giving away everything they had, they were inspired to do the same. Remember, this was the Middle East. Now that's a miracle I can believe in!
Over the years I came to realize that I was learning a lot more than just religion. I was also learning how to be a father, a husband, a man, a parishioner, a member of the community, as well as learning about God, the Church and religion. Basically the Church's mission is to help
us hairless monkeys live peaceful, productive, happy lives. They have an entire curriculum built into their worship and traditions. From birth through penance, redemption, communion, confirmation, marriage, illness and finally death. Then it starts over again with your
children. You can pretty much break it down to a list of ten or so thing you should or should not do. Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't covet other people's stuff, honor your parents. Now where have I heard that one before?
The Catholic Church is set up as a mirror to the nuclear family. God is the Father, the Church is the Mother, and we are all the children. They rightly believe the basic family unit is the first building block of western civilization and society. So you can see where a lot of their beliefs stem from. From there I moved into the history of the Bible and the Catholic Church. I reasoned, this may be the word of God, but some one decided what was the word of God and therefore what wasn't. I wanted to know who and why. I also learned about the history of the Church, and let me tell you, most conventional wisdom on the Church is flat out wrong. I've read the reason the Dark Ages lasted so long was because that's how long it took the Church to teach the Germanic barbarians to wait in line, fill out forms, and basically behave. They invented the university system that trained most of the great scientists of the renaissance period. They invented the public health system and hospitals. Among the ranks of the Jesuits are some of the greatest
mathematicians in history. They invented the solar calendar, they created the academic disciplines of archeology and seismology. And far too many things to mention here. The Church basically built western civilization. Too bad so many people only know about the bad things and
have no idea on all the wonderful things the Church helped create. All in all, they have a lot more check marks in the positive side than the negative. No question about it in my mind. There are aspects of the Catholic Church that I disagree with, some times strongly. There are aspects I find down right silly and mostly ignore. If that's enough to get me excommunicated, then so be it. But I doubt it would. The Church is not some organization tasked with enforcing a strict set of rules, ready to rap your knuckles with a wooden ruler every time you slightly stray. That's not the correct mind set to approach religion or God. It's not an adversarial relationship, it's symbiotic. It's easy to approach religion and the concept of God with the mind set to prove it invalid, anyone can do that. It's a subjective idea, not objective, it's impossible to prove. The hard way
is to approach it is from the other direction. What can we both benefit from this relationship? I learn from Catholicism, and Catholicism (at the Parish level) learns from me. And together we try to make the community, and the world, a little better. And I think we do. I don't see a down side.
Its been said that morals are the guard rails of life. If you work at it, morals show you in detail, what is right and what is wrong. Occasionally we get to near to them, they help nudge us back on to the road. Occasionally we ram through them and plunge off the cliff. But that doesn't mean they are wrong, it means we are wrong. The Church helps us define what those guard rails are. The Church teaches us, it guides us, it leads us, occasionally it disastrously heads in the wrong
direction. It's there to help props us up in times of need. And at times, it needs us to prop it up. And when we screw up, it teaches us how to ask forgiveness, but even more importantly, it teaches us to forgive. And that is the most important virtue of all. Saying you forgive some one who's wronged you, and then, just let it go. We could all use many more lessons in that. This is what I've learned about and from the Catholic Church. How to survive in this world to the best of my moral abilities. That is by sacrificing my time, my wealth, my energies, and myself in service of our fellow humans. One can find great joy and relief in the service of others in greater need than we are. When we have no rules or guidelines, the possibilities are endless. There's a certain fear associated with the unknown, its part of human nature. However there is also great freedom to be found in narrowing down the possibilities to fit within moral guidelines. One of the great ironies I learned through the Church, complete freedom can be an extremely heavy burden, while submission to a higher authority provides great freedom. I don't have to worry about what to do, I already know the answer. Help those in need of help. It's my responsibility to come up with my own definition of God. I find the Catholic Church's definition, a pretty darn good
starting point. It's not the ultimate answer, but it's a very well researched place to start looking for the answer. What would I do if I were Pope for a year? That's easy. I believe the Pope has one of the most difficult jobs in the world. He's charged with staying true to the original teachings handed down from Jesus to the Apostles, from the first Pope St. Peter, down through the ages.
It's called Apostolic Succession. Protestants believe possessing the Word (i.e. the Bible) is enough to make ones way in the world. The Catholic Church's position is the Word is not enough, its true meaning is as important, if not more so. They are the keepers of the original truths. The Pope's job is to make sure that stays in place. But also, he's tasked with keeping the Church relevant in modern society. He is the leader of the world wide Church. He is a moral example to the
world. His job is to use the Church as the anchor in today's fast paced society. Every thing changes, except their 2,000 year old message. The only tougher job I can think of is to lead troops into battle, where lives are on the line. Of course, being a member of the Church is
putting your life on the line is many parts of the world even today. If I was the Pope for one year, I'd tell all the vice Pope's who spend all day escorting me around, that I needed to use the little Pope's room. I'd tell them I had fourteen wiener schnitzels for lunch, I'd be a while, so good ahead and I'd catch up with them in a later. Then I'd go to the rest room. I'd ditch the hat, the robes, the Pallium, toss them all in the corner. I might keep the ring as a souvenir, after all each Pope gets their own. Then I'd slip out the window and run as fast and as far as I can to get the heck out of there. I would never want to have that kind of responsibility. I would never want that many people around the world watching every thing I do, depending on me to lead them. I wouldn't wish that kind of pressure on an enemy. Maybe I'd take a shot at farming. That seems like a nice, quiet, peaceful life. Then I could get back to learning about the Bible.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
Laughing at the wolves before they come to eat you
At this point of a presidential campaign, it no longer matters if the Obama/Farrakhan connection even exists, much less is significant. The multi-billion dollar PR machines are cranked up to overdrive on both sides. We are now in full-scale political theater mode. Everything you hear from anyone in the Political/Media industrial complex is geared towards worshiping their guy and demonizing the other. The time for reasonable discussion is over. It's war.
Now is the time to watch what they do and ignore what's coming out of their mouths. [Editor's note: Why just now?] Why these people say what they do is much more interesting than joining in the giant chorus of "You Suck, We're Great!!!!!" I mean that about Democrats and Republicans alike. People who are dedicated to a party are no longer reasonable.
I predict the main attacks will come from non-affiliated 507(c), so the campaigns have plausible deniability. They will be mean, brutal, mostly false, but occasionally contain enough of a thread of truth to something that might be worth following up. But it doesn't matter because the other side (at this point the terms Democratic party and Republican party are pretty much interchangeable) will always be wrong, mean, rotten, racist, sexist, fascist, and any other insult they can find on Wikipedia.
Last week was a perfect example of what I mean. Obama basically gave the convention to the Clintons. They get prime-time two nights, she gets a nomination call, and I've read somewhere her people got a plank reworded to slightly suggest the "glass ceiling" is what kept her from the nomination.
Obama supposedly has the nomination clinched, which mean he owns the democratic party. He's even moved the DNC to Chicago so his people can take over. If he's in control, forget about listening to his proclamations of how proud he is to give all these perks to Clinton, the
interesting question is why? Because I certainly don't think its his soul-searing respect, love and respect for the Clintons.
To figure it out, stop listening to the PR machine, and watch them in action.
Now is the time to watch what they do and ignore what's coming out of their mouths. [Editor's note: Why just now?] Why these people say what they do is much more interesting than joining in the giant chorus of "You Suck, We're Great!!!!!" I mean that about Democrats and Republicans alike. People who are dedicated to a party are no longer reasonable.
I predict the main attacks will come from non-affiliated 507(c), so the campaigns have plausible deniability. They will be mean, brutal, mostly false, but occasionally contain enough of a thread of truth to something that might be worth following up. But it doesn't matter because the other side (at this point the terms Democratic party and Republican party are pretty much interchangeable) will always be wrong, mean, rotten, racist, sexist, fascist, and any other insult they can find on Wikipedia.
Last week was a perfect example of what I mean. Obama basically gave the convention to the Clintons. They get prime-time two nights, she gets a nomination call, and I've read somewhere her people got a plank reworded to slightly suggest the "glass ceiling" is what kept her from the nomination.
Obama supposedly has the nomination clinched, which mean he owns the democratic party. He's even moved the DNC to Chicago so his people can take over. If he's in control, forget about listening to his proclamations of how proud he is to give all these perks to Clinton, the
interesting question is why? Because I certainly don't think its his soul-searing respect, love and respect for the Clintons.
To figure it out, stop listening to the PR machine, and watch them in action.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Rush Limbuagh: Congratulations on Twenty Years of Broadcast Excellence!
One of my greatest joys in life these days is pointing out to my liberal relatives, friends, and acquaintances just how right Rush Limbaugh is. Nothing gets under a liberal's skin better than El-Rushbo. Today Rush celebrates 20 years of excellence in broadcasting, with loads of fun, frivolity, analysis of societal evolution, and talent on load from God (half of that talent tied behind his back just to make it fair).
My editor thinks I'm a bit overboard, so he's asked for an explanation on why it means so much to me. Allow me to explain why I think it's such a big deal. So here it goes. Why do I enjoy Rush Limbaugh?
First and foremost, he's funny. Call him a talking head, a political pundit, a party hack, whatever you want, but first and foremost, above all else, he's a top rate comedian. The first time I
heard him play the EIB Gospel Singers belting out "Thank the Lord Rush is on the EIB" I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. He understands humor, he dissects jokes; whereas Sean Hannity is like a bludgeon, Rush is a scalpel, deftly inserting wit and humor wherever and whenever he can. As an amateur comedian myself, I fully appreciate his sense of humor. If he wasn't funny, I'd never have kept on listening. Rush understands to succeed in his profession, he has to be primarily entertaining. Rush gets an 'A+' from me on this one.
Second, take a look at his career. Anyone who's listened to his program long enough has heard his litany of career missteps and downright failures. I think he's been fired from 13 or so jobs. At one point he was reduced to selling vacuums door to door, to keep a roof over his family's head. And today he's the undisputed king of AM radio. That is success. That's more than success, that's proof to me that not only does the American dream still exist, it's possible, not just for a few, but for everyone. Today's program started with an on-the-air phone call from George H.W. Bush, George Bush, and Jeb Bush. All this week he's been airing audio congratulations from the Vice
President, a Supreme Court Justice, and two of the most intelligent people in America today, esteemed economists Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter E. Williams. Now that is impressive. As Rush likes to say, he wishes his parents were still alive so they could see all this. They would be stunned that their college drop-out son, who terrorized their community with his practical jokes as a kid (and he's pulled some great ones), is rubbing elbows with the highest elites in American politics and academics. Not too shabby for a door-to-door salesman.
Thirdly, he's leading the fight to destroy the old time, liberally biased mainstream media. Over the years I've come to despise the MSM. They sit in their corner offices, in skyscrapers, deciding for us, the unwashed masses, not only what we should know but how we should
interpret it. That burns my ass. What's the news? What the MSM says is the news. If they're wrong, doesn't matter to them, tomorrow's always another day, another paper, another show. I was stunned when I started hearing the stories the MSM dropped and Rush picked up, jaw on the floor stunned. The old-line MSM works from the point that the natural order of life in America is liberal democratic control. Anything that deviates from that position must be
suppressed. I can't wait till they've been laid low, nothing but smoldering cinders. Then We The People will be able to determine what is news and what is not, what is right and what is wrong. The Media is Dead! Long Live the New Media! And as I stated, Rush is leading the charge for freedom of information.
And lastly, and most importantly to me, Rush Limbaugh has won his success, and he did it the hard way, he did it his way. The reason the Rush Limbaugh Show and the EIB network even exist is because Rush couldn't keep a job. He kept pissing off his bosses. One anecdote he related, he was called on the carpet by the news director of a station he worked at. They wanted to know what the hell he was doing on the air. He said commenting on the news. He asked what the problem was, Tom Brokaw did the exact same thing. Shortly after, he was out on
his ass. In this respect, I admire Rush as I do the Grateful Dead. When they couldn't get a record deal, rather than buckle under and play by other people's rules, they formed their own label and did what they wanted to do anyway. I have great admiration for people who refuse to
play by the rules, and instead, make the rules change to suit them. Many do try, and the vast majority of them fail. But once in a while, you see someone win. It reminds me why I have faith in America.
So there you have it in a nutshell. Its not that I'm smitten by Rush, or any kind of adoring fan. He's a great comic, provides a wonderful service, and all I have to do is put up with the
commercials. He's got the old mainstream media on the run. He broadcasts information that 20 years ago would never have seen the light of day. He's got the democratic party quaking in their shoes - the democratic senate has even tried to take him out, and they failed miserably. In other words, he's a thorn in the side of the powerful establishment, and in the course of his career, he's rewritten the rules for talk radio.
Congratulations Rush Limbaugh on 20 years of excellence, and I look forward to 20 more!
My editor thinks I'm a bit overboard, so he's asked for an explanation on why it means so much to me. Allow me to explain why I think it's such a big deal. So here it goes. Why do I enjoy Rush Limbaugh?
First and foremost, he's funny. Call him a talking head, a political pundit, a party hack, whatever you want, but first and foremost, above all else, he's a top rate comedian. The first time I
heard him play the EIB Gospel Singers belting out "Thank the Lord Rush is on the EIB" I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. He understands humor, he dissects jokes; whereas Sean Hannity is like a bludgeon, Rush is a scalpel, deftly inserting wit and humor wherever and whenever he can. As an amateur comedian myself, I fully appreciate his sense of humor. If he wasn't funny, I'd never have kept on listening. Rush understands to succeed in his profession, he has to be primarily entertaining. Rush gets an 'A+' from me on this one.
Second, take a look at his career. Anyone who's listened to his program long enough has heard his litany of career missteps and downright failures. I think he's been fired from 13 or so jobs. At one point he was reduced to selling vacuums door to door, to keep a roof over his family's head. And today he's the undisputed king of AM radio. That is success. That's more than success, that's proof to me that not only does the American dream still exist, it's possible, not just for a few, but for everyone. Today's program started with an on-the-air phone call from George H.W. Bush, George Bush, and Jeb Bush. All this week he's been airing audio congratulations from the Vice
President, a Supreme Court Justice, and two of the most intelligent people in America today, esteemed economists Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter E. Williams. Now that is impressive. As Rush likes to say, he wishes his parents were still alive so they could see all this. They would be stunned that their college drop-out son, who terrorized their community with his practical jokes as a kid (and he's pulled some great ones), is rubbing elbows with the highest elites in American politics and academics. Not too shabby for a door-to-door salesman.
Thirdly, he's leading the fight to destroy the old time, liberally biased mainstream media. Over the years I've come to despise the MSM. They sit in their corner offices, in skyscrapers, deciding for us, the unwashed masses, not only what we should know but how we should
interpret it. That burns my ass. What's the news? What the MSM says is the news. If they're wrong, doesn't matter to them, tomorrow's always another day, another paper, another show. I was stunned when I started hearing the stories the MSM dropped and Rush picked up, jaw on the floor stunned. The old-line MSM works from the point that the natural order of life in America is liberal democratic control. Anything that deviates from that position must be
suppressed. I can't wait till they've been laid low, nothing but smoldering cinders. Then We The People will be able to determine what is news and what is not, what is right and what is wrong. The Media is Dead! Long Live the New Media! And as I stated, Rush is leading the charge for freedom of information.
And lastly, and most importantly to me, Rush Limbaugh has won his success, and he did it the hard way, he did it his way. The reason the Rush Limbaugh Show and the EIB network even exist is because Rush couldn't keep a job. He kept pissing off his bosses. One anecdote he related, he was called on the carpet by the news director of a station he worked at. They wanted to know what the hell he was doing on the air. He said commenting on the news. He asked what the problem was, Tom Brokaw did the exact same thing. Shortly after, he was out on
his ass. In this respect, I admire Rush as I do the Grateful Dead. When they couldn't get a record deal, rather than buckle under and play by other people's rules, they formed their own label and did what they wanted to do anyway. I have great admiration for people who refuse to
play by the rules, and instead, make the rules change to suit them. Many do try, and the vast majority of them fail. But once in a while, you see someone win. It reminds me why I have faith in America.
So there you have it in a nutshell. Its not that I'm smitten by Rush, or any kind of adoring fan. He's a great comic, provides a wonderful service, and all I have to do is put up with the
commercials. He's got the old mainstream media on the run. He broadcasts information that 20 years ago would never have seen the light of day. He's got the democratic party quaking in their shoes - the democratic senate has even tried to take him out, and they failed miserably. In other words, he's a thorn in the side of the powerful establishment, and in the course of his career, he's rewritten the rules for talk radio.
Congratulations Rush Limbaugh on 20 years of excellence, and I look forward to 20 more!
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Patriotism is not black or white (or red all over)
There's been an awful lot of trees (and brain cells) killed recently on newspaper stories covering Senator Barack Obama's big speech the other day on patriotism. Naturally Obama clearly, and unequivocally, pronounced that he would never question another's patriotism (of course not, he's got Wesley Clark for that), and he would accept no criticism of his own. One wonders if that proclamation is enough to stem the famed and fabled Republican Attack Machine (as if the Democrats don't do the exact same thing, see above reference to Wesley Clark).
I've read several analysis and opinion pieces recently, not only on the speech, but also on the concept of patriotism itself. The American Left has had issues for decades concerning their patriotism. After all, what's burning a few flags, spitting on a few returning Vietnam vets, and meeting with America's enemies to discuss how rotten America is, between revolutionary friends? I mean, come on, how could any one consider the Weather Underground to be unpatriotic? After all it does require a few broken eggs to make an omelet.
And believe me, I understand the confusion. Having been born, bred, and raised to be a true blue liberal, I can remember the lessons of the radical counter-culture wars of the 1960's, even if I was a tad too young to do much more than get the stuffing beaten out of me during grade school gym class dodge ball. Ah, those were the days.
Even though I no longer can remember the rational or logic that stitched their philosophy together, I do have faint vibes on the subject that were beaten into my brain as a child and teenager. I also believe the main reason I don't remember the rational and logic was because there wasn't any. Rather than detailing their reasoning, the left was more apt to use slang, or codewords to define the finer points of their ideology. Terms like "Distrust the man" and "Down for the struggle" seemed sufficient. Phrases like "Don't trust anyone over 30" don't seem to make as much sense when you're 45 as they did when you were on the upside of that long march. And to be quite frank, other than my nieces who've I've known all their lives, I'm not sure how many people under 30 I would actually trust. Read the police beat in your local newspaper. They don't seem all that bright. If life has taught me anything, it's that just because the state says you can vote at 18, it doesn't mean at 18 you're an adult, capable of reasonable, logical thought. That's why the drinking age is 21.
And yet the left, for all their actions, programs, pogroms, projects, movements, teach-ins, die-ins, protests and and marches, still is bewildered by the great American Center's inability to see they are the true patriots, still fighting to fulfill the dreams of the Founding Fathers (even though the radical Left now considers them racist, murderous thieves. Note to the Left, this isn't helping). So this presents me with a quandary. I was once a card-carrying liberal, and in the midst of all that churning and caterwauling, I certainly didn't feel like I was unpatriotic, even while I was reading the Essential Works of Marxism and plotting the overthrow of my government from the confines of my Beatles poster-filled teenage bedroom. Rest assured dear readers, I never got closer to actually doing anything other than wearing John Lennon buttons and insisting how much I was against "the man".
So where does this sense of patriotism come from for a political ideology that thinks the most American thing to do it to replace America's self rule government with a half-assed copy of the USSR?
Here's my theory: the two party system. I believe the left is completely taken in by the two party political system used in America. If the two party system is indeed the ultimate political system of all time, then it's only natural that all issues affecting everyday Americans can be addressed by the two party system. All daily struggles, injustices, and downright bad luck, all part of the human condition, can be addressed and solved by using the two party system,
even though anyone with an ounce of intelligence and wisdom could easily point out you can't outlaw personal tragedy. Or, to put it more simply, when you live within the "box" of the two party system, its harder to think outside that box.
Inside that box, the rules are simple, us versus them. Thinking outside that box causes headaches, trauma, pain, realization, etc. And that takes work, hard mental work, and liberals don't like that. Liberals like things straightforward; nice, simple, easy, in other words, inside the box. Inside the box, logic and reason don't matter. All that matters is they come down on what they consider the morally correct side of a two sided argument. Pepsi or Coke. Hamburger or hot dog. Democrat or Republican. Liberal or Conservative. Voting booth switch "A" or "B". Make your decision, stick with your people, and then stop thinking about it, and get back to the real important decisions,
Miller or Bud, American Idol or The Bachelor, and Burger King or McDonalds.
There is a downside to this kind of thinking too. When you think inside this dichotomy, then you only are able to view issues as black and white and you miss all the color.
So if there are only two sides to every issue, and you're on the right side of said issue, and it doesn't seem to be gaining traction with the American public, it doesn't mean there may be more involved than the liberal brain can handle, no siree Bob! What it means is it's time to change the rules in the box. Your opponent isn't some outside force that should unite you with your fellow American. No, not at all. It means your opponent, your enemy, is your fellow Americans, who won't let your side win the fight inside the box. 9/11? It's the other guy's fault. It's not Al Qeada, it's the American Right.
And if you can't beat the American Right at the ballot box? Then the Right has to go. And so they become the enemy. Not the people from other nations who are getting better at killing your fellow citizens, but your neighbor. And since both the left and the right think inside the box of the two party system, it's as easy to define your enemy as it is to define who's the good guy and the bad guy in the champion wrestling match.
And what's more patriotic than taking down your enemy?
I've read several analysis and opinion pieces recently, not only on the speech, but also on the concept of patriotism itself. The American Left has had issues for decades concerning their patriotism. After all, what's burning a few flags, spitting on a few returning Vietnam vets, and meeting with America's enemies to discuss how rotten America is, between revolutionary friends? I mean, come on, how could any one consider the Weather Underground to be unpatriotic? After all it does require a few broken eggs to make an omelet.
And believe me, I understand the confusion. Having been born, bred, and raised to be a true blue liberal, I can remember the lessons of the radical counter-culture wars of the 1960's, even if I was a tad too young to do much more than get the stuffing beaten out of me during grade school gym class dodge ball. Ah, those were the days.
Even though I no longer can remember the rational or logic that stitched their philosophy together, I do have faint vibes on the subject that were beaten into my brain as a child and teenager. I also believe the main reason I don't remember the rational and logic was because there wasn't any. Rather than detailing their reasoning, the left was more apt to use slang, or codewords to define the finer points of their ideology. Terms like "Distrust the man" and "Down for the struggle" seemed sufficient. Phrases like "Don't trust anyone over 30" don't seem to make as much sense when you're 45 as they did when you were on the upside of that long march. And to be quite frank, other than my nieces who've I've known all their lives, I'm not sure how many people under 30 I would actually trust. Read the police beat in your local newspaper. They don't seem all that bright. If life has taught me anything, it's that just because the state says you can vote at 18, it doesn't mean at 18 you're an adult, capable of reasonable, logical thought. That's why the drinking age is 21.
And yet the left, for all their actions, programs, pogroms, projects, movements, teach-ins, die-ins, protests and and marches, still is bewildered by the great American Center's inability to see they are the true patriots, still fighting to fulfill the dreams of the Founding Fathers (even though the radical Left now considers them racist, murderous thieves. Note to the Left, this isn't helping). So this presents me with a quandary. I was once a card-carrying liberal, and in the midst of all that churning and caterwauling, I certainly didn't feel like I was unpatriotic, even while I was reading the Essential Works of Marxism and plotting the overthrow of my government from the confines of my Beatles poster-filled teenage bedroom. Rest assured dear readers, I never got closer to actually doing anything other than wearing John Lennon buttons and insisting how much I was against "the man".
So where does this sense of patriotism come from for a political ideology that thinks the most American thing to do it to replace America's self rule government with a half-assed copy of the USSR?
Here's my theory: the two party system. I believe the left is completely taken in by the two party political system used in America. If the two party system is indeed the ultimate political system of all time, then it's only natural that all issues affecting everyday Americans can be addressed by the two party system. All daily struggles, injustices, and downright bad luck, all part of the human condition, can be addressed and solved by using the two party system,
even though anyone with an ounce of intelligence and wisdom could easily point out you can't outlaw personal tragedy. Or, to put it more simply, when you live within the "box" of the two party system, its harder to think outside that box.
Inside that box, the rules are simple, us versus them. Thinking outside that box causes headaches, trauma, pain, realization, etc. And that takes work, hard mental work, and liberals don't like that. Liberals like things straightforward; nice, simple, easy, in other words, inside the box. Inside the box, logic and reason don't matter. All that matters is they come down on what they consider the morally correct side of a two sided argument. Pepsi or Coke. Hamburger or hot dog. Democrat or Republican. Liberal or Conservative. Voting booth switch "A" or "B". Make your decision, stick with your people, and then stop thinking about it, and get back to the real important decisions,
Miller or Bud, American Idol or The Bachelor, and Burger King or McDonalds.
There is a downside to this kind of thinking too. When you think inside this dichotomy, then you only are able to view issues as black and white and you miss all the color.
So if there are only two sides to every issue, and you're on the right side of said issue, and it doesn't seem to be gaining traction with the American public, it doesn't mean there may be more involved than the liberal brain can handle, no siree Bob! What it means is it's time to change the rules in the box. Your opponent isn't some outside force that should unite you with your fellow American. No, not at all. It means your opponent, your enemy, is your fellow Americans, who won't let your side win the fight inside the box. 9/11? It's the other guy's fault. It's not Al Qeada, it's the American Right.
And if you can't beat the American Right at the ballot box? Then the Right has to go. And so they become the enemy. Not the people from other nations who are getting better at killing your fellow citizens, but your neighbor. And since both the left and the right think inside the box of the two party system, it's as easy to define your enemy as it is to define who's the good guy and the bad guy in the champion wrestling match.
And what's more patriotic than taking down your enemy?
Friday, June 27, 2008
A Heller good time to be had by all
Amendment II
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.
Something most interesting happened yesterday. I'm quite sure what it portends will take some time to sink in, perhaps generations. But it struck me as monumental nonetheless. The Supreme Court of the United States of America officially declared that "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Predictably, the horribly biased mainstream media has its collective panties in a twist over it. I was so elated, I actually watched Katie Couric to see CBS' take on it. Their mature, reasoned, moderate opinion on the subject was a montage of people shooting pistols. That's right liberals, the Supreme Court has just ordered every one in the country to arm themselves to the teeth and begin vigilante justice on their neighbor's loitering.
The HuffPo is just as morally outraged. I managed to get all the way through one paragraph of a piece where the author declared Dick Cheney wants to turn DC into the Triangle of Death in Iraq. Moderate, contemplative, tolerant, thoughtful analysis need not apply.
The ruling itself isn't all that grand. It basically says that governments can not outright ban firearms. Justice Scalia went to great lengths in instructing lower federal courts that this does not mean there can be no reasonable regulation of guns - thank God. I believe the thought of Charlie Manson getting paroled and stopping by Walt's World of Guns on his way home is enough to rankle even the most fervent gun rights supporter.
What it does do is tell local and state governments that they cannot simply ignore the constitution. And for that I'm ready to set off fireworks. Of course, as a resident of New York, that would be illegal. Interesting enough, Founding Father John Adams preached that the Fourth of July should be celebrated with cannons, firearms, bonfires, and all manners of loud, boisterous hoopla. But what the heck does he know? He was only there.
I see two important issues in this ruling. One good, one not so much. Let's start with the bad news.
Re-read my second paragraph above. The Supreme Court had to actually rule that the meaning of one sentence, 27 words in all, simply means nothing more than what it actually says. Is it just me, or does it seem absolutely ludicrous that this question rises to the level of anything more than a kindergarten recess argument? "Does too! Does not!" How on earth did our society sink to the level where the Supreme Court of the land has to specifically rule on the meaning of a clear, concise sentence? That is nothing but sad in my opinion.
On to the good news! The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled that yes, a clear concise sentence means exactly what it says. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition! I may not have a flintlock or a blunderbuss, but I do have a pitchfork somewhere in the basement!
Here is what I find so optimistic in this ruling. I've read the analysis of Roe v Wade in the past, and I'm not going to surf the web for specifics now, its late Friday afternoon, but as I understand it, the Supreme Court basically took 2 or 3 or 4 Amendments from the Bill of Rights and created a kind of realm, where 'rights' can be created out of thin air, based upon nothing more than a majority of Justices. Even though the Constitution specifically states that is not to happen (it's all through the document, just read it and see).
[Editor's note: Here's where I have a slight disagreement with the author. The Constitution outlines specific powers that the federal government has; everything else is reserved for the States (to regulate) and/or the People (to enjoy in freedom). So in my mind it's not so much that there isn't a Constitutionally-protected right to privacy, as that the federal government has no legitimate authority to ban abortion (or prevent States from banning it), since that is an act not under their specified umbrella of powers. Likewise, there isn't a Constitutionally-protected right to alcohol, it's just that they do not have the power to ban it (without an amendment). Same for marijuana (although somehow they forgot the need for an amendment...sorry, different topic).]
[Author's response: While I agree with the editor's thoughts on aspects of federalism involved with this issue, I must admit, I don't have a solid or satisfying response to this proposition. From what I've learned about the Revolutionary times and the Founding Fathers, the lines between the states and the federal government were left blurry on purpose. As I understand the concept, the idea was to keep the boundaries fluid and murky, allowing for future generations to of American politicians at the various levels to basically argue it out during the issues of their times. They understood power would change hands back and forth, some generations having stronger state rights, and others having stronger federal rights. The idea being that times change, issues change, generations change, and so the relationship between state and federal authority would be flexible to change with them, and most importantly, change back as the issues and the people change. What I see in this ruling is, that ebb and flow of power heading back towards the states and the people, and away from the federal government. Some states will agree that strict gun regulation is appropriate, while others will agree otherwise. In other words, just the way it's supposed to. ]
This Supreme Court ruling says "no" to that. It says no, what the document says it what it says. I know there will be future rulings that will infuriate the hell out of me, I have no doubt of that. And I know governments at every level will do whatever they can to legislate around this ruling. That's the way politics work. But still, the Supreme Court firmly, beyond any doubt, no exceptions (thank God for reasonable restrictions), the Constitution of the United States of America, in this case, means exactly what it says!
Happy Fourth of July America!
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.
Something most interesting happened yesterday. I'm quite sure what it portends will take some time to sink in, perhaps generations. But it struck me as monumental nonetheless. The Supreme Court of the United States of America officially declared that "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Predictably, the horribly biased mainstream media has its collective panties in a twist over it. I was so elated, I actually watched Katie Couric to see CBS' take on it. Their mature, reasoned, moderate opinion on the subject was a montage of people shooting pistols. That's right liberals, the Supreme Court has just ordered every one in the country to arm themselves to the teeth and begin vigilante justice on their neighbor's loitering.
The HuffPo is just as morally outraged. I managed to get all the way through one paragraph of a piece where the author declared Dick Cheney wants to turn DC into the Triangle of Death in Iraq. Moderate, contemplative, tolerant, thoughtful analysis need not apply.
The ruling itself isn't all that grand. It basically says that governments can not outright ban firearms. Justice Scalia went to great lengths in instructing lower federal courts that this does not mean there can be no reasonable regulation of guns - thank God. I believe the thought of Charlie Manson getting paroled and stopping by Walt's World of Guns on his way home is enough to rankle even the most fervent gun rights supporter.
What it does do is tell local and state governments that they cannot simply ignore the constitution. And for that I'm ready to set off fireworks. Of course, as a resident of New York, that would be illegal. Interesting enough, Founding Father John Adams preached that the Fourth of July should be celebrated with cannons, firearms, bonfires, and all manners of loud, boisterous hoopla. But what the heck does he know? He was only there.
I see two important issues in this ruling. One good, one not so much. Let's start with the bad news.
Re-read my second paragraph above. The Supreme Court had to actually rule that the meaning of one sentence, 27 words in all, simply means nothing more than what it actually says. Is it just me, or does it seem absolutely ludicrous that this question rises to the level of anything more than a kindergarten recess argument? "Does too! Does not!" How on earth did our society sink to the level where the Supreme Court of the land has to specifically rule on the meaning of a clear, concise sentence? That is nothing but sad in my opinion.
On to the good news! The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled that yes, a clear concise sentence means exactly what it says. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition! I may not have a flintlock or a blunderbuss, but I do have a pitchfork somewhere in the basement!
Here is what I find so optimistic in this ruling. I've read the analysis of Roe v Wade in the past, and I'm not going to surf the web for specifics now, its late Friday afternoon, but as I understand it, the Supreme Court basically took 2 or 3 or 4 Amendments from the Bill of Rights and created a kind of realm, where 'rights' can be created out of thin air, based upon nothing more than a majority of Justices. Even though the Constitution specifically states that is not to happen (it's all through the document, just read it and see).
[Editor's note: Here's where I have a slight disagreement with the author. The Constitution outlines specific powers that the federal government has; everything else is reserved for the States (to regulate) and/or the People (to enjoy in freedom). So in my mind it's not so much that there isn't a Constitutionally-protected right to privacy, as that the federal government has no legitimate authority to ban abortion (or prevent States from banning it), since that is an act not under their specified umbrella of powers. Likewise, there isn't a Constitutionally-protected right to alcohol, it's just that they do not have the power to ban it (without an amendment). Same for marijuana (although somehow they forgot the need for an amendment...sorry, different topic).]
[Author's response: While I agree with the editor's thoughts on aspects of federalism involved with this issue, I must admit, I don't have a solid or satisfying response to this proposition. From what I've learned about the Revolutionary times and the Founding Fathers, the lines between the states and the federal government were left blurry on purpose. As I understand the concept, the idea was to keep the boundaries fluid and murky, allowing for future generations to of American politicians at the various levels to basically argue it out during the issues of their times. They understood power would change hands back and forth, some generations having stronger state rights, and others having stronger federal rights. The idea being that times change, issues change, generations change, and so the relationship between state and federal authority would be flexible to change with them, and most importantly, change back as the issues and the people change. What I see in this ruling is, that ebb and flow of power heading back towards the states and the people, and away from the federal government. Some states will agree that strict gun regulation is appropriate, while others will agree otherwise. In other words, just the way it's supposed to. ]
This Supreme Court ruling says "no" to that. It says no, what the document says it what it says. I know there will be future rulings that will infuriate the hell out of me, I have no doubt of that. And I know governments at every level will do whatever they can to legislate around this ruling. That's the way politics work. But still, the Supreme Court firmly, beyond any doubt, no exceptions (thank God for reasonable restrictions), the Constitution of the United States of America, in this case, means exactly what it says!
Happy Fourth of July America!
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Change you really can count on: The race to the center is on!
There's an interesting phenomena in modern American presidential campaigns which I first heard about with respect to the Nixon campaigns. And that is during party primaries, candidates, on both the right and left, make a mad dash to the lunatic fringes of their respective
parties in order to capture as much as possible of those of the devoted base (those most likely to believe volunteering for campaign grunt work will actually save the world). Once a candidate secures their party's nomination, the second phase is a mad dash as far and as fast as possible away from those very same voters, to the center, in order to try and convince the vast majority of American voters that they really aren't as crazy as they've been insisting they were since before the Iowa caucuses.
This sordid tango of disentanglement produces some of the most hilarious situations of both comic and tragic theater, that we Americans refer to as Politics.
Who can forget the sight of John McCain, back in the 2000 election, on stage with presumptive Republican nominee George W. Bush, repeating over and over "I support George Bush, I support George Bush, I support Bush...." in a vain attempt to shame the press who kept demanding a public recitation of concession speech. I could almost envision him leaping off the stage and throttling one of the reporters "I said it okay, are you happy you rat bastard!"
Or John Kerry proudly proclaiming himself as the 'anti war candidate' when losing the primaries to Howard Dean, and then 'storming the beaches' at Boston Harbor when officially arriving at the 2004 Democratic Convention, in an absolute farce salute to his service in the Navy during Vietnam. How about the salute and "Reporting for duty" line? I still wonder how much his campaign paid the team that came up with that one.
In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama and the left are already making their move. I've noticed two items in the last few days that tells my superior sense of political analysis, the race to the center has begun on the left.
This little nugget from the L.A. Times.
"Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.
Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence vs. knowingly propagating falsehoods."
When the United States Congress granted the President the authority to use force against Iraq back in 2002, I'm convinced they did it entirely based upon Bush's astronomical poll ratings following 9/11. Senators and Congressmen were falling over each other to get on the
record as being on the President's side. When polls on support for the war sank in the run up to the 2004 Presidential elections, Democrats sought to distance themselves from the war. But this brought a special dilemma all its own. How to dance away from their own words? And some of their speeches in favor of military action were quite enthralling. How do they now attempt to insist that never happened? My guess is they went back to the PR team that thought up Kerry's 'storming the beach' in Boston Harbor. Because the best they came up with was 'We was lied to.'
That might have been a plausible political strategy but, unfortunately, it was based on the premise that democratic voters would forget - or forgive - the fact their 2000 Presidential campaign was based on the concept that George Bush was an idiot. Think about that for a moment. They decided the best strategy was the person they declared the most stupid, idiotic person this side of the Americans with
Disabilities Act tricked them. Now that's ballsy.
I told you this was entertaining.
What was even more entertaining, and frustrating, was with the help of the hopelessly biased media, they essential pulled it off. George Bush was re-framed as a puppet, manipulated by the evil neocons who actually controlled the administration, and if we didn't all vote Democrat, we would all be doomed to a fascist hell. I still can't believe it worked. Ballsy and entertaining, if not entirely
satisfying. After all, I still have to live with whatever ridiculous laws these people come up if/when they do regain power.
This line of thinking worked fine when the democrats were more interested in control of Congress than they were in control of the White House. Now their interest is in the White House. And while this train of thinking worked fine with the far left Democratic fringe during the primary campaigns, it will not fly with the center, which is where general elections are won and lost. Hence, the grand race to the center.
For the last five years or so, the Democrats main campaign theme is not only was the war in Iraq the worst foreign policy endeavor since America conquered all of Asia, Europe and large parts of Africa on a dare at a cocaine-fueled frat party, but it was a lost cause, losing good money after bad. Once again, a small problem when you move this argument from the far left to the center.
The Surge worked.
So, the question as I see it for Barack Obama and the Democratic power brokers is, how do they move their campaign rhetoric from the last 5 years of 'Iraq is a complete failure' to the American center that obviously can see that's not true?
I see this as step one. Slowly dismantling the program of the last five years, 'Bush Lied People Died.' I don't see any other way for Obama to move to the center on Iraq, unless this great and glorious platform of the democratic party from 2003 till, say, about 2 weeks ago, becomes history. And this is how it starts.
Earlier I mentioned two things that caught my attention. This is the second.
"The foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear. . .
. Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will
not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's
response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all
that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising
a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic
administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden
decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your
stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made
through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military
commanders in the field." Certainly, it makes sense to consult with
those who, like Mr. Zebari, have put their lives on the line for an Iraq
that would be a democratic U.S. ally. Mr. Obama ought to listen
carefully to what they are saying."
The race to the center is on.....
parties in order to capture as much as possible of those of the devoted base (those most likely to believe volunteering for campaign grunt work will actually save the world). Once a candidate secures their party's nomination, the second phase is a mad dash as far and as fast as possible away from those very same voters, to the center, in order to try and convince the vast majority of American voters that they really aren't as crazy as they've been insisting they were since before the Iowa caucuses.
This sordid tango of disentanglement produces some of the most hilarious situations of both comic and tragic theater, that we Americans refer to as Politics.
Who can forget the sight of John McCain, back in the 2000 election, on stage with presumptive Republican nominee George W. Bush, repeating over and over "I support George Bush, I support George Bush, I support Bush...." in a vain attempt to shame the press who kept demanding a public recitation of concession speech. I could almost envision him leaping off the stage and throttling one of the reporters "I said it okay, are you happy you rat bastard!"
Or John Kerry proudly proclaiming himself as the 'anti war candidate' when losing the primaries to Howard Dean, and then 'storming the beaches' at Boston Harbor when officially arriving at the 2004 Democratic Convention, in an absolute farce salute to his service in the Navy during Vietnam. How about the salute and "Reporting for duty" line? I still wonder how much his campaign paid the team that came up with that one.
In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama and the left are already making their move. I've noticed two items in the last few days that tells my superior sense of political analysis, the race to the center has begun on the left.
This little nugget from the L.A. Times.
"Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.
Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence vs. knowingly propagating falsehoods."
When the United States Congress granted the President the authority to use force against Iraq back in 2002, I'm convinced they did it entirely based upon Bush's astronomical poll ratings following 9/11. Senators and Congressmen were falling over each other to get on the
record as being on the President's side. When polls on support for the war sank in the run up to the 2004 Presidential elections, Democrats sought to distance themselves from the war. But this brought a special dilemma all its own. How to dance away from their own words? And some of their speeches in favor of military action were quite enthralling. How do they now attempt to insist that never happened? My guess is they went back to the PR team that thought up Kerry's 'storming the beach' in Boston Harbor. Because the best they came up with was 'We was lied to.'
That might have been a plausible political strategy but, unfortunately, it was based on the premise that democratic voters would forget - or forgive - the fact their 2000 Presidential campaign was based on the concept that George Bush was an idiot. Think about that for a moment. They decided the best strategy was the person they declared the most stupid, idiotic person this side of the Americans with
Disabilities Act tricked them. Now that's ballsy.
I told you this was entertaining.
What was even more entertaining, and frustrating, was with the help of the hopelessly biased media, they essential pulled it off. George Bush was re-framed as a puppet, manipulated by the evil neocons who actually controlled the administration, and if we didn't all vote Democrat, we would all be doomed to a fascist hell. I still can't believe it worked. Ballsy and entertaining, if not entirely
satisfying. After all, I still have to live with whatever ridiculous laws these people come up if/when they do regain power.
This line of thinking worked fine when the democrats were more interested in control of Congress than they were in control of the White House. Now their interest is in the White House. And while this train of thinking worked fine with the far left Democratic fringe during the primary campaigns, it will not fly with the center, which is where general elections are won and lost. Hence, the grand race to the center.
For the last five years or so, the Democrats main campaign theme is not only was the war in Iraq the worst foreign policy endeavor since America conquered all of Asia, Europe and large parts of Africa on a dare at a cocaine-fueled frat party, but it was a lost cause, losing good money after bad. Once again, a small problem when you move this argument from the far left to the center.
The Surge worked.
So, the question as I see it for Barack Obama and the Democratic power brokers is, how do they move their campaign rhetoric from the last 5 years of 'Iraq is a complete failure' to the American center that obviously can see that's not true?
I see this as step one. Slowly dismantling the program of the last five years, 'Bush Lied People Died.' I don't see any other way for Obama to move to the center on Iraq, unless this great and glorious platform of the democratic party from 2003 till, say, about 2 weeks ago, becomes history. And this is how it starts.
Earlier I mentioned two things that caught my attention. This is the second.
"The foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear. . .
. Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will
not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's
response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all
that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising
a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic
administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden
decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your
stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made
through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military
commanders in the field." Certainly, it makes sense to consult with
those who, like Mr. Zebari, have put their lives on the line for an Iraq
that would be a democratic U.S. ally. Mr. Obama ought to listen
carefully to what they are saying."
The race to the center is on.....
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
The Audacity of Socialism
And so Barack Obama has declared himself the democratic nominee for the president of the US. Personally, I wouldn't count out Hillary Clinton until they're throwing the dirt on her grave, but this is the story the media is going to run with until the convention. So let's start with this one.
Barack Obama, the audacity of hope for transparent change. A new kind of politician, kind of like the "anti-politician." Or so the story goes. He will bring the country together with his soaring rhetoric and glorious smile. We will unite, and the world's problems will all suddenly become solvable, because of him. Is any one there buying this load? I'm certainly not.
For starters, there is no way any politician can unite Americans together. By definition the most he can do is unite one political party against the other. There's no way his warmed over socialist/Marxist, cavalier attitude toward economics and constitutional rights are going to unite anyone on the right.
Which is why I predict it won't be very long until we see all this talk of unity, new kind of politics, etc. will simply fade away, much like the "Dennis Kucinich for President" bumper stickers have. The only question for me is when, where, why and how. Will the new kind of campaign head straight for the swamp? Or will they dance around the edge for a while first? Or will the McCain or the GOP or some right-wing whacko land a solid punch right to the jaw of audacious change so resoundingly that Obama attacks full-bore out of reflex?
Perhaps his wife will finally blow her cork and that starts the mud. (Personally I'm rooting for this one. I can't stand rich people making several figures, ensconced in the lap of luxury lecturing me on how tough they have it.) Or perhaps, when the starstruck and biased media realizes that if they don't start asking real questions of him they will lose their last shred of dignity (along with their cushy jobs), they will begin to zero in on his numerous gaffes, stumbles and outright lies. Of course he and his campaign will accuse the media of being in McCain's pocket, racist or just plain not up to the level of the "new" political landscape.
Either way, the gloves will come off, we will see what kind of politician Obama really is. And then we'll find out if Hillary Clinton was right, and the Democrats should have chosen her. I think she was. But I don't think she would do much better against Senator McCain in November.
Barack Obama, the audacity of hope for transparent change. A new kind of politician, kind of like the "anti-politician." Or so the story goes. He will bring the country together with his soaring rhetoric and glorious smile. We will unite, and the world's problems will all suddenly become solvable, because of him. Is any one there buying this load? I'm certainly not.
For starters, there is no way any politician can unite Americans together. By definition the most he can do is unite one political party against the other. There's no way his warmed over socialist/Marxist, cavalier attitude toward economics and constitutional rights are going to unite anyone on the right.
Which is why I predict it won't be very long until we see all this talk of unity, new kind of politics, etc. will simply fade away, much like the "Dennis Kucinich for President" bumper stickers have. The only question for me is when, where, why and how. Will the new kind of campaign head straight for the swamp? Or will they dance around the edge for a while first? Or will the McCain or the GOP or some right-wing whacko land a solid punch right to the jaw of audacious change so resoundingly that Obama attacks full-bore out of reflex?
Perhaps his wife will finally blow her cork and that starts the mud. (Personally I'm rooting for this one. I can't stand rich people making several figures, ensconced in the lap of luxury lecturing me on how tough they have it.) Or perhaps, when the starstruck and biased media realizes that if they don't start asking real questions of him they will lose their last shred of dignity (along with their cushy jobs), they will begin to zero in on his numerous gaffes, stumbles and outright lies. Of course he and his campaign will accuse the media of being in McCain's pocket, racist or just plain not up to the level of the "new" political landscape.
Either way, the gloves will come off, we will see what kind of politician Obama really is. And then we'll find out if Hillary Clinton was right, and the Democrats should have chosen her. I think she was. But I don't think she would do much better against Senator McCain in November.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Broken as designed
If I hear one more politician promise us citizens that they will unite the country to solve America's problems, I'm going to have to go out and buy a kitten just so I can kick it. Unite America? That's the most absurd thought I've ever heard. A united America is practically a
myth. I say practically a myth because a good argument can be made that the Japanese invitation to join WWII by bombing Pearl Harbor did in fact unite America. My response to that statement would be, great, so the vast majority of Americans united and thought it was a good idea to round up Japanese-Americans and stuff them into concentration camps. That's just the kind of uniting we need these days.
No. Americans are not united. Never really have been, probably never will, and it's probably a good thing. A united people can rally around a dumb idea as easily as they can around a good idea. If it ever happens, experience tells me we're much more likely to get stuck with
the former rather than the latter.
Even looking back to America's founding, the colonials weren't anymore united than we are today. As a matter of fact, more citizens were for remaining part of England than were for the revolution. America's first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was a failure from get-go for the very reason the people weren't united. That's because weak central government naturally devolves into regionalism. That was James Madison's argument for the Constitutional
Convention that gave us our current constitution. He started his speech at the convention with a dreadfully long report of the fate of every nation in the history of the world that had a weak confederacy. Guess what that was? Here's a hint, you don't see the Greek City States on the map these days, now do you?
I've read several accounts of the Constitutional Convention and one thing for sure, they couldn't unite together around anything other than the Articles had to go. But what to replace it with? Throughout the Convention another thing became obvious to the founding fathers - they
couldn't agree on anything, no matter what. They discovered the debates never ended. They just went on and on and on. Madison finally got the right idea when he figured out, a democratic-republican form of government provides for a government that can't settle issues. Why not? Ask any individual how they would solve national issues, and most have their firmly held opinions ready to whip out like a preprogrammed cell phone. But what happens when you ask two people? They may agree on some things, but not on others. That's politics.
Suppose, just suppose, the moon is in the seventh house, and Mars and Jupiter are aligned. And every issue on the table is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. What about the next issue that comes up? See? It never ends. That's what Madison figured out. So the issue was resolved in an entirely different idea. Instead of a government that solves everyone's problems, they created a framework where the important issues of the day, whatever they may be, have a place to be
aired in public. That's what Congress is. Its the institution where the public's issues are endlessly debated. Proposed laws are presented, bashed around, written, rewritten, rewritten again, amended, voted up or down. And after all that work is done, to no one's satisfaction, the
process starts all over again in the Senate. And by the time the tortured document gets over to the White House, its own mother wouldn't recognize it. And that's a good thing too. Whenever all of Congress and the White House agree on something, it usually means it benefits the
ruling class at the expense of We The People. See the fine print in the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform. They get to hide more money in 501(c)'s, they get to campaign for as long as they want, but if we pay $5 for an ad for a candidate in the local Penny Saver, we've committed a federal offense.
It only makes sense in America that we wouldn't unite. What seems like a good idea in Florida, might be thought of as not too smart in Texas, downright dangerous in Ohio, while New Yorkers might want to pass a law against it. (New York likes to pass laws against all kinds of things. Better living through legislation.)
So when you come right down to it, when politicians are screaming at each other, making all kinds of scurrilous charges, and generally attacking each other like badgers high on crystal meth locked in a garbage can together, that doesn't mean the government is broken and
needs to be fixed. Perish the thought. That means everything is working just the way the founding fathers intended. So excuse me if some sappy politician comes along and says they're the ones to put an end to disunity and fix the government. I know, not only are they wrong, in my opinion they're dangerous.
myth. I say practically a myth because a good argument can be made that the Japanese invitation to join WWII by bombing Pearl Harbor did in fact unite America. My response to that statement would be, great, so the vast majority of Americans united and thought it was a good idea to round up Japanese-Americans and stuff them into concentration camps. That's just the kind of uniting we need these days.
No. Americans are not united. Never really have been, probably never will, and it's probably a good thing. A united people can rally around a dumb idea as easily as they can around a good idea. If it ever happens, experience tells me we're much more likely to get stuck with
the former rather than the latter.
Even looking back to America's founding, the colonials weren't anymore united than we are today. As a matter of fact, more citizens were for remaining part of England than were for the revolution. America's first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was a failure from get-go for the very reason the people weren't united. That's because weak central government naturally devolves into regionalism. That was James Madison's argument for the Constitutional
Convention that gave us our current constitution. He started his speech at the convention with a dreadfully long report of the fate of every nation in the history of the world that had a weak confederacy. Guess what that was? Here's a hint, you don't see the Greek City States on the map these days, now do you?
I've read several accounts of the Constitutional Convention and one thing for sure, they couldn't unite together around anything other than the Articles had to go. But what to replace it with? Throughout the Convention another thing became obvious to the founding fathers - they
couldn't agree on anything, no matter what. They discovered the debates never ended. They just went on and on and on. Madison finally got the right idea when he figured out, a democratic-republican form of government provides for a government that can't settle issues. Why not? Ask any individual how they would solve national issues, and most have their firmly held opinions ready to whip out like a preprogrammed cell phone. But what happens when you ask two people? They may agree on some things, but not on others. That's politics.
Suppose, just suppose, the moon is in the seventh house, and Mars and Jupiter are aligned. And every issue on the table is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. What about the next issue that comes up? See? It never ends. That's what Madison figured out. So the issue was resolved in an entirely different idea. Instead of a government that solves everyone's problems, they created a framework where the important issues of the day, whatever they may be, have a place to be
aired in public. That's what Congress is. Its the institution where the public's issues are endlessly debated. Proposed laws are presented, bashed around, written, rewritten, rewritten again, amended, voted up or down. And after all that work is done, to no one's satisfaction, the
process starts all over again in the Senate. And by the time the tortured document gets over to the White House, its own mother wouldn't recognize it. And that's a good thing too. Whenever all of Congress and the White House agree on something, it usually means it benefits the
ruling class at the expense of We The People. See the fine print in the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform. They get to hide more money in 501(c)'s, they get to campaign for as long as they want, but if we pay $5 for an ad for a candidate in the local Penny Saver, we've committed a federal offense.
It only makes sense in America that we wouldn't unite. What seems like a good idea in Florida, might be thought of as not too smart in Texas, downright dangerous in Ohio, while New Yorkers might want to pass a law against it. (New York likes to pass laws against all kinds of things. Better living through legislation.)
So when you come right down to it, when politicians are screaming at each other, making all kinds of scurrilous charges, and generally attacking each other like badgers high on crystal meth locked in a garbage can together, that doesn't mean the government is broken and
needs to be fixed. Perish the thought. That means everything is working just the way the founding fathers intended. So excuse me if some sappy politician comes along and says they're the ones to put an end to disunity and fix the government. I know, not only are they wrong, in my opinion they're dangerous.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Letter to the Editor (with a note from the Editor)
[Editor's note: The author of this blog decided last year to just give up on this site. Like those effeminate liberals who want to run away from the glorious future victory that is Iraq, the blog author turned his back on a difficult - but rewarding - mission. In any case, yesterday out of the blue he sends this on and says it would make a good blog post. With little expectation that he's going to make this a regular thing - and certainly no expectation that anyone has stuck around to read this comatose blog - I dutifully present this to you, dear reader.]
Click here for news story.
How nice of Binghamton's "progressive" politicians to provide us with a wonderful example of how to destroy housing units!
First the progressives got elected. Then they decided to quadruple the number of the mayor's personal assistants. When the City Council wouldn't pay them as much as the mayor wanted, he just waited a year than snuck in 40% pay raises for them. (It ain't cheap being progressive!)
And now we get a front row seat to watch them gut the Binghamton housing stock.
The old economics axiom, when honest people can no longer make an honest living doing honest work, they get out of that business and find another honest way to make a living. How ever, dishonest people have no problem continuing it.
This is step one. The politicians find someone who they think they can squeeze a few more bucks out of. Then they declare that its not really a tax increase, because these people have been cheating every one else all along, so the politicians are just "making things right."
"Teri Rennia, D-4th District, said the change would provide tax relief for homeowners and would ensure everyone was 'paying their fair share.'"
Step 2 is to see how much money politicians think they can squeeze out of these officially classified "dead beats."
"Some landlords are facing an 80 percent increase in property taxes"
Now, does anyone know what happens when an honest business person is going to do when their tax bill goes up 80% in one year? Those that can afford to pay it, might, for a while, or they may decided to chuck the business altogether. Those that can't afford it will have to sell. And what type of person is likely to buy these rental units that come with this huge tax bill? Enter the slum lords. And if the tax bill is so high that even slum lords won't pay it, the houses will stand vacant, crumble and decay, and then be abandoned altogether and turned over to the city/county, and be taken off the tax rolls, so every other tax payer in Binghamton will have to pony up to cover the difference.
On the upside we get to watch a crystal clear example of the simple, repeatable, 100% guaranteed laws of economics in action. On the down side we also watch Binghamton taxpayers, landlords and renters get royally fucked. On the up side, I don't live in Binghamton. On the down side, every one in Broom County is going to feel the pain to some extent. On the upside, unless this gets derailed somehow, what the progressives are doing to Binghamton will ensure they are run out off office for years to come.
I wonder what the progressives will fix next?
Click here for news story.
How nice of Binghamton's "progressive" politicians to provide us with a wonderful example of how to destroy housing units!
First the progressives got elected. Then they decided to quadruple the number of the mayor's personal assistants. When the City Council wouldn't pay them as much as the mayor wanted, he just waited a year than snuck in 40% pay raises for them. (It ain't cheap being progressive!)
And now we get a front row seat to watch them gut the Binghamton housing stock.
The old economics axiom, when honest people can no longer make an honest living doing honest work, they get out of that business and find another honest way to make a living. How ever, dishonest people have no problem continuing it.
This is step one. The politicians find someone who they think they can squeeze a few more bucks out of. Then they declare that its not really a tax increase, because these people have been cheating every one else all along, so the politicians are just "making things right."
"Teri Rennia, D-4th District, said the change would provide tax relief for homeowners and would ensure everyone was 'paying their fair share.'"
Step 2 is to see how much money politicians think they can squeeze out of these officially classified "dead beats."
"Some landlords are facing an 80 percent increase in property taxes"
Now, does anyone know what happens when an honest business person is going to do when their tax bill goes up 80% in one year? Those that can afford to pay it, might, for a while, or they may decided to chuck the business altogether. Those that can't afford it will have to sell. And what type of person is likely to buy these rental units that come with this huge tax bill? Enter the slum lords. And if the tax bill is so high that even slum lords won't pay it, the houses will stand vacant, crumble and decay, and then be abandoned altogether and turned over to the city/county, and be taken off the tax rolls, so every other tax payer in Binghamton will have to pony up to cover the difference.
On the upside we get to watch a crystal clear example of the simple, repeatable, 100% guaranteed laws of economics in action. On the down side we also watch Binghamton taxpayers, landlords and renters get royally fucked. On the up side, I don't live in Binghamton. On the down side, every one in Broom County is going to feel the pain to some extent. On the upside, unless this gets derailed somehow, what the progressives are doing to Binghamton will ensure they are run out off office for years to come.
I wonder what the progressives will fix next?
Sunday, March 18, 2007
A new take on global warming - really!
When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars
This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius
Age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!
Will Rogers is credited with saying something along the line that he doesn't belong to any organized political party, he's a democrat.
Rush Limbaugh opined for years that the Democratic party does not represent a cohesive organization held together by a shared, common, ideology, but rather a loose collection of movements who are willing to hold their noses and band together long enough to obtain political power at the voting booth. Having grown up in a solidly liberal, democratic family, I can attest they are both correct.
If you think about it, just how can groups that support abortion rights so easily coexist in a party that also abhors capital punishment? It's illogical. Yet they do. Big Labor wants to open the Alaskan oil fields to increased drilling for the union jobs it will create, yet this is considered a mortal sin by the environmental wing of the same party. There are an almost limitless number of other examples. I suppose it's a good thing that all these various groups must compete with each other within the party, which keeps democrats - despite their numerical superiority - from gaining too much power in government at all levels. In other words, they'll band together long enough to defeat their opponents, but when left to their own desires, they will start to squabble and fight amongst themselves. Watch the House debate on the next step for ending the war in Iraq. One third think the proposals on the table go too far, another third thinks it doesn't go far enough, while the other third thinks it's just about right.
Which brings me to my topic - Global Warming!
What on earth does all my babbling about the Democratic party have to do with global warming? I myself wasn't sure how to approach this topic, because there's so many people, with so many view points, from all aspects of society who believe human effects on the planet have caused the Earth to begin warming at an accelerated rate, putting us on a collision course with annihilation. Where to start? With the Democrats? With the scientists? With the UN? With the media? There's just way too many voices out there, stating far too many positions for any person to address each and all in an attempt to refute them all. Trying to debate with global warming fanatics is like trying to debate with a brick wall. Nothing gets past their firmly held beliefs. And that's what I found so strange. What an anomaly, all these various and varied organizations, speaking on many different topics, yet all with a sort of cosmic cohesion. Something is just not right. And that's when it hit me. All the different warring factions of the democratic coalition, have, for lack of a better phrase, entered the Age of Aquarius.
Something that I didn't believe could ever happen, seems to be happening right before my very eyes. The democrats and liberals have found the one common hook to hang all their agendas on: global warming. Modern liberalism's cornerstone has been victimhood for as long as I can remember. They divide the population up into groups, they choose one side and proudly proclaim them as the "victims" of something or other, then pledge to use the power of government to right whatever wrong they've decided to use as a wedge.
Take reparations for slavery for example. Many African-Americans alive today are the descendants of slaves, which means they have been harmed by the majority of Americans (always root for the underdog!), and therefore it's the liberal's duty to "fight" for reparations. I'm not debating the topic of reparations here, only using it as an example. Here's where democrats usually fall apart: while most African-Americans are democratic liberals, not all democratic liberals are African-American, so democrats can't get enough of a coalition to push for anything practical or substantial. Liberals may believe African-Americans have suffered because of the legacy of slavery and therefore are entitled to something, but it smacks enough of a government income redistribution that widespread support for reparations has never materialized.
When it comes to global warming, the liberal democrats have created the ultimate class of victims: everyone! If the world is coming to an end, then we all have a dog in this fight. But if we're all the victims here, then what is the evil, vile group that turned us all into victims? And that is my point exactly!
The evil ideology that's inflicting all this harm on us, is whatever any individual democratic and/or liberal movement is against.
Big Labor? Evil corporate interests are behind it. Trial Lawyers? It's evil corporations and government that needs to be brought to justice using the courts. Environmentalists? Its everything and every one who doesn't heed their philosophy. Big Academics? They're still working on figuring out who's behind it, so keep the government grants rolling in so they can keep working on it. Anti-capitalist, anti-free traders, anti-US, anti-whatever, it doesn't really matter, just point out they all contribute to global warming, and that is all the moral justification necessary to demand whatever action deemed appropriate to combat this atrocity.
Too many cars on the road are causing it, push for more public transportation and force Big Auto to keep redesigning products into forms that don't sell. Too many coal burning power generation plants belching sulfur into the air, push to shut them down, and prevent new ones from being built. Too many incandescent light bulbs? Force the government to outlaw them and force every one to use compact florescent light bulbs. Whatever any individual group believe ails society, blame it on global warming, and push for government regulation and laws to correct the outrage while simultaneously furthering their own political agenda.
School districts need more money to update their bus fleets, heating and lighting systems, and to incorporate global warming studies into their curriculum. Local and state governments need more tax money to upgrade their facilities and fleets in order to save the world from global warming. And on and on and on. I could list thousands of other examples, but I'll leave it to readers to simply turn on the evening news or pick up the daily paper to see all the examples they wish. Its everywhere. And each one has exactly three (maybe more, but at least three) things in common. First: there is a need to receive more money to accomplish something. Second: there is a need to more stringently regulate (voluntarily or legislatively) people's lives. And third: global warming. Always follow the money.
Former Vice President Al Gore is currently being hailed as the Prince of Environmentalism. He's the Grand Duke of Clean Living. He's a Hollywood top-shelf ticket. Not really. See, I don't believe Al Gore or anyone else has the brains and the organization and the contacts to pull off something this huge. Remember, we're talking about Democrats here. No, Al Gore is smart, but he's not nearly that smart, I don't believe anyone is. But Al Gore is smart enough to notice this trend, and to capitalize on it. He's not leading or guiding the global warming movement. What he is leading is the method for politicians of all stripes to take advantage of it. And its not just politicians that recognize this trend, the evil corporations of the world are jumping in with both feet. Just sign on to Al Gore's ready-made environmental platform, and by greasing his palm enough, he will personally bless your transition from the group of inflicter's to the group of victims who care. Any corporate marketing team that doesn't see the beauty of this plan should be sued for malpractice.
A perfect example of this is Hollywood itself. All the fabulous wealthy and beautiful people love their millionaire lifestyles. But, that puts them in the inflicter group, so how do they get back to the afflicted group while saving face? Enter the "Carbon Credit." Simply donate a few cents to plant some trees, and then jet off to Monte Carlo, guilt free, because they care and they made a difference. Nothing really changed, and I fail to see how planting a few trees could counter the effects of a one-way, cross Atlantic jet flight. But that's not the point. The point is, they are now certifiably in the group of victims that care.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long term. An axiom of the free market is that government should regulate as little as possible, because by the time government acts, the dynamics of the situation have probably morphed several times over, which is one main reason government interference is usually so ineffective. It doesn't matter if their plan solves the problem, because the problem has already changed. So, seeing government starting to stand up on its rear haunches indicates to me the situation has already changed beyond the scope that government is attempting to solve.
What comes next is anyone's guess. One thing is for sure. If the moon enters the seventh house, that means it must also posses the power to exit it.
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars
This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius
Age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!
Will Rogers is credited with saying something along the line that he doesn't belong to any organized political party, he's a democrat.
Rush Limbaugh opined for years that the Democratic party does not represent a cohesive organization held together by a shared, common, ideology, but rather a loose collection of movements who are willing to hold their noses and band together long enough to obtain political power at the voting booth. Having grown up in a solidly liberal, democratic family, I can attest they are both correct.
If you think about it, just how can groups that support abortion rights so easily coexist in a party that also abhors capital punishment? It's illogical. Yet they do. Big Labor wants to open the Alaskan oil fields to increased drilling for the union jobs it will create, yet this is considered a mortal sin by the environmental wing of the same party. There are an almost limitless number of other examples. I suppose it's a good thing that all these various groups must compete with each other within the party, which keeps democrats - despite their numerical superiority - from gaining too much power in government at all levels. In other words, they'll band together long enough to defeat their opponents, but when left to their own desires, they will start to squabble and fight amongst themselves. Watch the House debate on the next step for ending the war in Iraq. One third think the proposals on the table go too far, another third thinks it doesn't go far enough, while the other third thinks it's just about right.
Which brings me to my topic - Global Warming!
What on earth does all my babbling about the Democratic party have to do with global warming? I myself wasn't sure how to approach this topic, because there's so many people, with so many view points, from all aspects of society who believe human effects on the planet have caused the Earth to begin warming at an accelerated rate, putting us on a collision course with annihilation. Where to start? With the Democrats? With the scientists? With the UN? With the media? There's just way too many voices out there, stating far too many positions for any person to address each and all in an attempt to refute them all. Trying to debate with global warming fanatics is like trying to debate with a brick wall. Nothing gets past their firmly held beliefs. And that's what I found so strange. What an anomaly, all these various and varied organizations, speaking on many different topics, yet all with a sort of cosmic cohesion. Something is just not right. And that's when it hit me. All the different warring factions of the democratic coalition, have, for lack of a better phrase, entered the Age of Aquarius.
Something that I didn't believe could ever happen, seems to be happening right before my very eyes. The democrats and liberals have found the one common hook to hang all their agendas on: global warming. Modern liberalism's cornerstone has been victimhood for as long as I can remember. They divide the population up into groups, they choose one side and proudly proclaim them as the "victims" of something or other, then pledge to use the power of government to right whatever wrong they've decided to use as a wedge.
Take reparations for slavery for example. Many African-Americans alive today are the descendants of slaves, which means they have been harmed by the majority of Americans (always root for the underdog!), and therefore it's the liberal's duty to "fight" for reparations. I'm not debating the topic of reparations here, only using it as an example. Here's where democrats usually fall apart: while most African-Americans are democratic liberals, not all democratic liberals are African-American, so democrats can't get enough of a coalition to push for anything practical or substantial. Liberals may believe African-Americans have suffered because of the legacy of slavery and therefore are entitled to something, but it smacks enough of a government income redistribution that widespread support for reparations has never materialized.
When it comes to global warming, the liberal democrats have created the ultimate class of victims: everyone! If the world is coming to an end, then we all have a dog in this fight. But if we're all the victims here, then what is the evil, vile group that turned us all into victims? And that is my point exactly!
The evil ideology that's inflicting all this harm on us, is whatever any individual democratic and/or liberal movement is against.
Big Labor? Evil corporate interests are behind it. Trial Lawyers? It's evil corporations and government that needs to be brought to justice using the courts. Environmentalists? Its everything and every one who doesn't heed their philosophy. Big Academics? They're still working on figuring out who's behind it, so keep the government grants rolling in so they can keep working on it. Anti-capitalist, anti-free traders, anti-US, anti-whatever, it doesn't really matter, just point out they all contribute to global warming, and that is all the moral justification necessary to demand whatever action deemed appropriate to combat this atrocity.
Too many cars on the road are causing it, push for more public transportation and force Big Auto to keep redesigning products into forms that don't sell. Too many coal burning power generation plants belching sulfur into the air, push to shut them down, and prevent new ones from being built. Too many incandescent light bulbs? Force the government to outlaw them and force every one to use compact florescent light bulbs. Whatever any individual group believe ails society, blame it on global warming, and push for government regulation and laws to correct the outrage while simultaneously furthering their own political agenda.
School districts need more money to update their bus fleets, heating and lighting systems, and to incorporate global warming studies into their curriculum. Local and state governments need more tax money to upgrade their facilities and fleets in order to save the world from global warming. And on and on and on. I could list thousands of other examples, but I'll leave it to readers to simply turn on the evening news or pick up the daily paper to see all the examples they wish. Its everywhere. And each one has exactly three (maybe more, but at least three) things in common. First: there is a need to receive more money to accomplish something. Second: there is a need to more stringently regulate (voluntarily or legislatively) people's lives. And third: global warming. Always follow the money.
Former Vice President Al Gore is currently being hailed as the Prince of Environmentalism. He's the Grand Duke of Clean Living. He's a Hollywood top-shelf ticket. Not really. See, I don't believe Al Gore or anyone else has the brains and the organization and the contacts to pull off something this huge. Remember, we're talking about Democrats here. No, Al Gore is smart, but he's not nearly that smart, I don't believe anyone is. But Al Gore is smart enough to notice this trend, and to capitalize on it. He's not leading or guiding the global warming movement. What he is leading is the method for politicians of all stripes to take advantage of it. And its not just politicians that recognize this trend, the evil corporations of the world are jumping in with both feet. Just sign on to Al Gore's ready-made environmental platform, and by greasing his palm enough, he will personally bless your transition from the group of inflicter's to the group of victims who care. Any corporate marketing team that doesn't see the beauty of this plan should be sued for malpractice.
A perfect example of this is Hollywood itself. All the fabulous wealthy and beautiful people love their millionaire lifestyles. But, that puts them in the inflicter group, so how do they get back to the afflicted group while saving face? Enter the "Carbon Credit." Simply donate a few cents to plant some trees, and then jet off to Monte Carlo, guilt free, because they care and they made a difference. Nothing really changed, and I fail to see how planting a few trees could counter the effects of a one-way, cross Atlantic jet flight. But that's not the point. The point is, they are now certifiably in the group of victims that care.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long term. An axiom of the free market is that government should regulate as little as possible, because by the time government acts, the dynamics of the situation have probably morphed several times over, which is one main reason government interference is usually so ineffective. It doesn't matter if their plan solves the problem, because the problem has already changed. So, seeing government starting to stand up on its rear haunches indicates to me the situation has already changed beyond the scope that government is attempting to solve.
What comes next is anyone's guess. One thing is for sure. If the moon enters the seventh house, that means it must also posses the power to exit it.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Global Warmongering
I have seen the enemy and they are us!
That's it folks, the party's over. Take down the posters, pop the balloons, sweep up the confetti. Some one help the drunks into the waiting taxis. Grab the closest drunk blond you can find, and head for the door. This gig is a done deal.
Right here, right now, in this very blog, I am officially declaring the war on global warming over, and we have lost. By we, I mean those who think science should be grounded in, well, science, you know - facts, reasoning, logic, observations, facts, deduction - we have lost. And what makes it all the more bitter is the absolutely pathetic attitude of those who won. The hippies, the greenies, the Hollywood elite, the mainstream media, and the politicians. They just handed us a shit sandwich, so it's time to belly up to the bar, and every sane person in Western Society needs to take a big bite.
Does this mean I agree global warming is happening, and I agree humans are causing it, and we need liberal democrats to save us from ourselves? Not at all. That battle will rage as long as there are independent people in this society who refuse to be lectured by Hollywood stars who couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. That's not the battle I'm talking about. That battle will never be over. But while we fought that battle, the greenies fought the battle that - as it turns out - ultimately mattered. They convinced Pop Culture to accept their cause. And Pop Culture willingly drew them into it's smelly, festering, pustule-filled bosom. But there is a price to be paid for that victory, and pay it they will. More on that in a bit.
Global Warming/Climate Change (I use that term because that's what its called, in order to help prop up their rickety house of cards, to cover any example, no matter how innate, they choose) has entered the lexicon of today's modern Pop Culture. That now means its officially accepted, recognized, and morons who know nothing about science, climate, hell - about anything - will begin to lecture us on how stupid and ignorant we are, and smugly look down their noses at us, while they thumb through People magazine. I have a good friend who's got a heart of gold, but he's definitely a few burgers short of a Happy Meal. He is now lecturing me on how little I understand science, facts, and all the rest of those big words he doesn't really understand. My friend, with a heart of gold, empties bed pans at a state institution (read: state job). I have multiple college degrees and have been working in the high tech industry for the last 20 years or so. And he's now convinced he knows more than I do. His proof of his superior ideas? Everyone else in Western Society says so.
Call it conventional wisdom, group think, what ever you like. Personally I call it Pop Culture. Pop Culture is a shadowy concept. There's no official demarcation between it and reality. But trust me it exists. Why do people care what Madonna had breakfast? Pop Culture tells them to. Why do people care what people like Michael Jackson, Brittany Spears, O.J. Simpson, Lindsey Lohan, and all other forms of weirdness do? Because Pop Culture tells them that's what's important. And while we tried to use reason, logic and facts to keep the debate in the realm of science, they worked to ingrain this pseudoscience into the brains of those most easily manipulated. And they were victorious.
Every time I pick up a news paper, a magazine, or watch TV, anytime anything that has to do with the environment, in any way, no matter how tangentially connected, all mention global warming. Last week I read a local story in the paper about students at a high school who were implementing a school-wide recycling program. Why? Global warming. In National Geographic I read about a scientists studying the design of snow flakes. Why? Looking for clues to global warming. The governor of New York announced today he's going to enlarge government, guess why? He's creating an official statewide office on Global Warming. It's everywhere. And it's here to stay. Get used to it.
Try it yourself. Next time you read, hear or watch any type of program or report that deals in any way with the environment, notice if they mention global warming. And for extra points, count how many times they repeat it. It's scary.
I'm not here to argue about facts, theories, or anything else dealing with science. As I've said, that battle is over. I'm here to make a most ugly predication.
Pop Culture has embraced global warming. Pop Culture has also embraced Michael Jackson. Look where it got him. It embraced Jim Morrison and John Belushi and Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin and Marylin Monroe and Kurt Cobain and the rest of the sorry, sordid lives that have been ruined and/or cut short. Pop Culture invited them in, celebrated them, then grew tired of them, and tossed them like scraps of tripe to the media wolves. And I predict the same will happen to the global warming environmentalists. They should and will enjoy the bright lights of Pop Culture. The fancy parties, the spot lights, the red carpets they will prance down before fawning "nobodies" who are thrilled to be in their presence.
And they should enjoy it while they can, because Pop Culture is a demanding Mistress. And when she's done with them, they will be ripped through the media's shredder.
And when that happens, the environmental movement will have lost its reputation, and that they will not be able to repair. Idiot people may enjoy getting quick peeks at Britney Spears' meat curtain, but they don't take her, or her vagina, seriously. And when this is all over, they will not take the environmental movement seriously either.
Enjoy your victory while those of us who really and truly care about the environment mourn.
Update:
As if you needed more evidence, I present you with Ellen Goodman.
And I quote: "By every measure, the U N 's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is 'unequivocal.' The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get."
"I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."
If I drop a rock I'm much more than "90 percent" certain it will fall. If I walk far enough, I'm much more than "90 percent" sure I will not fall off the earth. This is the mentality that we face. And now anyone who refuses to swallow this crap is the modern day equivalent of "Holocaust deniers"? Some day, far in the future, when all this is revealed, we'll all have a good laugh. But until then.....
Editor Update: Check out this for more on the same theme.
That's it folks, the party's over. Take down the posters, pop the balloons, sweep up the confetti. Some one help the drunks into the waiting taxis. Grab the closest drunk blond you can find, and head for the door. This gig is a done deal.
Right here, right now, in this very blog, I am officially declaring the war on global warming over, and we have lost. By we, I mean those who think science should be grounded in, well, science, you know - facts, reasoning, logic, observations, facts, deduction - we have lost. And what makes it all the more bitter is the absolutely pathetic attitude of those who won. The hippies, the greenies, the Hollywood elite, the mainstream media, and the politicians. They just handed us a shit sandwich, so it's time to belly up to the bar, and every sane person in Western Society needs to take a big bite.
Does this mean I agree global warming is happening, and I agree humans are causing it, and we need liberal democrats to save us from ourselves? Not at all. That battle will rage as long as there are independent people in this society who refuse to be lectured by Hollywood stars who couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. That's not the battle I'm talking about. That battle will never be over. But while we fought that battle, the greenies fought the battle that - as it turns out - ultimately mattered. They convinced Pop Culture to accept their cause. And Pop Culture willingly drew them into it's smelly, festering, pustule-filled bosom. But there is a price to be paid for that victory, and pay it they will. More on that in a bit.
Global Warming/Climate Change (I use that term because that's what its called, in order to help prop up their rickety house of cards, to cover any example, no matter how innate, they choose) has entered the lexicon of today's modern Pop Culture. That now means its officially accepted, recognized, and morons who know nothing about science, climate, hell - about anything - will begin to lecture us on how stupid and ignorant we are, and smugly look down their noses at us, while they thumb through People magazine. I have a good friend who's got a heart of gold, but he's definitely a few burgers short of a Happy Meal. He is now lecturing me on how little I understand science, facts, and all the rest of those big words he doesn't really understand. My friend, with a heart of gold, empties bed pans at a state institution (read: state job). I have multiple college degrees and have been working in the high tech industry for the last 20 years or so. And he's now convinced he knows more than I do. His proof of his superior ideas? Everyone else in Western Society says so.
Call it conventional wisdom, group think, what ever you like. Personally I call it Pop Culture. Pop Culture is a shadowy concept. There's no official demarcation between it and reality. But trust me it exists. Why do people care what Madonna had breakfast? Pop Culture tells them to. Why do people care what people like Michael Jackson, Brittany Spears, O.J. Simpson, Lindsey Lohan, and all other forms of weirdness do? Because Pop Culture tells them that's what's important. And while we tried to use reason, logic and facts to keep the debate in the realm of science, they worked to ingrain this pseudoscience into the brains of those most easily manipulated. And they were victorious.
Every time I pick up a news paper, a magazine, or watch TV, anytime anything that has to do with the environment, in any way, no matter how tangentially connected, all mention global warming. Last week I read a local story in the paper about students at a high school who were implementing a school-wide recycling program. Why? Global warming. In National Geographic I read about a scientists studying the design of snow flakes. Why? Looking for clues to global warming. The governor of New York announced today he's going to enlarge government, guess why? He's creating an official statewide office on Global Warming. It's everywhere. And it's here to stay. Get used to it.
Try it yourself. Next time you read, hear or watch any type of program or report that deals in any way with the environment, notice if they mention global warming. And for extra points, count how many times they repeat it. It's scary.
I'm not here to argue about facts, theories, or anything else dealing with science. As I've said, that battle is over. I'm here to make a most ugly predication.
Pop Culture has embraced global warming. Pop Culture has also embraced Michael Jackson. Look where it got him. It embraced Jim Morrison and John Belushi and Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin and Marylin Monroe and Kurt Cobain and the rest of the sorry, sordid lives that have been ruined and/or cut short. Pop Culture invited them in, celebrated them, then grew tired of them, and tossed them like scraps of tripe to the media wolves. And I predict the same will happen to the global warming environmentalists. They should and will enjoy the bright lights of Pop Culture. The fancy parties, the spot lights, the red carpets they will prance down before fawning "nobodies" who are thrilled to be in their presence.
And they should enjoy it while they can, because Pop Culture is a demanding Mistress. And when she's done with them, they will be ripped through the media's shredder.
And when that happens, the environmental movement will have lost its reputation, and that they will not be able to repair. Idiot people may enjoy getting quick peeks at Britney Spears' meat curtain, but they don't take her, or her vagina, seriously. And when this is all over, they will not take the environmental movement seriously either.
Enjoy your victory while those of us who really and truly care about the environment mourn.
Update:
As if you needed more evidence, I present you with Ellen Goodman.
And I quote: "By every measure, the U N 's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is 'unequivocal.' The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get."
"I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."
If I drop a rock I'm much more than "90 percent" certain it will fall. If I walk far enough, I'm much more than "90 percent" sure I will not fall off the earth. This is the mentality that we face. And now anyone who refuses to swallow this crap is the modern day equivalent of "Holocaust deniers"? Some day, far in the future, when all this is revealed, we'll all have a good laugh. But until then.....
Editor Update: Check out this for more on the same theme.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Merry Christmas
With the approach of the Christmas Season, its time for my second annual Christmas post. Most readers would expect the Nativity story from Matthew, Mark or Luke, or the poetic opening of John's Gospel, but I'm a trend bucker. This time lets review my favorite Bible reading, Matthew, Chapter 20, verses 1 through 16. For me, this defines what it means to be a Christian.
1 "The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.
2 After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard.
3 Going out about nine o'clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
4 and he said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.'
5 So they went off. (And) he went out again around noon, and around three o'clock, and did likewise.
6 Going out about five o'clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?'
7 They answered, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard.'
8 When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.'
9 When those who had started about five o'clock came, each received the usual daily wage.
10 So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage.
11 And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner,
12 saying, 'These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day's burden and the heat.'
13 He said to one of them in reply, 'My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?
14 Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?
15 (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?'
16 Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last."
Its a very simple parable, a farmer goes into the market place to hire workers, and continues to do so throughout the day. At the end of the day, he pays everyone the same amount regardless of how long they worked that day. Naturally, the ones who put in more time expect to be paid more than those who worked only a couple of hours, but the farmer refuses saying it's his money, he can do what he wants with it, and he is only paying what the workers agreed to be paid, so stuff it.
For me the farmer symbolizes God, the workers are us hairless monkeys, the work is living a Christian life, and the payment is eternal salvation. All day long, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, God offers us an invitation to join his followers. The invitation is always there. As Christians we don't need to ask God to accept us, but rather we must accept God. The invitation is to all of us, no one is excluded.
If we chose to accept God's invitation, there is no free ride. Believe me, it is work living as a Christian. It's not always fun to attend Mass week after week. It's not easy to be forgiving, especially to your enemies. Yet we are called on to not only forgive them, but to love them. It takes years to study all the lessons the Bible has for us. And one must put expend great effort and time. We are expected to volunteer our time and our wealth to help others. And to do so with good cheer.
And why does the farmer agree to pay all workers the same regardless of the length of the work day? Because salvation is God's gift to us. We do not deserve it, no matter how hard or how long we work. It is not by the fruit of our labors that we earn salvation, not at all. Salvation is bestowed because God chooses to do so. And God gives it to whoever God chooses, whenever God chooses. Before God we are all equal. We are expected to live a worthy life of work and effort, but those of us who choose the accept God's invitation earlier in our lives should not expect to be above anyone else in salvation. We don't deserve it, it is a gift from God. All the good deeds we do are not vane attempts to add more pluses than minus' so when we stand before St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, we get our ticket stamped. No, that's completely backwards. Because we accept God' invitation, the outcome is that we do good work, not the other way around.
And lastly, the farmer admonishes the workers who demand more than they agreed to. Pure and simple libertarianism and property rights. God provides salvation at God's discretion, and no one can demand more. We've been invited, we've accepted, and we've complied with God as best we can. No one deserves salvation. A kindly old priest told us a story once during the homily years ago about St. Teresa of Avila, some times referred to as St. Teresa of the Roses. I'm sure most every one has seen an image of her at some point. A young nun in full habit, carrying a crucifix and a bouquet of roses. As the priest told it, she was laying on her deathbed, surrounded by her fellow nuns who were comforting her in her final moments. They told her not to worry, she'd lived a good and pious life, surely God would see she deserved heaven. St. Teresa replied she was a human and a sinner, and she deserved nothing from God. She didn't want what she deserved, she wanted mercy from God.
Merry Christmas!
1 "The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.
2 After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard.
3 Going out about nine o'clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
4 and he said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.'
5 So they went off. (And) he went out again around noon, and around three o'clock, and did likewise.
6 Going out about five o'clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?'
7 They answered, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard.'
8 When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.'
9 When those who had started about five o'clock came, each received the usual daily wage.
10 So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage.
11 And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner,
12 saying, 'These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day's burden and the heat.'
13 He said to one of them in reply, 'My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?
14 Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?
15 (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?'
16 Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last."
Its a very simple parable, a farmer goes into the market place to hire workers, and continues to do so throughout the day. At the end of the day, he pays everyone the same amount regardless of how long they worked that day. Naturally, the ones who put in more time expect to be paid more than those who worked only a couple of hours, but the farmer refuses saying it's his money, he can do what he wants with it, and he is only paying what the workers agreed to be paid, so stuff it.
For me the farmer symbolizes God, the workers are us hairless monkeys, the work is living a Christian life, and the payment is eternal salvation. All day long, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, God offers us an invitation to join his followers. The invitation is always there. As Christians we don't need to ask God to accept us, but rather we must accept God. The invitation is to all of us, no one is excluded.
If we chose to accept God's invitation, there is no free ride. Believe me, it is work living as a Christian. It's not always fun to attend Mass week after week. It's not easy to be forgiving, especially to your enemies. Yet we are called on to not only forgive them, but to love them. It takes years to study all the lessons the Bible has for us. And one must put expend great effort and time. We are expected to volunteer our time and our wealth to help others. And to do so with good cheer.
And why does the farmer agree to pay all workers the same regardless of the length of the work day? Because salvation is God's gift to us. We do not deserve it, no matter how hard or how long we work. It is not by the fruit of our labors that we earn salvation, not at all. Salvation is bestowed because God chooses to do so. And God gives it to whoever God chooses, whenever God chooses. Before God we are all equal. We are expected to live a worthy life of work and effort, but those of us who choose the accept God's invitation earlier in our lives should not expect to be above anyone else in salvation. We don't deserve it, it is a gift from God. All the good deeds we do are not vane attempts to add more pluses than minus' so when we stand before St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, we get our ticket stamped. No, that's completely backwards. Because we accept God' invitation, the outcome is that we do good work, not the other way around.
And lastly, the farmer admonishes the workers who demand more than they agreed to. Pure and simple libertarianism and property rights. God provides salvation at God's discretion, and no one can demand more. We've been invited, we've accepted, and we've complied with God as best we can. No one deserves salvation. A kindly old priest told us a story once during the homily years ago about St. Teresa of Avila, some times referred to as St. Teresa of the Roses. I'm sure most every one has seen an image of her at some point. A young nun in full habit, carrying a crucifix and a bouquet of roses. As the priest told it, she was laying on her deathbed, surrounded by her fellow nuns who were comforting her in her final moments. They told her not to worry, she'd lived a good and pious life, surely God would see she deserved heaven. St. Teresa replied she was a human and a sinner, and she deserved nothing from God. She didn't want what she deserved, she wanted mercy from God.
Merry Christmas!
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Neopaleoliberal©
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet."
--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
I remember reading Romeo and Juliet in ninth grade English class. Not one of his best works, and not a particularly interesting read either. The only reason I remember it is because I have a mind like a steel trap. Whereas with most people, ideas come and go, in my head they rattle around for a while and then start setting up subdivisions. But I digress.
The cause of this little mental meandering is the term "neocon". I've been called a neocon, usually by mentally deficient liberals who think it shows how hip and suave they are. Secretly I've always thought they don't have the slightest idea what a neocon is, they just see it in Molly Ivins columns and in blogs and toss it around to show how well read they are. As I've shadow-boxed with them over the years, I've also come to believe no one really knows the definition of neocon, and I believe that is because I don't think there really is a definition. I think it's one of the words that just kind of appeared on its own, coined by someone, released into the wilds of the internet, where it has multiplied to the point that every one uses it and just assumes they know the definition.
I've asked people on both sides of the political divide and haven't heard anything that even required much thinking to come up with. I've heard "Jews" as one definition, but that's far too simplistic. I've received plenty of examples, but nothing that even begins to show the solid thinking necessary for a definition. Then I read a book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. that shows considerable forethought and effort.
Woods' definition is roughly this: The rise of the modern conservative movement in America - which probably began with the presidential aspirations of Barry Goldwater in the 1960's. Their platform was small, limited government, lower spending, lower taxes, strong national self defense, and keeping the government the hell out of people's lives. [Editor's note: Hmm, why does that remind me of something...]
The movement's greatest accomplishment has to be eight years of Ronald Reagan, and its zenith is the 1994 take over of the House of Representatives following forty plus years of liberal-democratic control. But as anyone with even a passing interest in watching politics (beats the hell out of looking at yellow-bellied sapsuckers) can tell, we may have gotten some taxes lowered, and Reagan did slow down the growth of that great leviathan called government, but overall we do not have a smaller, more limited government, and lower spending has become an oxymoron like Congressional Ethics.
So what happened? According to Woods, once the Republicans began seizing the reigns of government, they found they liked being the head honchos. Many of them abandoned their cherished principles in favor of big fat lobbyist checks, and the ability to do pretty much whatever they want. They believed larger government is acceptable, as long as they control it. They favored increased spending, as long as they could keep the taxes low enough to not piss off their party supporters. And in general, became big government liberals in conservative clothes. It is these people Woods refers to as "neocons."
Now, "neo" is Greek for "new", so neocon would be a new type of conservative, which, ironically, is pretty much the opposite of what a conservative is.
Stick with me, we're almost there.
Obviously - at least to me - I am not, nor have I ever been a neocon of any sort. I'm convinced of that. So what am I? I've been asking myself that question for some time, not because I'm into labels, but because the world is filled with labels, and I try to find my way through them. There are many liberal goals that I find worthy and I fully support. Who doesn't want world peace, goodpublic education, clean air and water, etc.? Where I part ways with liberals is how to achieve these goals. The liberal viewpoint is simple; raise taxes, redistribute wealth, and take away as much freedom for people to be stupid as they can to prevent simple, uneducated, unwashed masses from hurting themselves and others. In other words, business as usual since FDR's New Deal. I can plainly see that none of that really works, and in reality usually makes things worse.
So am I a "neoliberal"? I offered that proposition to my blog editor. (Yes, I have an editor, do you?) He replied that he believes I'm more of a paleoliberal, in that my beliefs fall more closely in line with old time liberalism, back when the root word was recognized as 'liberty." But that doesn't quite fit the bill either, since I do want to accomplish new things, but I want to use the lessons from the past to determine what works and what doesn't.
So, with out further ado, I offer up to you Ladies and Gentlemen, a new political movement, for which I rightly can claim the honor of naming. I present to you "neopaleoliberalism!"
--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
I remember reading Romeo and Juliet in ninth grade English class. Not one of his best works, and not a particularly interesting read either. The only reason I remember it is because I have a mind like a steel trap. Whereas with most people, ideas come and go, in my head they rattle around for a while and then start setting up subdivisions. But I digress.
The cause of this little mental meandering is the term "neocon". I've been called a neocon, usually by mentally deficient liberals who think it shows how hip and suave they are. Secretly I've always thought they don't have the slightest idea what a neocon is, they just see it in Molly Ivins columns and in blogs and toss it around to show how well read they are. As I've shadow-boxed with them over the years, I've also come to believe no one really knows the definition of neocon, and I believe that is because I don't think there really is a definition. I think it's one of the words that just kind of appeared on its own, coined by someone, released into the wilds of the internet, where it has multiplied to the point that every one uses it and just assumes they know the definition.
I've asked people on both sides of the political divide and haven't heard anything that even required much thinking to come up with. I've heard "Jews" as one definition, but that's far too simplistic. I've received plenty of examples, but nothing that even begins to show the solid thinking necessary for a definition. Then I read a book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. that shows considerable forethought and effort.
Woods' definition is roughly this: The rise of the modern conservative movement in America - which probably began with the presidential aspirations of Barry Goldwater in the 1960's. Their platform was small, limited government, lower spending, lower taxes, strong national self defense, and keeping the government the hell out of people's lives. [Editor's note: Hmm, why does that remind me of something...]
The movement's greatest accomplishment has to be eight years of Ronald Reagan, and its zenith is the 1994 take over of the House of Representatives following forty plus years of liberal-democratic control. But as anyone with even a passing interest in watching politics (beats the hell out of looking at yellow-bellied sapsuckers) can tell, we may have gotten some taxes lowered, and Reagan did slow down the growth of that great leviathan called government, but overall we do not have a smaller, more limited government, and lower spending has become an oxymoron like Congressional Ethics.
So what happened? According to Woods, once the Republicans began seizing the reigns of government, they found they liked being the head honchos. Many of them abandoned their cherished principles in favor of big fat lobbyist checks, and the ability to do pretty much whatever they want. They believed larger government is acceptable, as long as they control it. They favored increased spending, as long as they could keep the taxes low enough to not piss off their party supporters. And in general, became big government liberals in conservative clothes. It is these people Woods refers to as "neocons."
Now, "neo" is Greek for "new", so neocon would be a new type of conservative, which, ironically, is pretty much the opposite of what a conservative is.
Stick with me, we're almost there.
Obviously - at least to me - I am not, nor have I ever been a neocon of any sort. I'm convinced of that. So what am I? I've been asking myself that question for some time, not because I'm into labels, but because the world is filled with labels, and I try to find my way through them. There are many liberal goals that I find worthy and I fully support. Who doesn't want world peace, good
So am I a "neoliberal"? I offered that proposition to my blog editor. (Yes, I have an editor, do you?) He replied that he believes I'm more of a paleoliberal, in that my beliefs fall more closely in line with old time liberalism, back when the root word was recognized as 'liberty." But that doesn't quite fit the bill either, since I do want to accomplish new things, but I want to use the lessons from the past to determine what works and what doesn't.
So, with out further ado, I offer up to you Ladies and Gentlemen, a new political movement, for which I rightly can claim the honor of naming. I present to you "neopaleoliberalism!"
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Dem Quixotic
There's been talking heads on the right who have used the analogy of religion to describe the values (or lack thereof) of the left. Ann Coulter even wrote a book about it. I can take only slight, smug satisfaction knowing that my editor and I had debated the theory years before she wrote her book. Only slight because while I can claim credit, she still gets the checks.
But I've never been completely satisfied with the analogy, there's just something about it that doesn't seem quite right. Last night while I was walking through my dining room, I was struck with a bolt of inspiration. It's not religion that makes the best analogy. Religion is recognizing and accepting the existence of a higher being and/or plane of existence. For the analogy to work, this would be required of the top tier of liberals to accept something larger and more important than themselves. And I believe that's why it doesn't fit. It doesn't really describe the actions and emotions of the rank and file liberal democrats. The rank and file don't look up to the top tier liberal groups and politicians for salvation; they look up to them in awe, but hardly with the hope of eternal salvation. So no, it's not religion. It's Chivalry.
About 15 years ago my sister and I attended the Sterling Forest Renaissance Festival in upstate New York. It's quite a day trip vacation. For those who are interested in history period events, I highly recommend it. One of the first booths you encounter upon entering is the print shop. There are all kinds of drawings, etchings, prints - you name it you can probably find it there. I bought myself a nice little drawing of a dragon reclining on a burned out castle. Enough said. Later in the day my sister somehow managed to ditch me long enough to sneak back over to the printer and she bought me a print of a Code of Chivalry based upon a 13th century France document. I got it for Christmas that year, and it's hung proudly on my wall ever since.
The Code of Chivalry (France, circa 13th Century)
Thou shalt believe all the Church teaches and shalt observe all its directions.
Thou shalt defend the Church.
Thou shalt respect all Weaknesses and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
Thou shalt love the Country in which thou wast born.
Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.
Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties in accordance with the law of God.
Thou shalt be generous and give largess to every one.
Thou shalt be the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.
With some slight modifications, I believe we have a pretty accurate code of honor among liberals:
The Code of Liberalism (San Francisco, New York, circa 20th Century)
Thou shalt believe all the Democratic Party teaches and shalt observe all its directions.
Thou shalt defend the Democratic Party.
Thou shalt respect all Recognized Victim Classes and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
Thou shalt love the Democratic Party in which thou wast born.
Thou shalt make war against the conservative without cessation and without mercy.
Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy liberal duties in accordance with the law of the Democratic Party.
Thou shalt be generous with other's money and give largess to every recognized victim class.
Thou shalt be the champion of the Left and the Good against Injustice and Evil.
As with the dragon etching, enough said.
But I've never been completely satisfied with the analogy, there's just something about it that doesn't seem quite right. Last night while I was walking through my dining room, I was struck with a bolt of inspiration. It's not religion that makes the best analogy. Religion is recognizing and accepting the existence of a higher being and/or plane of existence. For the analogy to work, this would be required of the top tier of liberals to accept something larger and more important than themselves. And I believe that's why it doesn't fit. It doesn't really describe the actions and emotions of the rank and file liberal democrats. The rank and file don't look up to the top tier liberal groups and politicians for salvation; they look up to them in awe, but hardly with the hope of eternal salvation. So no, it's not religion. It's Chivalry.
About 15 years ago my sister and I attended the Sterling Forest Renaissance Festival in upstate New York. It's quite a day trip vacation. For those who are interested in history period events, I highly recommend it. One of the first booths you encounter upon entering is the print shop. There are all kinds of drawings, etchings, prints - you name it you can probably find it there. I bought myself a nice little drawing of a dragon reclining on a burned out castle. Enough said. Later in the day my sister somehow managed to ditch me long enough to sneak back over to the printer and she bought me a print of a Code of Chivalry based upon a 13th century France document. I got it for Christmas that year, and it's hung proudly on my wall ever since.
The Code of Chivalry (France, circa 13th Century)
Thou shalt believe all the Church teaches and shalt observe all its directions.
Thou shalt defend the Church.
Thou shalt respect all Weaknesses and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
Thou shalt love the Country in which thou wast born.
Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.
Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties in accordance with the law of God.
Thou shalt be generous and give largess to every one.
Thou shalt be the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.
With some slight modifications, I believe we have a pretty accurate code of honor among liberals:
The Code of Liberalism (San Francisco, New York, circa 20th Century)
Thou shalt believe all the Democratic Party teaches and shalt observe all its directions.
Thou shalt defend the Democratic Party.
Thou shalt respect all Recognized Victim Classes and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
Thou shalt love the Democratic Party in which thou wast born.
Thou shalt make war against the conservative without cessation and without mercy.
Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy liberal duties in accordance with the law of the Democratic Party.
Thou shalt be generous with other's money and give largess to every recognized victim class.
Thou shalt be the champion of the Left and the Good against Injustice and Evil.
As with the dragon etching, enough said.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
It's getting hot in here
I was reading the local newspaper this past Sunday morning, and almost fell out of my chair laughing. My local paper employs a democratic hack for their senior editorial page writer. I can barely read his column anymore, even though I will give him credit for at least admitting his bias. Last summer he concluded a column by stating that there are some people who believe democrat equals good and republicans equal evil, and then proudly stated he was one of them. One point for honesty, one million points for political bias.
On Sunday said author began his column with the following rhetorical question:
Q: Do this country's news organizations have a greater obligation to their readers and viewers or to the federal government?
A: Are you kidding?
I reached the same rhetorical answer, but for what I'm sure are vastly different reasons. The reason I view the reply as ridiculous is the two options he offers are both wrong. The real joke lies in the obvious answer as to where a news organization's obligations lie. They lie neither with their readers and viewers nor government of any kind. Is it just me, or is the obvious answer that a reporter's obligations are to the truth - government and readers be damned?
If the truth hurts the government, or if it hurts readers, so what? After all a reporter's job is to report, isn't it? But I guess I'm asking too much from the modern mainstream media. Anyone with a brain should be completely disgusted with their unparalleled bias so blatantly displayed during the recent election season. Of course, if you're of the democratic persuasion, as many of my family and friends are, you probably view the pig-sty of campaign reporting as a fair and balanced overview of the natural order of all things. Or to put it another way, democrat good, republican evil. Not convinced? How about the doctored photos from the recent Israel/Lebanon war? Hundreds of examples. Blatant. Patent. Lies.
I could go on and on about the obvious political bias of the media at the expense of the truth, but even though I could fill volumes, I don't really have the time to type up about 30,000 pages. [Editor's note: Thank God!] So I'll just pick one off the top of my head. The great global warming hoax.
That's right, you heard me. The Great Global Warming HOAX!
Is the globe warming? Maybe yes, maybe no. No one really knows for sure, that's because science isn't even close to coming up with a definitive answer. By the way, that part isn't the hoax. That part's the truth. Take a moment to think back when was the last time you heard that reported. Personally I can't recall the last time I heard it reported that the majority of scientists either had no position or weren't yet convinced. What is printed however is Al Gore and his entourage endlessly repeating that science has concluded there is a problem, the time for science is over, and the time for politics is now.
He usually adds that all serious scientists agree; which implies only nut cases, lunatics and the such could possibly disagree with him and his proponents. He even likes to trot out the old "flat earth society" cliche to further ridicule his opponents. Not that there is anything wrong with a politician arguing politics. I would expect nothing less from Mr. Gore, just as I would expect nothing less from the right wing hacks spouting off all kinds of scientific mumbo-jumbo. My point is, no one in the media is asking Mr. Gore to back up his claim that everyone agrees with him. Not one single news source has the testicular fortitude to question what is so obviously a lie. Allow me: "Mr. Gore, why do you insist that less than 50% of the scientific community constitutes the vast majority of scientists?" I'm not holding my breath.
Reporters may or may not have an opinion on global warming. They may think that by spreading the message they are helping inform the public. They may even convince themselves they are doing their part to save the future of the world. Whatever their reasoning, one thing they are not doing is reporting the truth. In this example, reporters may believe they are obligated to their viewers at the expense of the government. But in reality, they are obliging their political affiliations and the environmental movement at the expense of their viewers. Which means, we all lose.
We all lose because shoddy science is given the benefit of the doubt at the expense of real science. The truth is not even up for consideration. Again, is global warming a reality or not is a matter of science, yet to be determined. The fact that Al Gore and the environmentalists are allowed a free pass to discredit the majority of the scientific community is awful. The real victim in this case is the truth. So I ask any and all reporters once again, where do your allegiances lie, with your views and readers or with the government, or with the truth?
On Sunday said author began his column with the following rhetorical question:
Q: Do this country's news organizations have a greater obligation to their readers and viewers or to the federal government?
A: Are you kidding?
I reached the same rhetorical answer, but for what I'm sure are vastly different reasons. The reason I view the reply as ridiculous is the two options he offers are both wrong. The real joke lies in the obvious answer as to where a news organization's obligations lie. They lie neither with their readers and viewers nor government of any kind. Is it just me, or is the obvious answer that a reporter's obligations are to the truth - government and readers be damned?
If the truth hurts the government, or if it hurts readers, so what? After all a reporter's job is to report, isn't it? But I guess I'm asking too much from the modern mainstream media. Anyone with a brain should be completely disgusted with their unparalleled bias so blatantly displayed during the recent election season. Of course, if you're of the democratic persuasion, as many of my family and friends are, you probably view the pig-sty of campaign reporting as a fair and balanced overview of the natural order of all things. Or to put it another way, democrat good, republican evil. Not convinced? How about the doctored photos from the recent Israel/Lebanon war? Hundreds of examples. Blatant. Patent. Lies.
I could go on and on about the obvious political bias of the media at the expense of the truth, but even though I could fill volumes, I don't really have the time to type up about 30,000 pages. [Editor's note: Thank God!] So I'll just pick one off the top of my head. The great global warming hoax.
That's right, you heard me. The Great Global Warming HOAX!
Is the globe warming? Maybe yes, maybe no. No one really knows for sure, that's because science isn't even close to coming up with a definitive answer. By the way, that part isn't the hoax. That part's the truth. Take a moment to think back when was the last time you heard that reported. Personally I can't recall the last time I heard it reported that the majority of scientists either had no position or weren't yet convinced. What is printed however is Al Gore and his entourage endlessly repeating that science has concluded there is a problem, the time for science is over, and the time for politics is now.
He usually adds that all serious scientists agree; which implies only nut cases, lunatics and the such could possibly disagree with him and his proponents. He even likes to trot out the old "flat earth society" cliche to further ridicule his opponents. Not that there is anything wrong with a politician arguing politics. I would expect nothing less from Mr. Gore, just as I would expect nothing less from the right wing hacks spouting off all kinds of scientific mumbo-jumbo. My point is, no one in the media is asking Mr. Gore to back up his claim that everyone agrees with him. Not one single news source has the testicular fortitude to question what is so obviously a lie. Allow me: "Mr. Gore, why do you insist that less than 50% of the scientific community constitutes the vast majority of scientists?" I'm not holding my breath.
Reporters may or may not have an opinion on global warming. They may think that by spreading the message they are helping inform the public. They may even convince themselves they are doing their part to save the future of the world. Whatever their reasoning, one thing they are not doing is reporting the truth. In this example, reporters may believe they are obligated to their viewers at the expense of the government. But in reality, they are obliging their political affiliations and the environmental movement at the expense of their viewers. Which means, we all lose.
We all lose because shoddy science is given the benefit of the doubt at the expense of real science. The truth is not even up for consideration. Again, is global warming a reality or not is a matter of science, yet to be determined. The fact that Al Gore and the environmentalists are allowed a free pass to discredit the majority of the scientific community is awful. The real victim in this case is the truth. So I ask any and all reporters once again, where do your allegiances lie, with your views and readers or with the government, or with the truth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)