.
Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y6An3X9jic&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Jn2xCF92Y&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3Kuf9a4SQ4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFrJvMWMdLY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg-qsOA0NPk&feature=related
Freedom: http://flickr.com/photos/madron/319388601/
Parents: http://www.christianparents.com/curiculm.htm.
Alexis de Tocqueville:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville
Democracy in America (1835), his major work, published after his travels in the United States, is today considered an early work of sociology and political science.
….
He saw democracy as an equation that balanced liberty and equality, concern for the individual as well as the community. A critic of individualism, Tocqueville thought that association, the coming together of people for common purpose, would bind Americans to an idea of nation larger than selfish desires, thus making both a self-conscious political society and a civil society which wasn't exclusively dependent on the state.
….
America, in contrast to the aristocratic ethic, was a society where hard work and money-making was the dominant ethic, where the common man enjoyed a level of dignity which was unprecedented, where commoners never deferred to elites, and where what he described as crass individualism and market capitalism had taken root to an extraordinary degree.
….
With such an open society, layered with so much opportunity, men of all sorts began working their way up in the world: industriousness became a dominant ethic, and "middling" values began taking root.
….
By the late 18th Century, democratic values which championed money-making, hard work, and individualism had eradicated, in the North, most remaining vestiges of old world aristocracy and values.
….
Ordinary Americans enjoyed too much power, claimed too great a voice in the public sphere, to defer to intellectual superiors. This culture promoted a relatively pronounced equality, Tocqueville argued, but the same mores and opinions that ensured such equality also promoted, as he put it, a middling mediocrity.
.
CONSERVATIVE PARTY:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/conservatisms_dilemma_to_be_or.html:
Peter M referenced [www.theobjectivestandard.com] Quote: The proper moral purpose of every individual’s life is to pursue his life-sustaining, life-enhancing values; the proper moral purpose of government is to protect his right to do so. Well, from what basis or authority does the author derive that statement, as if it should be a prescription not just for himself but for everyone? In other words, why or how does the author portend a prescription for everyone, as if it were a good for everyone? Answer: Because encouraging good for others carries good for all, including the author. And why do we have capacity to appreciate that? Because we have innate capacity for empathy, for identifying our interests with the interests of others and with purposes larger than ourselves. Factor that capacity for enlightened empathy and you get a deeper appreciation not so much for what Ayn Rand prescribed as for what even she, in her heart, probably knew was the deeper basis for her prescription. In any event, I agree that we should seek government that CONSERVES meaningful opportunities (markets) for every person to exercise his or her right to pursue life-enhancing values. But my reason is not based purely and only in selfishness. Rather, my reason encompasses capacity for empathy and compassion, expressed in respect for the individual dignity of each person. But that sort of freedom and dignity requires a conserver's respect for markets — not stifling cradle to grave gimmes.
****
Wgellis said: Just about everyone else should just be abandoned as hopeless lest we waste time and energy. The intellectually immature and the feeble-minded will never get it. We'll be supporting them (as we are now) no matter what. GFreeman HL2 quoted: Listen, what's the most horrible experience you can imagine? To me--it's being left, unarmed, in a sealed cell with a drooling beast of prey or a maniac who's had some disease that's eaten his brain out. You'd have nothing then but your voice--your voice and your thought. You'd scream to that creature why it should not touch you, you'd have the most eloquent words, the unanswerable words, you'd become the vessel of the absolute truth. And you'd see living eyes watching you and you'd know that the thing can't hear you, that it can't be reached, not reached, not in any way, yet it's breathing and moving there before you with a purpose of its own. John Lofton quoted: American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. Well, it is hardly surprising how skillfully Dems and Libertarians have become conditioned to cherry pick from various sacred texts only those parts that support greed and hedonism. Of course, greed blinds, even as hedonism offers no workable, civilizing guide for living or governing. And so, Dems and Libs become fundamentally incapable of taking the next step, to consider what principles should guide a decent civilization --- even for those of us who prefer to take religious texts spiritually, not literally. In short, most of our politicians and our electorate have for too long been blowing in the wind, unwilling to look beyond basest desires, polluting the American Ideal. A real party does not need “change it can believe in.” A real party needs civilizing principles it can believe in. For those, look to the American Ideal. It does exist. Build on sound basics. Educate those you can. Wipe your shoes clean of those you cannot. Greed and pleasure blinded Rinos mainly muck us with just so much dirt under our shoes, hardly worth the dignity of our time. It is 3:00 a.m. Time to block evil and to walk with better company.
****
Sean said: "Yes, the GOP should support the flag burner as well. That person is exercising their rights as given to them by the Constituion without fear of gov't reprisal! That's what it means to be a conservative. This marriage with the religious right has skewed what it means to be a conservative. The GOP shouldn't be about gov't mandated Christianity in daily lives." I share some of your concern about individual freedom. But, you lose me a little. I see nothing in the Constitution that should mandate any State to recognize gay marriages. Rather, that position seems much more radical than conservative. I have no problem with a State deciding to recognize gay marriages. I do have a problem were the Feds to say States must recognize gay marriages. BTW --- Being a social conservative is not about mandating Christianity. It is about encouraging and sometimes mandating basics that are essential to CONSERVING civilization. Your take, that anything meant to conserve social decency is forced religion, is more a foundation of quicksand than of conservatism. One can see good sense in Christian values without having to be a Christian.
****
William Clarke said: "A Conservative split from the Republicans can happen sooner than anyone may think. All you need is a high profile Conservative that has a large following...." Well, it would be well to get this going soon, before those who own the present parties further stiffen regulations designed to stifle competition in their little pretense of political competition. I used to think third parties would likely be bad, serving only as spoilers. Now, when it comes to Repubs and Dems, it seems our choice usually reduces to being between dumb and dumber. Much of the show of political competition seems to be bread and circuses, with little principled substance. Ron Paul has moral credibility and little to lose. He can only get so far with Repubs, anyway. Our rulers are already untethered to the Constitution. Rep. Paul has firm support among those who trust in his judgment and in his courage to say no. Previously, he seemed "fringey." Now, in hindsight, his message seems likely more palatable to a larger base than that of Joe Lieberman, Ralph Nader, or Ross Perot. Now, in hindsight, one appreciates that electing McCain would have been no great thing. So, Rep. Paul's base is a waiting springboard. Given what we have learned, what Conservative, now, would decline to contribute? Such a springboard could serve to educate Conservatives over the next 4 years to the perfidies that are guaranteed to continue to ensue out of their unrequited love affair with faux Repubs. Paul's base likely would not leave him, were he to start a "Conservators Party." Caveat: Were he to do so, the principles to be summoned must be visionary enough to serve nationwide, and be carefully crafted enough to help a cohort of local candidates educate the country. Although he himself likely would go down in flames, along with fellows recruited to run under his party label in local elections, his organization could mentor our next Lincoln. He could kill the Repub beast, or force it to adapt to realities. Such efforts may even spill over to force reforms among the Dems. And that would be a service with a legacy! Well worth a stint in the wilderness.
****
Evolve a new Contract for America: 1) Focus on preserving the American Ideal, and for that, the importance of strong defense of nation, boundaries, and assimilable demographics; 2) Instead of constitutional amendments, focus on restoring State's rights; get a "sense of the American people" that States should decide issues relating to abortion and gay rights; 3) Respect environment by using broad national incentives for population management; 4) Restore political integrity by progressively taxing expenditures for buying political influence; 5) Restore economic integrity by tax and trade policies for encouraging American jobs; 6) Appeal to "have nots" not by using income taxes to spread wealth, but by advocating paying for infrastructure by progressively taxing consumption by plutocrats. Item 6 would accomplish three things: a) Attract moderates who have not forfeited self respect by preferring direct handouts; b) Strengthen the hand of Conservative Americans by weakening Blueblood Rinos and their behind-the-scenes runners of political frontmen; c) Strengthen traditional market mechanisms by providing needed and better infrastructure. BTW --- Forget about the GOP. For Conservatives, it's a prison, not unlike the one kept for Beauty by the Beast (and not a good beast, either).
****
"The problem is that no one in NY would vote for me because my very conservative ideology is completely objectionable to the welfare state." Maybe we will have to resort to a "conservative sort of Saul Alinsky," to teach us how to "go underground," to infiltrate and pretend to be Libs when we are not. Problem: Libs, being not soundly sane to begin with, have inherent advantages in such underground strategies. But revisit Joshua, sending infiltrators into Jericho. Might be a fun diversion for retirees. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em and then beat 'em.
****
Redhawk wrote: "Ayn Rand had a firm grasp of how the left operates, and what she wrote more than fifty years ago is still true today." Much truth. Important part missing. If Ayn Rand felt there is any real basis for human empathy for one another, I may have missed it. I think one regains much with a mature appreciation of God, which Ayn lacked. As also are lacking many Libs, Libertarians, and Bluebloods (aka, "LLB's"). Character is about being responsible even when no one is looking. But, does anyone really expect to trust LLB's in proximity to unguarded, unverifiable cash tills? I think this is why Libs want a Big Brother always looking over their shoulder. Those who believe government free of God is our solution will invariably lead us to Big Brother. Those who believe anarchy free of God is our solution will invariably lead us to rationalize "getting yours while the gettings are good." Ethical humanists try to "scientifically" rationalize ethics free of God. But, has anyone run any actual or scientific tests, to check out their success rate for inculcating lasting trustworthiness when no one is thought to be looking? I respect science, in its proper sphere. But, in realms of politics and social morality, I believe Ayn Rand types tend to be short sighted and non-insightful. Thus, their politics tend to be immature. Not a good foundation for a lasting political movement.
****
The word "moderate" is getting bad press --- which it should, when used in the sense of being too open and too quick to reach across aisles to compromise, instead of working to spread the word about principles that matter. When the word is used to describe a weak compromiser, then for one to label oneself a moderate is to label oneself as impotent --- sort of like a moderate armadillo, ran over in the middle of the road. But moderate can also be used in another sense, in the sense of moderating a free market. That is, a market where there are enough producers to ensure arms length, competitive pricing. Such a market is lost once all producers (or politicians) of significance are bought up, or brought under, the control of one all-dictating interest. A defender of the principle of free markets would seek to reduce or "moderate" such unity of control. One may rabidly support traditional social values, while seeking "moderation" that would respect or restore, rather than trample on, free markets. Such a firm "moderate" would be a respecter of human dignity and a "conserver" of free market principles. Such a conservative, being engaged in preserving markets, is not engaged in any sort of "class war" for protecting monopolistic depredations against civilization, and sh0uld roundly reject liberal slurs to the contrary. Such a moderate would have no more business making common cause with the likes of George Soros than would Libs, had they better insight.
****
Wayne S said: It's a branding problem. When I have discussions with most people during my travels, they are really conservatives at heart, they just don't know it. Even strong liberals believe in 95%+ conservative ideals, until you put a label on them. My mother taught me that the Democrats are for the poor and the Republicans are for the rich. 80% of the people still believe that. Most people in my conversations believe that Conservatives are focused on forcing their version of Christianity on the nation. **** A) The Rich: Well, what are we "conserving"? A lot of folks have been indoctrinated to believe Conservatives just want to conserve wealth for "the haves." But, what most of us want to conserve are civilizing opportunities to live in human decency and dignity. From that higher principle, derivatives follow, but they are only derivatives: 1) Conserve markets against undue private monopolization and governmental dictate; 2) Conserve earth, more by wise management of broad parameters and incentives for markets and assimilable demographics than by detailed governmental intrusion. "Forcing" Christianity: Thoughtful conservatives are about human dignity, not about forcing submission to Christianity, any more than they are about forcing submission to Islam, or to stifling governmental intrusion. That is, they are less about forcing than about communicating ideals of human dignity --- as broadly reflected in our Judeo-Christian background. Religion-phobics need to get a grip! One can respect one's "God" (Jesus, Government, Earth, Goodness, Whatever) in relation to traditional sacred stories and figures of speech, without worrying that every Conservative is plotting unceasingly to force the "salvation of every benighted soul." We badly need public servants who stand more for preserving civilizing opportunities for human dignity than for engaging in factional raids between gangs of opportunism. Politics should not extort "gimmes" for businesses or gangs, but should entail devotion to preserving broad parameters for a commonly civilizing environment. Politicians should be less like commercial competitors and more like referees of competitors. Political parties should be less about class warfare than about philosophies-in-action for how to preserve a social system that best avails human dignity. For that, Conservatives trust to teaching self reliance within a system of managed competition. As opposed to using government as guarantor that everyone will be picked up and redirected every time they fall.
****
Larrey Anderson:
I don't do this often, but as time permits I want to answer some of these comments. I will try to stick to one idea at a time. Libertarianism. I consider myself a civil libertarian. Anyone familiar with the bulk of my work on AT will understand this. (You can go to the AT archives and click on Larrey Anderson to see previous articles.) That being made clear, the Libertarian Party is not the right party for conservatives. There is one HUGE reason for this: Christianity. Ayn Rand was an atheist. Without getting into a theological debate, these two ideas (libertarianism and Christianity) do not make good bed fellows. The practical, moral, and philosophical differences between the two ideologies are simply insurmountable. There is a corollary to this argument. (There goes my one idea at a time commitment.) Conservative Christians have been too nice for far too long -- politically speaking. (Please read my recent articles on GW Bush to get some feel for this problem.) If conservatism is going to take back the GOP, conservative Christians need to be less forgiving of the politicians in the GOP. They really need to go reread the New Testament. Look for a verse that begins: "Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος ...." Hint: Matthew 22:21
14 comments:
MANAGING HUMAN DIGNITY:
Death of Republican Party; Rise of Conservative Party:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/will_the_gop_deafult.html
Managing Markets:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/democracy_and_the_shock_doctri.html:
I love the theory.
But capitalism cannot rule either, when markets are no longer competitive, but have become just as rigged by money managers as the will of the people has become rigged by politicians (and their sponsoring money monopolists).
Presently, we do not have rule of either the "will of the people" or of "market based capitalism."
Rather, we have rule of the manufactured will of the people and of the manufactured demand of monopolists.
Which is to say, we have rule of Ilk, like Soros.
We are at a stage where, if we wish for government not to regulate people piecemeal, it must at least regulate or restore markets. That is to say: To save non-regulation, we must regulate it. Easy to say; hard to do.
But, presently, what is supposed as good for money managing monopolists is what is supposed as good for government.
This is more like sedition and tyrrany than freedom.
Managing Population and Environment:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/the_artificial_reality_of_the.html:
"They perpetuate the Malthusian myth that the world faces inexorable population increases, when the truth is that man is poised to experience a "demographic winter," a population implosion."
I agree with most of your examples.
However, on demographics and overpopulation, regardless of danger, why should not society, using various broadly based social or governmental incentives, seek to encourage (not necessarily require) more of an aesthetic balance among types and varieties of expression in our common biosphere?
Going further, if human civilization is to harvest blessings of "Big Science," for us to sustain and perhaps even to surpass ourselves, perhaps to venture to the stars, or to prepare to disarm those asteroids which, in due time, otherwise would have collision with Earth written in their destinies, then should we rely not just on random markets, but also on purposeful and combined efforts?
To imply we should just leave it all up to random breeding, chance, or God is to ignore that we are part of the mix of chance and part of the mechanism through which God acts. Such would not be a sufficiently reasoned answer.
Crony Capitalism:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/murthafunded_firms_busted.html
Trading Freedom for Security:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/a_stalinist_arrest_in_kazakhst.html
Big Brother Indoctrination:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/the_meat_and_potatoes_of_child.html
Freedom to speak ObamaSpeak:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/shut_up_he_explained.html;
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/a_inconvenient_man_dies_in_rus.html.
Leftist Hypocrisy:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/will_the_real_imperialist_plea_1.html;
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/pinchs_den_of_thieves.html;
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/cnn_seems_to_criticize_gop_par.html.
Leftist Redistribution:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/pelosi_engaged_in_class_warfar.html.
Classless BDS and Leftist Alinsky Strategems:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/classless_to_the_last.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/bush_and_the_bushhaters.html:
RE: EDS
I can no more understand the hatred for Bush than I can the hatred for Jews. Dems often say they just want to give the world a hug (to be financed by other people's money, of course), even as they want to stone Bush.
BDS is too confined a description. What ails Dems is far more serious. Call it EDS --- Entitlement Derangement syndrome.
This is your brain; this is your Dem brain on government....
Anyone watch Keith'y boy tonight, on MSNBC? The man is a certifiable whack job.
Get ready for a ride on the EDS loony train express.
I think Conservatives should fund a new loony tunes cartoonist.
The possible characters are richly hysterical.
Torture:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/obama_outlaws_legal_interrogat.html
Islamofascism and Muslim Mob Rule:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/think_it_cant_happen_here.html;
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/geert_wilders_european_islam_a.html;
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/is_the_wilders_movie_fitna_a_d_1.html;
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/strange_doings_at_army_war_col.html.
Jews:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/what_is_it_about_the_jews_1.html;
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/who_said_it_bill_moyers_or_dav.html.
Cultural War:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/reality_check_single_mothers_a.html
Defending America and Borders:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/who_made_the_world_safer_bush.html
Un-American and The American Ideal:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/shocka_tom_hanks_now_thinks_mo.html
Americanism:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/the_triumph_of_hyphenism_1.html
Teleologicus said:
There is something pathetic in the fantasy of Mr.Obama and his frenzied followers and true believers that they are the remedy for the disorder and not the disorder itself. They will find soon enough that more is needed than fine talk and blaming somebody else for every disagreeable development.
No small part of the trouble is the absurd over-valuation of the political and its reduction to a mere mode of personal expression and egoistic aggrandizement. It is no coincidence that entertainers and celebrities along with music and what is left of the arts are always to be located at or near the barricades. This is where the action, the excitement, the novelty and the publicity are to be found.
People take up positions and assume postures in politics in order to fill up, round out, enliven, dignify or lend supposed substance to their lives. Much if not most of what the most vehement partisans believe is mere transcendental moonshine and unconstrained emotion. The political has become an end in itself, a mode of being and engagement with the world, rather than a means to an end. There are significant similarities between the fantaticism of Islamists and the howling, shouting, weeping, foot-stomping and fist-shaking exaltations of Western radicals and their assorted followers and useful idiots.
****
Well put. Many of our institutions socialize us not to sustain an American civilization, but to compete to entertain and aggrandize ourselves by coagulating in grievance groups, each to bludgeon all others.
Or, the aggrieved of my aggriever becomes my hyphenated friend.
I used to think living the American ideal was about learning how to express oneself while becoming self reliant within a system of managed competition. Now, I begin to suspect our schools and institutions have become corrupted to teach that the American ideal is about demanding hugs and (unsustainable) entitlements for every group.
Just say no.
****
Editorial from London Daily Mail:
Obama's Victory
A victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher
Jeremiah Wright, the mainstream media who abandoned any sense of
objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they
depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would
not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups. A victory
for Obama-worshipers everywhere. A victory for the cult of the cult.
A man who has done little with his life but has written about his
achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning
a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for
style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality.
A victory for Hollywood, the most dysfunctional community in the world.
Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros and Sarandon. Victory for those
who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For those
who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who
fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager political fashion.
Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have
already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced,
without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like
most liberal zealots, the Obama worshipers constantly speak of Fox and
Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are
drastically liberal and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer
said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio.
In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression
may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot
tolerate any criticism and opposition.
A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise
children than the family, for those who prefer teachers' unions to
teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is
sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as
quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity.
A victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the
painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure,
unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory
for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and
urban snobs.
Congratulations America!
MANAGING MARKETS:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/markets_and_marxists_dont_mix.html:
The Humungus ---
Thanks for the clear and brief explanation of credit default swaps!
Given your explanation, I begin to doubt that Warren Buffet did not understand such devices or appreciate their risk.
Rather, I suspect many professionals did understand them and did foresee the gathering Ponzi storm.
1) So, are better regulations in place now?
2) Why did no one regulate then?
3) Was it because beneficiaries of this greedy mode of operation were buying influence both from Repubs and from Dems? If so, what is to be done?
4) Should capacity for buying influence be reduced? How?
5) Or should regulations be adequately crafted to preclude such elaborate Ponzi inventions in the future? How?
6) What system of checks could better preclude people like Soros from simply rubbing their hands together in entertained glee while moving on to the next scheme for influencing and puncturing bubbles?
****
The Humungus:
Hoads...Gramm is wrong.
Remember, not only did Gramm fail the 6th grade three times, is Gramm a politician and not an economist. He's most likely to give you political explanation than an economic one. Put politics aside and listen for a moment.
When Banks and financial institutions are audited, they have to have a certain amount of assets (in their bank or bank accounts) to the amount that they've loaned out (it's called the reserve ratio). When I got out of college I went to work for a brokerage house and the reserve ratio was 10%. That is to say, if you had $1mil in deposits or reserves, you could lend out $10 million dollars on that reserve. When you were audited by the Federal Reserve regulators, and had $1 billion in loans out for example, the regulators would check to make sure you had $100 miliion in deposits or reserves . (by the way...I left the industry years ago and a friend tells me the reserve ratio has dropped from 10% to 3% but I can't verify that right now).
So when a bank or brokerage house was bumping up their reserve ratio limit, they would simply sell their loan to someone else. There are many places to sell the loans but they generally packaged into big pools and are sold to big pension plans, foreign governments, and average US investors in the form of CMO'S (collateralized mortgage obligations). I used to sell CMO's when I was a broker and they were very popular because they paid more than a govt bond and were backed by real estate.
OK SO FAR...............BUT LISTEN UP!!!!!!!!
These banks and brokerage houses were eager to sell their loans after they'd gotten their origination fees etc because it would allow them to originate more loans, get more fees and pay everyone fat salaries. The problem was the market was getting saturated and people were getting nervous. So Wall Street (not the govt), came up with a device called the CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP.
CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS
This is an agreement that says essentially "I'M SELLING YOU THIS POOL OF MORTGAGES (thus getting them off my books) AND IF THE POOL OF MORTGAGES DEFAULT...WE'LL BUY THEM BACK AT FACE VALUE.
This was a wonderful device because while the mortages were "TECHNICALLY" off your books. In reality you were still responsible for them in the event they defaulted. But to a govt regulator, you looked like you were in compliance with your reserve ratio requirement. The laws were such that they the CREDIT DEFAULT AGREEMENT that you entered into wasn't factored in when computing your reserve requirement (as it should have...because you were still responsible for the loans you supposedly sold).
Hoads, I know this is all dry and boring but you need to understand it. The credit default swaps were unregulated, not counted against a banks reserve requirement, and allowed them to leverage 30 and 50-1 when the law was 10-1 maximum. And when you're leverage 50-1, a mouse fart can bring your house down. And that's what happened. When a few defaults occured, the whole house of cards fell because it was so leveraged.
Politicians will use this opportunity not to really address the problem but to promote their wn ideology. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have very few subprime loans and that of the 24 subprime lenders who made subprime loans, only one of those 24 companies was subject to the Community Resinvestment act. The other 23 firms made sub-prime mortages not because Congress made them.....but because it made them a lot of money.
Hoad, this is a tale of greed and no regulation that allowed financial institutions (and ultimately homeowners) to get overleveraged. And having worked on "Wall Street" I can tell you that if Wall Street wasn't buying these mortgages they never would have been written. Remember that as long as there's a buyer for junk....somebody will supply junk.
Anyway, be careful about political parties blaming each other. This is a story about people wanting to make money and they found a loophole (credit default swaps) that allowed them to circumvent normal rules. What's sad is that guys like John Fuld of Lehman Bros, took home $24 million in 2007 while his company was going under. And this week, it came to light that Merril Lynch paid out $4 billion in bonuses while they were going under...it was one last chance to raid the till before the house came crashing down.
Now we the taxpayers get to bail them and Bank of America out While I rememer being told these people were making so much money because they were so smart. As it turns out, my little company has outlasted their compnies and these guys were just crooks who us taxpayers get to bail out their compnies as they relax on a sandy beach in some tax-haven island. They walked off with the profits while we were stuck with the bill.
Socialism? Yes...we privatized the profits and socialized the risks.
****
The Humungus said:
"The truth is that sometimes markets fail."
Well, of course they do.
The rub is, when should markets be allowed to correct themselves, and when should government enter the fray?
If you are frustrated that not enough concern is devoted to what to do about distortions of markets caused not by government but by off-the-charts private controllers of speculative wealth, I share your frustration.
Oddly enough, to protect our markets against being regulated by non-competitive monopolists and speculative forces, government must sometimes regulate. But, the purpose of such governmental regulation should be to restore markets with as little governmental intrusion as is necessary.
When markets become non-competitive, because controlled by wealthy owners and speculators, government should act to preserve or reset market balances of power.
This could be approached in various ways.
1) One way would be to progressively tax the consumption of those who accumulate disproportionate power to distort markets.
2) Another way would be to surrender pretense of competitive markets, as forces pressing for socialism accumulate.
3) Some believe a third way would be to intrude with detailed and transparent governmental regulations.
To me, the distinction between no. 3 and no. 2 seems often to be a distinction without much of a difference.
Regardless, what would be so bad about no. 1?
(BTW, as a reader of A.T., you must know that that A.T. folks have weighed in against Bush's hard turn towards socialism.)
****
Optimus Maximus said:
"I believe all contributions to the Republican National Party should cease until the current leadership is canned, and we have some RNC supported, unabashed free market consertatives as candidates."
Well, the modern Lead Dogs don't need either the Dem or the Repub party. They already own both. They do not need our money anymore. They now have money coming out every orifice, sort of like the giant cockroach in "Men In Black."
What they need is illusion of popular support. Notice how both Libs and Bluebloods supported open borders? And how Obama courted world opinion? Notice how Obama-McCain (Tweedledee-Tweedledum) deluded voters? Notice how MSM and academia fell over backwards to help Obama go about deluding the masses? So, now we have Soros' Open Society and Obama's fair society. Sort of like Pinnochio skipping off to the open, fair society of jackasses.
It is the illusion of popular support that has to be dispelled --- soon! MSM and politically correct academia must be accorded, in public, the full measure of ridicule, shame, and contempt they have so richly earned. As well as Rinos and Dem Marxists. They are, one and the same, sinking the American Ideal (or, as Soros would say, bursting America's bubble).
Dems tend to be ignorant whore dogs. Rinos tend to be conniving whore dogs. But they both are whore dogs. America can do better.
****
hoads said:
"Corporations are the whores of our economy, know full well the Washington game and jump in bed with whoever holds power."
More like whore dogs. Once submitting to surrender one's self respect and freedom of enterprise, the view of the dog's behind ahead is always the same, whether the lead dog smells of mafia, nomenklatura, or jihadism.
Now, to get his initial boost, the "New Entrepeneur" knows to look for funding and assistance from the New Leader --- Government. So, welfare for corporations comes to make welfare for individuals look like cheap dog slop.
Because Repubs and Dems play the same game, looking to Government for handouts, we have lost substantive mechanisms for checking markets against corruption. So, corruption plays an increasing hand: go along and get along.
We are mucked in an economy of neck harnesses for the conditioned-to-be-ignorant and submissive masses, with thinned-out middle class, controlled by corruption at the top.
Contributing either to Repubs or Dems is a false choice. Our modern leaders don't care a whit about ideology, other than that everyone else loses. Thus, the previously referenced 60/40 split. The once proud American Ideal is being pulled down into the same slough of muck and mud that has forever besieged the rest of the world.
Useful idiot Libs think this is the shape of paradise to come. Opportunistic pols aspire to nothing more than to move closer along the harness line to the lead dog. Will lovers of freedom learn in time that fully half the population does not share their love?
Join or die.
MOVEMENT TOWARDS MARXISM:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/seduced_by_change.html:
Lanyon,
I hope you are wrong, but, with good cause, fear you are right.
Somehow, fully half of us have been persuaded or seduced to sell out our individual dignity in trade for vague promises of equality in entitlements. This is insanity to every person inclined to think beyond the constant conditioning of Big Brother, now everywhere soothing us, in media, academia, and politics.
How does one transcend conditioning and experience to think for oneself? To my thinking, only in respect of reaching to appreciate "God" does one transcend one's conditioning. Fortunately, all of us "reach," whether or not we know it or appreciate it. The problem is, those who believe they have given up on God tend to reach more feebly, even though God has not given up on them. In their thinking, markets are evil (or torture), and government is salvation.
Because most of them have not had a D.I. put a healthy boot to their sorry asses (read "My Grandfather's Son"), it may fall to conservatives to band together to fulfill that role, if things continue to fall towards Lib fascism.
Here's the difference: Conservatives will eventually put a boot to sorry Lib asses to move them towards individual self respect and self reliance. Otherwise, Fascists will put their boot to everyone, to turn us all into collective cattle, to be herded, worked, and farmed, making a mockery of MLK's words, "Free at last!"
****
“… you have yet to prove Obama promulgates anything Wright has uttered. He opposes gay marriage ….”
Well, we shall see if Obama opposes gay marriage (BTW, do you?) or if he simply declines to invest political capital.
“To monger polygamy is quite comical.”
Twenty years ago, to “monger” gay marriage would have been quite comical…
“I don’t think Obama is moving to end markets…”
Government intrusion in markets, by its nature, necessarily distorts markets. Increased involvement by government has facilitated: banks buying up banks; college tuition increases on account of government education loans; home prices exceeding real values as government insures cheap loans. We can look forward to: government make-work programs for driving up labor costs for real work; environmental restrictions for reducing numbers of competitors; etc.
Look, if government were wise, this would be less of a problem. But government tends simply not to be wise. Some things, depending on scale and commonality (defense, border patrol, infrastructure, big science) are best done or managed by government. Other things simply invite abuse by corrupt politicians for writing regulations to reward cronies by protecting them against competition. This hampers markets.
“Fairness,” “equality,” “entitlement,” redistribution,” and “reparations” tend to be Lib code words and euphemisms to cover corrupt pols as they engage in political crony capitalism, aka, socialism for the political in-crowd.
****
“… do you advocate a violent overthrowing of our government?”
I would not advocate a violent change of government, unless America were to sink to intolerable levels of fascism.
The Second Amendment helps give Lib fascists pause, before embarking on grand schemes to overthrow American fundamentals. Check out Obama’s friend, Bill Ayers, in “Prairie Fire.”
****
“All those I know presently serving do not condone torture and last I heard, the DOD doesn’t decide whether America tortures or not, the “people do”.”
Hell, man, just in my 1968 training at Fort Belvoir, my class of Army Combat Engineer “smeac beans” was greeted at our off loading bus stop with immediate orders to drop into mud during a torrential downpour and low crawl to our barracks. Inside, we were promptly ordered to strip, soap down, and then scrub the floors using our chests. That evening, we were instructed to ensure the floor was waxed to perfection for morning inspection. About 2:30 a.m., our TAC officer arrived and harranged us for violating curfew by not being in our bunks. Punishment, of course, consisted of dumping all our lockered gear onto a pile on the floor, mixing it around, and then reporting outside in 5 minutes to go on a long booney run. At 4:30 a.m., we were bugled to fall into formation in the rain to sing patriotic songs about the Corps of Engineers and the Grand Old Flag.
This sort of thing continued relentlessly during the first 60 days of our training. During that time, we were allowed to eat very, very little from what was “served” on our meal trays. We survived by surreptitious 1 a.m. "pogey bait" runs and lunching down on the occassional fresh piece of chicken palmed quickly from dempsey dumpsters we might pass near mess halls. Those who fell asleep too frequently in class were promptly flunked out and sent directly to Nam, as privates. The rest of us maxed out on No-Doz, while we would stand all during class, still sometimes falling asleep while standing, falling on our faces. During summer forced marches, more like runs in full battle gear, not one person in our company gave up and walked. The six who flunked on account of forced “marches” were those who passed out, some hitting their heads on pavement as they fell. For our escape and evasion training, our “enemy” consisted of recently returned vets from Nam. When I maneuvered through the swamp, found the “POW” camp around 2:30 a.m., and slipped by, I heard cries and sobs of captured classmates.
Compared to battle, this was TRIVIAL! This was called “good training.” Not a one of us ever dreamed to consider it “torture.” None of us would dream of comparing such training to battle. This is because we all knew about Bataan. That is, we were educated about what real torture was. But, now, shall we find book-educated femi-men and judges trending to call such prolonged enforcement of discomfiture "torture"?
BTW, at Omaha Beach, WWII, as troops waded in from small boats, being machine gunned to pieces, with officers forcing and urging them on, was that “torture”?
My father served at French Frigate Island in the Pacific in WWII. My uncles served, one with Army Rangers in Guadacanal. My cousins served, both in Nam, one on a Swift Boat. Myself and my three other brothers served, one in the Navy, two in Nam, myself near the DMZ in Korea. Every one of us volunteered.
Nowadays, reading what various leftists and judges want to call “torture,” I shake my head and wonder how these people expect much longer to find troops willing to defend their sorry asses. Which is why I asked whether you had served.
****
“… one reason to shore up our borders.”
A point of agreement!
****
“A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.”
By analogy, I would agree that even dogs may have a full life, even without words.
But man does have words, which increase man’s powers to pursue meaningfulness.
Properly understood, “God” is the essence of “The Word.”
Man may have a full life without reference, in word sounds, to “God.”
But acknowledging God increases man’s power to receive meaningfulness, beyond the realm of the everyday routine.
With or without religion, words may inspire or convey a spirit of empathy, or --- often more so without religion --- words may divide and excite rancor.
But most of the “vexing” I see in the U.S. nowadays comes not from Christians but from “Believers In Reason,” who seem never to tire of warring against public expressions of spiritual, empathetic sentiments and spiritual, traditional figures of speech.
"Something" sources us. I have no way to know whether it may be "conscious" in any way that could relate to me (whatever "me" is). I intuit that it is "conscious enough." Whether you so believe seems not particularly important (or vexing) to me. But I think it is important for you to believe Some basis justifies our common search for moral meaningfulness. I do not think that basis can easily be compartmented in "Reason," free of higher Intuition.
****
Lanyon:
It's very simple...... Obama is a tool of a group of white men, financed by Soros, guided by Axelrod, ramroded by Rhambo and with a cadre of enablers, have hijacked our country in order to convert it into Socialism. This bloodless coup was inspired by Alinsky and they used his Rules to undermine our political society and, with the use of ACORN, managed to stuff the ballot boxes with enough votes to paralyze the counters who ran out of time. Add to this the fact that the "oppressed" black population wanted to get even with whitey, and whitey has been suffering from "white guilt", and with the collaboration of the useful idiots that abound were able to pull the biggest scam in the history of this country. Now, it's up to us (conservatives, Christians, or people of sound judgement, good moral convictions) to counter this evil movement with the same strategies, except that this time we will be doing the counting..... no matter how long it takes. We must dethrone career politicians, corrupt members of Congress, eradicate community organizers (thugs), take back our education system (local boards of education), support our church leaders to speak out, get rid of activist judges and create a strong movement to email and fax blast our politicians so that they are forced to do their job and represent our wishes.
****
"Oh I have a moral compass which is anchored in reason."
If you believe in any real basis for morality, to my interpretation, that basis is your "God" --- whether you wish to admit it or not.
Regardless, I find it odd that you assert "reason" as your God. When I talk with Libs, many words come to mind, but "reasonable" is not typically one of them. Rather, Libs I have known are more like leaves of sympathy, blowing in the wind. In other words, their "God" is Feelings, i.e., sympathy, masquerading under the label "Reason."
"You are not suggesting that only someone who believes in Christ can be moral, are you?"
Not at all. One's conditioning may inform a belief, whether that belief is consciously appreciated or not.
"Even monkeys have a sense of fairness."
I agree. All good monkeys go to heaven.
"As I said, if religion was so intrinsic to our polity, our Founders would have made religion an integral part of the Constitution."
I am not talking about religion.
I am saying one has faith in some Real Basis for morality or one does not.
If you do not, why are you talking about morality?
****
" I suggest navigation between the extremes, not fearful vilification and blame."
I suggest you cannot navigate without a moral compass.
There is no moral compass in words like "change," "moderation," "progress," "equality," "fairness," or "indifferent survival of the fittest."
This sort of navigation with no star is why Libs are unable to stand for anything.
It is why Libs do not believe in their own words or in any real basis for morality.
It is why Libs will always lack the stones and vision not to tolerate the overruning and demise of their own society.
I sense you navigate with sympathy.
Instead, tie a real basis for empathy to your words, which, otherwise, are meaningless in themselves.
Ask: In empathetic respect of what system of civilizing mores and real Source of common good would parameters for respecting individual expressions of human dignity best be protected and availed?
Answer: Look beyond governmental dictate. Look to the common Source of all perspectives of consciousness.
****
“James Madison said the highest purpose of government is to improve the lot of the people”
You don’t improve the lot of anyone by taking over his individuality.
“You pre-judge Obama”
No, I watch and judge every day. I watch his empty rhetoric, see how he uses it to justify specific actions, and watch as he turns civilizing mores upside down. For years, he attended a church that was more concerned about black liberation theology than about human freedom and dignity for all. Obama is about “do ask do tell” in the military. He will not use the bully pulpit to talk down gay “marriage.” Next stop: legalized polygamy.
I suspect Obama will be disinclined to take steps needed to protect against: the establishment of enclaves of Sharia Law for Muslim communities; adequately fenced and enforced borders; authentication of legality of voters’ status.
He will continue to advocate teaching communities how to coagulate into co-dependently aggrieved groups in order to extract OPM out of public revenues. He will sell out the American Ideal by falling in line behind faux socialistic overlords (Soros).
I see nothing to stop him, and nothing in Lib theology to slow him.
“What kind of human freedom and dignity exist for starving people?”
Libs love this “argument” as justification for erasing borders and national identities.
A better question is, what kind of human freedom and dignity has any socialistic country in history ever preserved for its survivors? In other words, how many more people do you want to starve, before you will admit socialism is bankrupt when it fails to respect markets?
“Who will protect our water and air”
A free, educated, and competitive electorate.
BTW, this would best be helped by broad governmental incentives to reduce population growth.
I would be with you on that. Provided, by means other than partial birth abortions, or encouraging single girls to seek to have children.
“Does religion teach you that Markets are gods in no need of correction, fairness or regulation?”
No. I have said regulation is needed, not to end markets, but to preserve and reset them.
Government has a small place --- to preserve markets.
“now the arms market is robust.”
Damn straight! Wasted message to deluded Libs: Americans will not lay down to take a massive turn to socialism.
Watch and resist: Efforts to emasculate the Second Amendment and to expand restrictions against anti-Obama speech.
“While I will watch from the center for any attempt by Liberals to substitute government for God, Obama has yet to do so.”
Watch, as traditional charities fall by the wayside, to be replaced by “efficiently run” government bureaucracies.
“He has made it clear he will not condone torture. Do you object?”
Have you ever served in the military?
“Do you prefer unlimited population growth?”
No! Do you think government handouts, open borders, and free citizenship for ER born babies will slow it?
“Don't be so quick to vilify the President. Isn't this what you disliked the Left for doing to Bush?”
I villify no one. I also know that a leopard does not easily change its spots. I believe in preserving competitive markets as much as can reasonably be done, rather than in overstating emergencies in order to excite ever greater intrusions of governmental regulation. Given Obama’s background and training, anyone believing in the American Ideal and individual freedom and dignity will be bird dogging Obama every step of the way.
****
Maxtrue said:
" If the author dismisses such an essential attribute of humans to change and improve, then perhaps he has no problem with living in a cave and trying to keep his fire alive."
The author is talking about tried and true ways for preserving a civilization that respects individual initiative. America has been more about change than any nation in history. And America has brought that about not by dismantling public mores, but by assimilating and respecting them. This is what has kept us free, until recently, from snowballing, stifling governmental regulation.
You are talking about a way of using government to foster corruption of the very public mores that have been conducive to our exercise of individual initiative. Just what sort of society do you imagine would rise out of Marxist intrusion of government and destruction of public mores?
If you want stagnation and submission, look to history to see the effects of secular and sectarian societies built on socialism. Free your mind!
Conservatives are not about Marxist change you can believe in. We are about principles you can believe in. Now go do something constructive.
****
Maxtrue said:
"... if you think the smart political slogan should be to get behind God rather than our President ...."
We think we should get behind human freedom and dignity.
This is fostered by respect for free expression and enterprise, i.e., marketplaces of ideas and goods, managed by government only insofar as needed to preserve civilized competition.
Obama is less about free markets than about using government to make the masses do what is best for them.
In other words, his real God is Government.
You sound like that is right up your alley. Praise Marx!
(Not.)
COLLECTIVE SECURITY AND SLOUCHING TOWARDS GOMORRAH VS. TOUGH LOVE:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/defect_analysis_and_liberalism.html:
Re: Libs and Single Moms ---
see [www.americanthinker.com].
****
DH: “OK. So how do we explain these little problems? Not enough faith in God? Too much regulation? Are these just "Special Problems" which we just ignore or, get government out of the way and let the market place handle?”
No. Call on Militant Atheists and Secular Humanists to stop waging war to replace our Judeo-Christian culture with Government; were they to heed, you would then discover you don’t need so much government.
DH: “The Christian church I attended literally taught us, "God helps he who helps himself."”
Well, one can twist to find an expert, a church, an argument for anything. But I do not think you have examined your own heart or begun to consider the main issues and concerns I have repeated several times. In any event, they are again repeated elsewhere in this post, below.
DH: “First of all drawing lines when they are not in strict adherence to some specific code or source is fraught with difficulty.”
….
“We use "Rough Spot Training" (Goggle it) to change the cultural believe that people can't control their emotions and need to "get them out" when they are blowing up in public. That does not happen in our building. We use "16 Habits of Mind" (Goggle it) to teach the personal habits accompanying good students and good learners. We let people in trouble with the law or receiving public benefits do community service and we acculturate them in these ways. “
Well, that’s a start. More than I would have expected from a modern Lib. Yet, so far, you have still not addressed core concerns I see as of prime importance for sustaining a viable civilization.
You say you are a Lib.
So, AM I WRONG that the implicated modern Agenda for Libs (your agenda) tends to be consistent with the following treatments for the sort of "line" issues I see as antagonistic to civilization:
1) Continuous constricting of religious traditions (pushing to an end to religious expression);
2) “Do ask do tell” in the military [see also [www2.tbo.com]];
3) Gay marriage;
4) Legalized polygamy (next stop);
5) Enclaves of Sharia Law for Muslim communities (after all, why not?) [see [www.americanthinker.com]];
6) Government enabling of, and incentives for, young girls to become single moms;
7) Open (unfenced and inadequately enforced) borders;
8) Voter registration for illegals (prohibition of effective ID authentication);
9) Overruning of America with unassimilating Hispanic and Islamic cultures (amnesty; bilingual education in every language; citizenship by birth in ER’s; home state tuition for illegals);
10) Undermining fundamental ideals for becoming a self reliant and market-competitive American (teaching communities how to coagulate into co-dependently aggrieved groups in order to extract OPM out of public revenues);
11) Selling out the American Ideal by falling in line behind frontmen (Obama) for faux socialistic overlords (Soros).
I see no adequate brake that would stop "progressive" Libs from pushing past these lines. Do you? Rather, I fully expect Libs will make common cause until every line of civilizing decency is crossed. That is, unless the citizenry ever awakens with enough of a Red As* to start manning some fire hoses.
It is on these kinds of core concerns that I doubt modern libs would have found common cause with our liberal founders.
See also [www.americanthinker.com].
Regardless of formal positioning, do you really think modern Libs have backbone to continue to resist any of the above 11 trends?
****
1) all manner of public indecencies... [San Francisco]
Well, here is a tame version, from your “proud” State:
[www.worldnetdaily.com].
For more, check out various photos by “Zombie,” on Little Green Footballs.
Warning: Shows San Francisco values at their most depraved.
2) dismantling of constitutions...
This took off with Roe v. Wade and has had never stopped since.
See also recent articles by our own Larrey Anderson:
[www.americanthinker.com];
[www.americanthinker.com];
[www.americanthinker.com].
3) anarchic destruction of civilizing norms...
[www.moonbattery.com];
[www.americanthinker.com];
[www.pytlik.com].
4) student led shouting down of unwelcome speech...
[www.columbia.edu];
[sweetness-light.com];
[sweetness-light.com];
[www.military.com];
[www2.tbo.com].
See also media bias at [www.americanthinker.com];
[www.americanthinker.com];
[www.americanthinker.com];
[www.americanthinker.com].
“I had come to expect more from you than to take individual behavior and use it as representing the philosophy. This is disingenuous. Those situations are wrong and there is not a liberal who would support those actions. “
On the contrary, the problems as listed are commonplace. If you are a Lib, you either know that, or are uninformed, or being disingenuous.
Well, among classic Liberals and our Founders, you would be right. But, among modern Libs, you are not.
Actually, given google, your “assignment” wasn’t very hard.
In fact, one need not even stray far from The American Thinker, where our friend, Larrey Anderson, has himself written about some of this.
****
So, on social issues, I have the conservative Red As*.
On tax and revenue issues, I want both extremes moderated.
That is, I do not want income taxes used for direct wealth redistribution.
And I do not want plutocrats to be allowed to obtain or exercise monopoly like powers over influencing our politicians.
I want "managed markets," not monopolized or unregulated markets.
So, I want a progressive consumption tax, with revenues to go mainly to development of neutral infrastructure.
This is "Red As* Moderation."
Not at all like "jumbo shrimp." .
Bottom line: Work to nourish a civilization that is stable, sustainable, and amenable of surpassage.
****
I shake my head, trying to understand by what perversion of logic or intuition one should suppose that God gave us free will in this life only to insist that we not use it, or that we surrender it entirely to Allah or to Marxist Government. The common goal of all Americans, Dems and Repubs alike, should be to preserve markets that avail opportunities for each to pursue growth in expression --- in both mental and physical enterprises.
Yet, modern liberals appear to believe any sort of competitive market will always present a “common problem,” requiring intrusively detailed supervision by government. In what principled areas would modern liberals stay the heavy hand of government? Government has become their God.
Where is their concern for preserving semblance of competitive markets, or for respecting property rights of others? So far, I have not detected how their basic orientation differs from that of diehard Marxists, who still believe Marxism has just not yet been done right.
Cons at least offer this general guidance: That government is best that governs no more than is necessary in order to afford room for family values and freedom of expression.
Mainly, modern liberals blithely throw rocks at conservatives, while offering no alternative guidance. Basically, their arguments reduce to crying Cons are no better, especially inasmuch as they are unable to prove to their satisfaction any possible receptivity to our being guided in respect of God.
I am having difficulty appreciating how the Lib thought process differs from that of Annie Doh, in “Oklahoma!” Simply put, Cons do not believe there is much virtue in Annie Doh’s orientation, as a “girl that just can’t say no.” [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHS2S_Y4fCA]
What modern Lib has yet addressed how they should muster will to say no? In that evasion, do they at least have the “spit in his eye” part of Annie Doh down pat? After awhile, one begins to appreciate Ann Coulter’s position regarding Libs.
Modern Libs have convinced me that they see “no problems” with: Continuous curtailment of religious traditions; “do ask do tell” in the military; gay marriage; legalized polygamy; government enabling and incentives for young girls to become single moms; open borders; voter registration for illegals; overruning of America with unassimilating cultures; undermining fundamental ideals for what it has meant to be American; undermining protecton of freedom of expression within competitive markets; allowing foreign marches towards death-dealing secular and religious fascism to go unimpeded (apart from “giving them a good talking to”); erasing international borders to force unready cultures into a boiling mix; and herding all to be collectively “entitled to be ruled” by sociopathic overlords.
I fail to see how this Leftist Agenda is compatible with sustaining any sort of decent civilization. Rather, I see it as a quick, slick slide to gross corruption.
Perhaps, our society has been infected by some sort of mental virus. If so, it appears mere talk of hope between Libs and Cons will not resolve their differences. So far, I detect little willingness among deluded, “tolerant,” Libs to consider how to draw lines to preserve decency in civilization. What modern Lib has offered any such lines?
So, I think we are soon coming to a roadblocking eruption. Once an eruption comes to be clearly unavoidable, it may be best that it come sooner rather than later. Otherwise, Thelma (Entitlement Dems) and Louise (Corporate Welfare Repubs) are racing us to a precipice.
So long as Dems and Repubs, as competing parties, think each has uncovered the “Philosopher’s Stone" for prescribing every legalistic nit, both will remain ripe for being picked by other-minded opportunists. There is no such thing as a Philosopher’s Stone.
There is before us, however, an example from God. What Libs tend to call evolution, Cons tend to call “managed competition.” That is, free will afforded from a managing God has guided us to our present situation.
Oddly enough, even as Libs deny God, they seek to substitute Government, as ultimate guiding manager (more like dictator) of competition. Thus, Libs refuse to be humbly receptive to guidance from God for judging when, and when not, to intrude. Rather, for Libs, everything is a “common problem” for government, for which bright atheists and agnostics have answers --- right down to the last nit of legalistic intrusion. Which may explain why they appear to have no brakes when it comes to “giving” of other people’s property --- or even sensibilities of basic human dignity and decency.
By investing trust in (God) given good faith for managing institutions for checking us within parameters of constructive competition, we may yet avoid turning our rule over to a sociopathic cohort of intrusive cynics and snarks, driving us to a precipice. Otherwise, considering WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Cold War, etc., we appear overdue for an eruption.
****
DH:
“I'm a liberal and I think this works pretty well.
Liberalism - political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.”
I think modern Liberalism, as practriced, has twisted, to confuse: individual freedom with freedom to gang together to imposition general society with all manner of public indecencies; parliamentary systems of government with dismantling of constitutions; nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions with student led shouting down of unwelcome speech; unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor with anarchic destruction of civilizing norms; governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties with massive governmental intrusion in order to equalize entitlements among every random group that comes together to express grievances.
In other words, modern liberalism has become quite opposed to the liberalism envisioned by our founders.
DH:
“I think the further definition of "showing or characterized by broad-mindedness" should also be the hallmark of a liberal.”
I think modern libs confuse broad mindedness with inability to draw lines, even to the point of tolerating their own destruction, as by erasing borders to invite the overruning of unassimilable cultures that are quite opposed to classic liberalism.
DH --- family values:
“What is the cause and effect?”
The cause is non-belief, inculcated by “scientists,” in any real basis for moral conduct, thus exposing all to no reason to check any temptation or immediate gratification. Indeed, greed and gratification have, for many, become equated to goodness. The offering up by “bright” agnostics of “Government” as our new god for judging and allocating goodness is no better than the golden calf of the Israelites in the time of Moses. By our loss of faith (regardless of literalism), we are become the cause.
DH:
“Again, you seem to be controlled by your own favored media by taking the worlds ills and blaming it on ideologies you, or they, oppose.”
I do not see them as ideologies. I see them as mind viruses. Were they ideologies, they would lead us to means for drawing lines for leading us to moral meaningfulness. They do not. Have you offered any lines? In what way do you defend public decency, free markets, or rights of property, free from governmental confiscation for any random purpose?
DH:
“My kids support themselves, pay their taxes, are very pleasant and voted for Obama.”
Your kid are living under the protection afforded by Americans who are able to draw moral lines.
DH:
“the political correctness surrounding diversity is the grease that reduces cultural friction”
Not quite. The political correctness surrounding diversity is what allows unassimilable cancers to grow until they become incurable. To protect the weak, so that they need not assimilate or become strong Americans, we are making our civilization weak.
DH:
“as for the ACLU, well, I won't open that can of worms other than to say I believe they are being quite true to Jefferson”
No. Their priorities have become twisted and counterproductive to sustaining a decent civilization. See discussion about classic liberalism, above.
DH:
“Corruption will be with us as long as there are people. We must control it with our values, our laws and our institutions, including the "Fourth Estate."”
We cannot control it. We can guide ways to reduce and manage it. We cannot do this by relying on ACLU nit picking litigation, nor by dismantling and undermining bases for beliefs in moral norms, nor by allowing our “Fourth Estate” to fall under control of monopolists. Rather, reasoned hope consists in "managed competition" --- what Libs confuse with blind evolution.
****
DH: ("I told you we seem to see the world in similar ways. I sort of think of the world as my family. The Love and Logic approach really helps define boundaries in a practical and philosophically meaningful way."):
I may more closely share your sentiment, were you to renounce wishing to share OPM in order to spread wealth, without consideration for how to restrict such efforts to legitimate or constitutional methods and purposes.
Maybe the world should function based on "lynay," but it does not. In respect of how the world does function, I do not see any Categorical Imperative as justifying a ruling bloc in taking from some to give what is not theirs to others. Especially when the ruling bloc tends to switch back and forth every 4 years or so. And especially when there are extant rulers of the ruling blocs. That is, in effect, Dems and Repubs have both become servants of a superior cohort --- one that distracts us with promises while it consolidates its hold over us. To have a prayer, intelligent and decent Dems and Repubs will have to unite and reassert control over their true and common antagonist --- a cohort of sociopaths, immune to the entreaties of empathetic folk.
The Categorial Imperative pertains to what you should do; not so much to what you should presume to require other people to do. The Christian God invites us to come of our own free will. The Islam God cares little whether you come of free will, so long as you come in submission. I see no good reason to bend Kant to the service of Allah.
Regardless of legitimacy, some examples of purposes: Reducing the size of the Gini index; securing a healthy, educated, and viable work force; securing families as they raise their children (replacement workers); and funding and maintaining common infrastructure.
Respecting legitimacy, I am wary of just throwing money at groups of people, as we have been doing, to buy votes from all classes, whether poor, affluent, or corporate. Whether constitutional or not, our usages of revenues from income taxation (or reverse credit redistributions) have brought us to a quick, slick path to corruption (get yours while the gettin's good).
So, I mentally experiment with a notion of a progressive consumption tax, not to redistribute wealth, but to finance common infrastructure (and to bring financial sociopaths to heel). Even though, eventually, pols would come to expand the definition of “infrastructure” to include day care centers, schools, hospitals, recreation centers, and even midnight basketball.
Aside from such stretches, there is another big problem: The more we turn our kids and society over to random, secular managers of such facilities, the more they are exposed to random, secular notions about civilizing values.
I think strong families and family values are crucial to a viable civilization. But, the greater the secular intrusion by government, the more I see the undermining of sustainable values. I think ACLU priorities are pushing us towards a rapid fall. Trends favored by militant atheists, secular humanists, diversity dupes, UU’s, and the ACLU, in other words, those presently driving the value-outcomes of our governmental expenditures, are whacked out.
I have been unable to imagine how any person of worldly experience and education could believe such mis-placed priorities would be beneficial for serving a stable, sustainable, surpassable civilization. Given the presently superior position of values of corruption, it seems to me the best general guidance is not to feed the government monster --- except where there is convincing reason (back to the burden of proof, or mind-set).
****
DH:
Dlanor: the good faith in the core of one’s being is more important than any provocative label (even a label of atheism) by which one may wish to be called.
Much agreed. And might we add conservative or liberal or Muslim or Morman? Isn't that, "don't judge a book by it's cover?" Isn't this the basis of tolerance?
Well, not quite. I certainly do judge, including by covers and by appearances! How else could I make any preliminary assessments? But I am not bigoted so as to make final judgments. I leave that to God. So, when someone says they are an atheist, I do make preliminary assessments. Then I may explore further. Then I modify as seems appropriate. I try to be open to an inherent dignity in most people --- even when their culture appears to have conditioned them towards selfishness. I have found, generally, that there are persons who do profess atheism so militantly as to shout and drown out all capacity for discussion. Sort of like BDS.
So, yes, I do "profile." Everyone has profiling biases. I certainly bring life experiences to bear in order to profile when I select juries, albeit, much more based on responses than on physical characteristics. To deny that is to be non-self-aware. But I always remain receptive to ongoing reevaluation.
****
BTW --- I think DMZ was the source to which your last post was directed.
DH: “I think you misinterpret. More like, "Love your neighbor as yourself." .[Matthew 22:39]”
Well, I do not pretend to be able to do that. Although, I think I am able to love my children more than myself. But, even for them, I value teaching them to weigh their own independence and dignity as more important than notions of social, co-dependent, entitlement-tarianism.
DH: 'that the conservative description of a competitive market place has never existed on this planet at any time"
As to the quote above: Well, I am not a Conservative, remember? I am an “Extreme Moderate.” [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WGjwNnq0Ic][“I believe anyone not in favor of moderation and compromise ought to be castrated.”]
I do not herein presume a rigorously researched or scientific categorization of a competitive market place. Mainly, I just mean to refer to something that ought not be controversial: That there are business enterprises which are not all that uncommon where there is enough arms length competition among producers so that they are constrained to respect market-based pricing and to avoid price fixing, more in respect of the commonality of their competitors than in respect of regulation by governmental intrusion.
I concede that increasing complexities of modern technology and big science drive economies of scale. So, the number and variety of "storefront" styles of competition diminishes. And, the need to protect the public by ensuring compatibility among component sets (electrical outlets, sizes of plugs, assignments of frequencies, widths of travel lanes) inevitably necessitates increasing regulation.
I concede that it is non-controversial that our economy must mix competitive markets with governmental regulation. In that respect, yes, our economy is not one of free markets nor one of socialism, but one of a mix. We all know this.
However, this does not alter my essential position (or mind-set): That governmental regulation should take care not to intrude more than is necessary to accomplish its purposes. And certainly not to regulate or force equality of income or wealth.
Oddly enough, however, REGULATION IS NEEDED TO PROTECT AGAINST OVER REGULATION. For that, GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO INTRUDE by establishing checks or means by which to protect its society, as to protect market mechanisms from falling under the dictate of a very few, who then would use their control to advantage themselves while undermining and putting the entire country to risk.
As to how to "draw the lines" to determine the best manner and mix of regulation, I concede I sense no clear formula. And so, enter politics. But, at least one's political orientation ought to be guided by something less base than "me first." And just because elites may lead them does not mean the masses are not united by base "Me First'ism."
Here is where I think political goals go awry:
1) (Enforced Equality) The goal of politics ought not be to surrender individual responsibility and dignity in order to define every significant feature of life as an entitlement, for which the “common problem” is to use government to enforce “free” equality [PINOCHIO PARTY] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzwjv5Zfw4M&feature=related; [www.youtube.com]];
2) (Movement Towards Communism) The goal of politics ought not be to define every significant private market as an affront to public welfare, for which the “common problem” is to make the government the owner or fine tuner of every enterprise;
3) (Movement Towards Aristocracy) The goal of politics ought not be to define private competitive markets as a “common problem,” for which the solution is to facilitate and protect private monopolization of every market of production and of political influence.
Regarding the “common problem” of care for the environment, there is stuff on the internet about Dr. Seuss and The Lorax [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lorax]. Also, the "Tragedy of the Cxommons." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons_(essay)#Garrett_Hardin.27s_essay] And, of course, John Stossel. Some folks take the moral to be that there should be more regulation; the lesson to others is that market competition among private competitors will often better ensure environmental stewardship.
I profess no precise, formulaic answers. My main guide is this: Assuming each of us is dignified as a perspective of God, how should we work to regulate our civilization in order to best protect individual dignity, while preserving a decent society that is stable, sustainable, and even amenable of surpassage? For that, I think we should be slow to throw away main traditions found in our Judeo-Christian heritage.
In our present culture, both libs and conservs seem often conditioned to prioritize as follows: ME FIRST; then MY environment; then you and everyone else.
Libs, for their “me first” (representing the less affluent) push spreading the wealth. Cons, for their “me first,” push protecting their earnings and winnings.
As an “Extreme Moderate” [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WGjwNnq0Ic] I am not into “Me First.” I am into, first, preserving an American ideal of civilizing dignity and decency for my children and posterity.
****
DMZ ---
You have interesting ideas.
Ideas that need to be brewed awhile.
Each person, in respect of his own dignity, needs to bring this life under his own interpretation.
If brewing is inspired, that may be service enough.
I feel the heat, but believe commitment should be reserved a notch or so back from total.
Otherwise, authenticity is diminished.
It's free thinking that you (and we) want.
And a government that does not pervert it.
Test: WWDCD --- what would (the authentic) Davy Crockett do?
Apart, I mean, from grinning down the bear until he came out of the woods and surrendered?
****
DH: “And I'm not an avowed atheist. Heck, there might be a God.”
Well, this would make you an agnostic, or a doubter, which is not altogether unlike a believer, in that neither “knows.” That is, believers also often doubt. If they did not, they would “know” (and by that I mean more than shouting how much they believe merely to cover what, in their hearts, they doubt). But, at least it puts you on reasonable ground, meaning ground shared with the rest of us mortals. Atheism, in any pure sense, is just not very defensible. At least, not to anyone who advocates (or “prays” for) moral guidance for a civilization.
But I think you give up on God too easily. After all, why should it surprise us that there are numerous word models for how to relate, figuratively, to God? When I pan for “god-gold,” I pan from a stream that mixes math, science, religious figures of speech, personal experience, and insight. With effort, I think each of us may pan for, and sense faint glimmers of, god-gold. But, our air-words are less important than our action-words. In other words, the good faith in the core of one’s being is more important than any provocative label (even a label of atheism) by which one may wish to be called.
And that is my focus for considering how a civilized system, one for helping us resolve our Common Problems, should best be designed or nurtured.
So it is that I reflect on the big brother owned media of mass mesmerization, to try to know its owners by their acts, rather than by their red-herring words. Their red-herring words revolve around a notion of equality in entitlements for all. Well, corralled livestock have this kind of equality, but not much personal dignity by which to define themselves as individuals.
So, I ask, if people like Soros really have progressed or “evolved” as decent human beings, and they really are concerned for the rest of us, as individuals, what would they do with their wealth and influence? (1) Would they buy up media and politicians to convince us that they are seeking to lead us all to equality in entitlements? Or, (2) would they try to restore and defend competitive markets, so that each of us could experience the dignity of pursuing our own fulfillment?
What I see is (1); not so much of (2). So, I do not sense that people like Soros are very “evolved” as decent human beings. (Not saying they are not; just saying I have not sensed it.) Yet, I have not noticed anyone else discussing anything that could possibly be done about this situation. Rather, I see Dems and Repubs braying and trumpeting along, being owned and herded by this soul-robbing deception. Which brings me to wonder: How many Repub sites are actually nurtured by cohorts of Soros?
****
TO POLS, EVERYTHING THEY WANT TO CALL A COMMON PROBLEM IS A COMMON PROBLEM.
DMZ ---
Re: “Not Yours To Give”
Well, you’re right, about that material being all over the internet. (However, I did not “snopes” it.)
Interesting timing, considering: (1) the recent election of Obama-The-Redistributer; (2) the present stimulus mania; and (3) hurricanes Katrina, et al.
Obviously, it’s easy to get addicted to voting charity out of Other People’s Money (opm – opium).
It is also easy to re-jigger every problem as if it were a “common problem,” to justify pols in feeling good as they set about handing out OPM to support, educate, and treat illegals and welfare mongers.
That is, until the harm being done to the country and to future generations is weighed.
And, oddly enough, the more people come to expect handouts from the government, the lesss they appreciate them.
If we were angels, maybe we could be trusted to exercise redistributive powers responsibly.
But, we are not. And so, we need checks (like our Constitution) to constrain our base and unwise motives.
Provided it were constitutional and there were adequate checks, I would like to see progressive taxation not on income, but on consumption.
Were that sustainable, revenues should be applied to common needs and infrastructure.
In partial respect, that would not be direct redistribution, but would be indirect redistribution.
That is, until some pols decided to apply the revenues to an equal, per-capita stimulus redistribution.
Then, the progressive tax revenue used to effect a per capita distribution would become a direct redistribution.
Thus, political parties easily come to compete, not based on the good of the country or of posterity, but based on crass competition among pols for whoring out to voter-johns.
Redistribution is whored to Dems as a partial solution to a “Common Problem” of inequality; corporate welfare is whored to Repubs as a partial solution to a “Common Problem” in the common economy.
Both Dems and Repubs twist social problems into “Common Problems,” to justify resort to public revenue initiatives.
Evan as each side tries to demagogue that the other side is mean or ignorant, and even as neither side behaves responsibly.
But, it makes the choirs feel so good!
While, DMZ, you are just “a big, coonskin hat meanie”!
****
DH:
"You, DM Zuniga and I have certainly been manipulated by those who promulagated our guiding ideologies. Heck, the word "redistributionist" has been to conservative mantra because they know the negative connotations and how people benefit from redistribution of wealth but believe they don't."
Yes, the physical environment in which we are brought up affects ("manipulates") us. But "Something" beyond that is also accessible, not in physical measurement, but in intuition. Maybe most of us do just accept the religions and politics of our parents. But some of us conceive of accessing something beyond. (Ommm.) Something beyond physical measurement, but which avails each of us at least a quality, flavor, or sliver of "free will" and individual dignity.
Yes, various fluxes and turmoils do avail "benefits from redistribution" (as well as downsides) to bring ever emerging, new wonders into creation. But I do not want to be just a dumb product of that redistribution or conditioning. Nor do I think that is all there is to our identities. Indeed, I think one can transcend being a zombie in the service of either a Lib orientation or a Cons orientation. Nor do I call either such orientation a "philosophy," because both so often merely express zombie orientations, just pushing forward, without much transcending insight, until they run into walls. As we have seen, there is no simple mathematical calculation or formula for allocating burdens of persuasion that can provide complete guidance. This is not just a problem for Cons, but also for Libs, and for all of us. Completion is reserved in respect of Something beyond.
To receive guidance from a Source of transcending insight, consider or look to how we should check and balance our interactions, AS IF (may be hard for an atheist?) each of us were a valued perspective of a unifying Source of consciousness. Then, in empathetic appreciation, giving each of us the benefit of the doubt for having at least that much dignity, ask what should a human civilization and government look like? How should it be checked and balanced to make that quality of dignity stable, sustainable, and even surpassable? Sounds complicated, but most cultures, religions, and even atheistic ethics seek to inculcate civilizing mindsets not all that different from the Golden Rule. In my mindset, they all reduce to this: "Be empathetic!"
I think our "answer" would respect our need for cultural inspiration in respect of something like the Ten Commandments, aided by a government that is kept from becoming any larger than necessary in order to defend the objective of facilitating such a civilization.
I don't think respect for individual dignity is sustained by making it one's goal to reduce all of us in fine detail to interchangeable or even equally entitled components of some legalistic machine. Rather, I think total reliance on the State or on Legalism is a mirage by "the devil," for leading us to be counterproductive to the sustenance of human dignity.
If you want to sustain human dignity, it helps first to come to terms that there is a real basis for it. The alternative to "God," whether expressed or implied, is too often a totalitarian state, indifferent to any higher purpose other than somehow to reduce us all to some narrow notion of being "equal." (What secular state has weaned itself away from, or barred, God, that has not already begun to fail, failed, or resorted to gulags ?)
I do not accept that, while mortal, we are "equal." Rather, I believe we are each a separately dignified perspective of God. So long as we each experience a mortal perspective, we are each, by (my) definition, inherently unequal (in the sense of being different). What our founders wanted for us was not equality in result, but "equality" in respect of preserving opportunity for each of us to pursue (not complete) happiness.
For example: I do not envy Soros' wealth in the least. Nor do I want to pick his pocket to fill mine. Rather, were I anything like Soros, I suspect I would not find much fulfillment in my situation. To the extent I want to tax him, it is only to reduce his ability to dictate markets and to reduce his ability to diminish opportunities for the rest of us to pursue freedom of expression within competitive markets. I would not tax such wealth-dictators to fill anyone's pockets. But I would tax them to preserve markets, and I would devote the revenue to common infrastructure. Although, I would prefer a progressive tax on consumption to one on income. To the extent such revenues can support it, improve health care.
For another example: As far as a broad liberal arts education, past basic cultural, mathematical, and verbal proficiency, one probably either is interested in pursuing further learning and philosophy, or one is not. If one is, given the internet (and sites such as American Thinker ), why should taxpayers need to fund it?
Bottom line: We probably cannot avoid being steered to mindsets. But we can try to temper them in respect of a common investment with a higher Consciousness. It whispers, "Be empathetic to the dignity of one another." It ought not be twisted or presumed to say, "By law, make ye all mankind equally entitled." History should teach us that much.
****
DH to DMZ: "I wish you well personally as much as I pray (as much as an atheist knows how) for the failure of your battle."
You “pray” to preserve rule by owners of mass opinion-shaping media of easily-bribed and manipulated gullibles, under guise of “law” perpetrated by sold-out “legislators”?
I admire your general good will. But that sentiment simply does not rule the mass of humanity. Nor will hope make it otherwise. Nor should it. After all, what "brat conservative" or "misled liberal" really appreciates what is given to him, which he did not earn or fight for, apart from having stolen it or received it in gift?
This is why history repeats in cycles. Modern faux-libs, having been given freedoms real libs gave their lives for, know not the value. Good will, enlightened by history, must remain strong enough to prevail against those who otherwise would succumb quickly to abuse it.
Do you really admire an electorate of easily-purchased votes, based on manipulated hopes or promises for redistributions or reparations from other peoples' (and countries') pockets? If so, review Pinocchio's donkey party.
****
DMZ,
“"Dlanor", first a small thing. I'd sure rather converse using real names”
Well, my “cover” is pretty thin (see [redassmoderates.blogspot.com]), especially for the kind of smarties one finds on this board. Nothing all that covert about it. But, it may protect me a little from spammers. In any event, it’s on the side of the law, i.e., the “real” rule of law. Just call me “kimosabe.”
“On this subject, read Mike Brewster's Unaccountable: How the Accounting Profession Forfeited the Public Trust to grasp how that profession did it. He doesn't touch the corrupted legal profession, but with respect to tax law, it's of a piece. A terrible situation.”
No argument here.
****
DH:
The issue is not one of anarchy or of killing government.
No one here is trying to bowdlerize Nietzsche, as in, “Hast thou not heard; Government is dead!”
The issue is one of getting and preserving the government we deserve.
That is continuously pushed forward in a contest of competing and cooperating wills — expressed by debating, protesting, voting, voting with your wallet, voting with your feet, and, if it comes to it, “voting” with force.
Our founders, understanding the need to resist governmental tyrannies, gave us a Constitution. Under it, we try to preserve rule of law — not rule of its opposite, i.e., rule of managing progressives with sentiments of “entitlement- tarianism” or of big-brother-dictate.
Any government that endures is going to raise revenue.
Just ask the Willie Nelson and the heirs of Johnny Paycheck.
But, a government that exposes itself as a monster would not retain popular support essential to its survival. At least, if it wishes to survive with appearance of magnanimity intact.
No one here is saying they would sanction the abandonment of vets, widows, or orphans. And, there are organizations apart from government.
****
DMZ:
"That's an ambiguous statement. If you mean that the citizenry is about to explode into some form of rebellion, I frankly doubt it. If it did, it would be ineffectual, or only bring on a worse police state.
I think the citizen reaction is precisely because of "tax considerations" because governments only have two ways of getting money: tax collections, and printing currency. Rememebr (sic), all the bad things disappear when you take the money away."
I sure don't want armed rebellion. But activating strong "two percent" resistance may be worthwhile.
The general citizenry is un-assimilating. Evaporating into enclave "bubbles." A slow boil is increasing. Ever boil water in a microwave? May look calm on the surface. But be very careful when you reach in to disturb it! Have to vent steam to avoid the bad stuff.
Everyone denies seeing the financial meltdown coming. What else aren't we seeing?
Libs and Cons keep going back to Dems and Repubs. Are there 10 good ones among the lot? I don't see many visionaries among them. I see old ideologies and old cronies being recalled, fronted, and financed to wage ineffective battles against new challenges.
What they should be doing is trying to figure out ways to provide just enough, but no more, governmental oversight and regulation than is necessary to allow society and free markets to run themselves.
Part of that regulation, BTW, would entail reining in such wealth and power as otherwise would distort competitive markets and politics beyond all functionality. That is to say, markets cannot work competitively when only one cohort owns them. Not markets of production. Nor markets of political influence.
We need leadership with a transcending message. To get the frogs out of the slow boiling water. To get us frogs hopping, a little mad, each with a long lasting case of the red ass. With a little luck, we may be able to agitate improvements short of a police state. Or short of just more consolidation of power among sociopaths.
I can see how your message is not inconsistent with self-help "community-action" for securing freedom from continued financing of governmental affronts to the American ideal. But I am hardly confident it is as reasonably safe as you profess. For example, of the 67 million said to be non-filers, how many would owe any taxes to begin with? Heck, we have 15 million illegals, many million who are paid by cash and carry businesses, and untold folks who work only part time or just do not earn very much.
I do appreciate your service for helping to reduce the money-blood supply to the monster, and defer to your "muy grande juevos." Yet, for the time being, I remain wary. One boiling water hole at a time.
****
DMZ ("Back to Paul Carlson's thesis, though. I leapfrogged his defect analysis analogy to follow the money, which is the lifeblood of the redistributionist state (a.k.a. "liberalism"). Turn off the spigot, and in your family the whole "liberal pork" discussion ends."):
Well, I think this relates, generally, not specifically, to what I have said: that the water is boiling, and there comes a time when it remains no longer patriotic to encourage the monster that is heating it.
I know you apprehend that the pork problem is hardly limited to Dems. This is not a Dem vs. Repub problem. It is a Collectivist Usurper vs. Freedom problem.
But I think the water boiling below is about to reach surface --- regardless of tax considerations.
****
DH: ("I'm just totally confused how someone can consider themselves a patriot and harbor such hostility towards the American government and fellow Americans"):
You're using words you don't understand, like "patriot" and "American."
Read Ann Coulter.
What is "patriotic" or "American" about leaving our borders unprotected to such an extent as to guarantee that traditional American culture (self reliance, individual responsibility, and freedom) will be overrun and replaced by some sort of unprincipled, dystopian, collectivist, p.c., ultra-regulated, nicey-nice, religious cult of legalism?
People who buy into the cult of legalism, looking to law for meaningfulness or salvation, are gullibles being led to their harvesting by sociopaths. Secular Religionists are piling regulatory intrusions on top of intrusions. These are their religious ceremonies, used to crowd out all others. Your problem is this: Even the masses are beginning to pay only lip service to these new forms for appeasing your Lib-God.
Such Gullibles and their Harvesters are both skating on thin ice. The water below is boiling.
Working together, Gulliibles and their Harvesters have been:
Taking tax money from producers;
spreading it to finance no-money-down loans to mortgage borrowers;
causing home prices to distort upwards;
locking the very buyers you say you were trying to "help" into debt slavery;
while entrusting ever more consolidating control to those who control those who write the so-called "laws."
Government, in program after program, distorts. I wish we had intelligence and moral backbone enough to be able to carefully pick only good forms of regulation. Maybe like: European style incentives for common cell phone receptivity; fuel taxes designed to wean us from dependence on foreign energy sources; mandated governors on top vehicular speeds; progressive consumption taxes designed to reduce the power of those who seek to monopolize and distort Ponzi markets and political influence; tax incentives designed to better manage population demographics; etc.)
But, we usually surrender moral intelligence to regulatory gullibles and cynics. So, we end up with carbon credit laws, p.c. regimentation of teachers, crazy quilt farm credits, corporate welfare, etc. This is because most political power is surrendered to levels too far removed. B.F. Skinner might say our government has become systemically unable to make its remote consequences immediately understood to its electorate.
Pols and media advocating the continued feeding of this growing monster tend either to be ignorant gullibles or sold-out cynics. (Hey, dance with who brung you.)
The present financial meltdown is only one among many hydra heads growing out of the religiously misguided, distortionist cult of governmentalism.
Other meltdowns are coming, in social cohesion, community sense of moral purposefulness, defensibility of borders against growing powers abroad.
So, what is "patriotic" or "American" about supporting this blind parade of zombies, marching off to surrender individual purposefulness to soul-numbing regulation? (Yes, you can.)
I am not hostile to patriotism and America. I am hostile to soul-numbing groupthink and the selling out of America. I am hostile to lib shell-game stratagems for pretending some new definition of "patriotism," by which to take umbrage when the real game is called for what it is. Under my definition, there is nothing "patriotic" about collectivist attempts to undermine traditional American values.
Time will show whether you are right. If trends hold, we will, indeed, no longer have enough patriots remaining, to be able to preserve the American ideals under which we were founded. Should that occur, it will sadden many of us.
I only wish Libs would learn more about the sacrifices made to deliver this Country to their safekeeping, before they blithely buy into the modern cult of legalism.
****
David M Zuniga, P.E.
"If you read the law and can't find anything making you a prisoner, than you get to walk out. If the IRS can't show you otherwise, then they are just stuck, is all. And THAT is how Tax Honesty has built up to tens of millions of citizens."
Well, I thought I understood. Reading the paragraph above, evidently I did not.
Regardless, my concern is more general anyway. I went for the issue of income tax law as an example because that appeared to be an especially significant area for you. I probably should have used a different example, maybe of some "precedential law" for which our Supreme Court says there is support in our Constitution, but for which many folks think there is not. (Such as, say, a “right” to privacy extensive enough to preclude any individual State from regulating a woman's virtually absolute "right" to abort her fetus so long as within the first trimester. But, the particular example is not my concern here.)
There is no doubt that we are being continuously flooded with new laws, regulations, and precedents. In my office, the library space used to store hardcopy content for our caselaw reporters for just the last 10 years has mushroomed to about half the space dedicated to the previous 100.
I have not yet seen the recent Nixon and Frost movie. Nixon may have said something like, if the President authorizes it, it's not wrong. He was wrong. But, in the case of our Supreme Court, it they say something is law, it is. Nixon could only have wished he was as imperious as our Supremes.
Now, I am not advocating trying to tell the Supremes that what they say is not valid "law." I am saying, for our rule of law, we are coming to rely more on our Supremes than on Congress. And the more laws Congress promulgates, the more "precedential laws" our Supreme Court (and all the lower courts they "supervise")establishes. New federal laws often necessitate new regulations, and sometimes entire new regulatory bodies. All this eventually winds up in litigation.
Was it Bertrand Russell who considered, for awhile, that a system of mathematical thought could be figured out and “closed”? Regardless, Godel showed that is not the case. I suspect our ACLU and their Leftist allies often think they are doing a public service by trying to litigate every possible nit that outrages their sense of fairness and equality. As if, with enough litigation, all would eventually be reduced to some sort of lawyerly paradise. But that is a fool's errand.
Some in the Air Force used to say the bird could not be allowed to fly until the paperwork equaled its weight. In Lib-land, the governmental intrusion of more law-making will not stop until every last bit of our free time is spent complying with outrageously wasteful notions (like carbon credits).
The more laws we pass, the more we litigate. This is a crazy treadmill. And Libs want to keep raising its angle and speed! That’s some kind of treadmill! It’s great, for those who like to lead the masses in soul numbing hole-digging-and-refilling. And for those who want to keep their souls numb. Insofar as it numbs everyone equally, maybe it’s meant to satisfy some demented interpretation of Kant’s categorical imperative. I guess the virtue of all of this, as being for our own good, is supposed to become evident once we all submit.
For my money, this is not “the way.” Rather, the more the Supremes are called upon to interpret the handiwork of an overactive Congress, the more we come to disrespect them --- as well as the law. And, the more we are all fastened to fast treadmills to nowhere. The Lib dream fulfilled.
For my money, cut the law crap and re-inspire spiritual faith in Something better than law, like the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Somehow, we need a new awakening about the limits of law and secularism. God only knows why this is controversial to the Lib mind.
We may get a whiff, once we survive the next four years, and toss out some political fruitcakes. But it’s a long haul. On my report card, Dems get 5, Repubs get 8. Passing is 65. If I’m a nut, I’ve got lots of company.
****
DMZ ("I just realised that David H. is a liberal* apologist, and so of course I wasted my breath on that last post."):
Well, provocative remarks sometimes help push us to look at things in a different light. In that sense, I guess you make a good "bad cop."
But, DH has already shown willingness to consider and discuss alternative perspectives. Even though his fixation on government as the solution seems evangelistic. But, he does show substantial awareness of competing factors. At least, more so than I would have expected from a self professed lib.
Actually, I have enjoyed much of the give and take. I want to try to understand how and why obviously intelligent folks become so attached to notions that seem so "off" to me.
Nothing wrong with coming to reason together.
Otherwise, we all just stay with our own choirs.
Wouldn't want provocation to consider wider factors to become confused with bad faith.
Would seem best to save that for libs who are obviously unwilling to consider different approaches.
Apart from that, I applaud your glasnost website, but I am not convinced to take the plunge.
Need to brew on it.
Should say, however, I do think your stance is a service.
Especially if nothing better comes on the horizon, for trying to teach out-of-control government to heel.
****
Suppose a superior argument could be made that the income tax is illegal, and therefore, "not law."
The next question becomes: Are there persons and agencies in power who nevertheless will enforce its provisions, even though they are not legal?
The next queston becomes: Who is brave, strong, or wily enough to stand up to the illegal enforcement?
In many respects, at least to the extent our enforcers have slipped the tether to law, our society has clearly become less about law than about power.
Ultimately, if power comes from the barrel of a gun, how soon will powers-that-be attack the Second Amendment?
I may need to rethink my weapon of choice (baseball bat under bed).
****
Cuz Alfred:
Dlanor: "Over ambitious law will either reduce us to ad hoc anarchy or to the ad hoc whims of the sociopaths who best learn how to abuse it."
DH: "We cannot return to our original form of government because our world and the people are different. Our government has always evolved over time."
DMZ: "The donkey party and the elephant party are the only two games in town. Their field of endeavor is not political enonomy and honest ethical inquiry and debate; far from it. This is a very active hog-trough, and no mistake; its only endeavors are whipping up partisans, and fleecing them. Period. End of story."
*****
DH -- The problem is, those "evolving" our Constitution are not tethered to any discernible, rational principle. Among short sighted libs, this seems their cause for celebration (review back to Pinochio's donkey party). But, the consequence conservatives see is that our law is becoming an open fraud, more and more disregarded and disrespected. There comes a point, such as when one finds oneself one of the few left believing in the travesty, that one decides, "No more." (Atlas shrugs?)
DMZ -- Well, you've got cajones! If nothing else, you're dead on about the fleecing. I don't think the hopeful Obama'ites (hoping for entitlements and reparations) have yet figured out that if they keep kneeing producers, there comes a reckoning. Sort of like when a truculent child finally knees the wrong babysitter. I don't see this next administration lasting very long.
****
David H. ("if we followed your test we'd never enact anything because there will always be harm "):
I agree that the "harm rule" should be considered as more of a guide than a test.
Perhaps more of a mind set, which one tends to come to after experiencing years of governmental let downs.
Not sure any really good "test" can be formulated.
Not sure, given modern complexities, electorates can be expected to be informed enough to reasonably apply mind sets to rapid fire challenges.
Am sure lib electorate is easily molded.
Can think of possible philosophical solutions.
But no immediate solutions.
Philosophical solution: New constitution. Fundamental change up, based on hierarchical levels of checked and balanced groups of governors of five each, for supervision and delegation. Notion: Persons closer to problems should run for election based on expertise. Electorate should consist only of each next lower level of hierarchy.
Problem: Pipe dream.
Result: People like Soros will continue to buy media, manufacture prevailing public opinion out of dumbed down liberal electorate and corrupt blueblood electorate, and buy influence from politicians on both sides of political aisle, both of which are easily molded to serve corrupt purposes.
Result: Wide scale disillusionment; easy recruitment to hopeful myopia; bursting of hopeful, ever-regressing bubbles (in Soros' vernacular), by sociopathic opportunists.
Solution: Insufficient data ...
Some things I do know:
No set of laws can be fair, clear, complete, consistent, and coherent enough to protect us against being corralled ever more arbitrarily, to satisfy the abuses of those who will come to own and control the laws.
Over ambitious law will either reduce us to ad hoc anarchy or to the ad hoc whims of the sociopaths who best learn how to abuse it.
In tort law, I often think we should end the charade and call it what it is: A beauty contest. Just put the parties and witnesses before the jury, let the lawyers perform their tap dances, and then ask the jury to decide just two issue: Who do you think was the prettiest, and how much do you think they should get. Call it American Idyl.
Alternatively, we can forestall such days to the extent we can govern ourselves --- in freedom and personal responsibility --- without the intrusions of smothering, mothering law.
The quicker we submit to ever more law as some sort of artificial savior, the quicker we come to a sad quickening: Loss of human freedom.
Freedom in the style of the U.S. is an incredibly rare thing in history, purchased at great price, by ancestors we have no right to dishonor.
Regardless of where you put the burden of proof, be wary of those who hawk the snake oil of more government in trade for lost freedom.
Even were one a commie, how should one expect the State to wither away, when all signs point to consolidation of power among sociopaths? Look at the ever accelerating amount of legislation. It piles like a tower of Babel. And that is how it will fall. And when if falls, it will fall to people who, in coming to rely on government, have lost all capacity to govern or be responsible for themselves. Then, who shall rule them?
****
David H.
1) "The problem with conservatives is that they can't talk rationally about problems. Their solution to everything is less government."
....
2) "Libs, on the other hand, differ from Marx and conservatives in their belief that other parts of society, while affected by the economic system, are influenced by a variety of factors. And can therefore be influenced by a variety of actions - government and non-government. Now ain't that a kicker!"
****
DH:
1) Have to disagree. Are you suggesting the quality of conversation on some liberal blog is more reasoned than at A.T.? Which one?
In any event, I don't think the solution to everything is less government or more tax cuts.
Rather, it's about burden of proof.
If you want to legislate, first do no harm.
And government has a history of doing harm.
If there is a Conservative "solution," it consists in additional aspects apart from "less government."
Surely, there are avenues apart from government for well meaning people who wish to advance solutions, such as: civic clubs, volunteer work, big brother, charity, church, scouts, sports, etc.
Also, organizing, to bring logic and pressure to bear (like American Thinker), to try to shame and police enablers, apologists, and pushers of bad behavior to desist.
2) What libs are you talking about? In some ivory tower of imagination? Code Pink? La Raza? Check out the website indicated somewhere below by Geoffrey Britain, and see what it has to teach, regarding the capacity of Libs vs. Conservatives to relate world views to a variety of factors. If I recall, there were something like 5 main factors, of which Conservatives typically applied 5, Libs 2. May need to recheck.
Note: There are some things best done by government: Military, fire, and police defense, road and utility regulation, a decent health and food safety net ("put food on your family"). Most other functions should be privatized, absent substantial evidence the government could be counted on to provide better service. Appropriate legislation should regulate private functions in respect of health and safety, provided thought is first given to how to keep such regulation at reasonable and effective minimums. Banking -- defer to Ron Paul.
Mainly, its about burden of persuasion. Libs seem to need to be persuaded that new governmental programs are not a good idea. I think this is because they tend to be too young or too sheltered or too cosseted behind ivory towers to have learned much about how inefficient, inept, counterproductive, corrupt, and far removed government so often is.
For conservatives, on some matters, proper placement of the burden of persuasion is quite important, such as: global warming; race baiting reparations; national service draft; amnesty.
:: Change how you place the burden of persuasion about how to deal with "COMMON PROBLEMS," and you too could become an enlightened conservative.
My cousin, Alfred, conveys his regards.
BTW --- I highly recommend most of Larrey's articles. They tend to be provocative and illuminating.
Paul Carlson did a fine job on this one, too. And his web page is quite worthwhile.
****
Alfred E. Newman:
Onct, about 1958, my uncle took a bet that he wouldn't sip from a spittoon.
Well, he hoisted it up and swallered the whole thing.
Seems he couldn't stop because it all sorter hung together.
He gave his boy a Daisy B.B gun for Christmas, and he was out shooting the neighbor's birds.
This boy had a nasty habit of sucking up great wads of spit.
Always blowing bubbles with it, he was.
A regular conservative.
I told him he ort not do that.
Well, he looked at me, held the Daisy with barrel next to his mouth, and then started drooling.
He musta drooled 5 minutes. All down the barrel of the gun.
So I axked him why he did that.
Then I learned. In my left ear, I did!
I didn't know you could load and shoot drool like that from a Daisy cocked BB gun!
Note to self: Don't hang with folks who dribble drool into Daisy B.B. rifles.
As for spittin in the wind, I don't mind it so much.
Cuz I'm more like a moderate.
****
DH:
"They point to research showing 0-5 year olds should see no TV, video or computers basically because that is when kids learn to be "produceers" rather than "consumers". Kids in school today are always bored because they expect to sit and be entertained. That is what they get at home. TV.
That is the "Common Problem". I am a lib because I believe we can address it and we have to address it together. Schools have to address this in part by changing parenting. It is not a "Special Problem" when every home has a TV and computer. And it is a "Common Problem" when schools can enforce no discipline because of various regulations (this is odd, they come from the left and right) and court rulings. Posters on this site who focus on terrible teachers and liberal curriculum are totally clueless as to the real problems in school and who is causing them. Can't tell you how many spoiled brats of conservative parents I've dealt with."
******
Regarding TV (and cable TV and video games):
It would be nice to see pediatricians handing out such information. And maybe hospital volunteer auxilliaries. Restrictions on TV sure worked out well for my girls.
"Schools have to address this in part by changing parenting."
Well, there is no solution in legislating to confer unto schools the complete control over the churching and parenting of children. I know you did not say that. But, the more liberals decry parents, the more I fear they will legislate to reduce the authority of parents. Instead, we need a cultural awakening, perhaps to be inspired by some new versions of Martin Luther King --- for all races.
Now that both parents in most households must work, and fewer attend church, schools become expected to pick up more and more of the slack, even as teachers are saddled by extensive and demoralizing regulations and oversight.
Presently, choices among schools tend to be restricted, teachers are hired based more on certification than on demonstrated proficiency, the ACLU discourages spiritual-like counseling, and low income parents are strapped.
It would be nice to have more school choices, better teachers, with more freedom, fewer regulations, and more involvement with parents. Then, even parents who are strapped for cash, time, and energy could be recommended or referred to volunteer counselors.
Problems: There seems to be less and less of traditional counseling, more and more clothing and fashion for conveying disrespect, an entertainment industry of movies, magazines, "music," and video games for warping minds to seek unearned entitlements and celebrations of obscenity and violence, academic bias for denigrating god beliefs, and teaching kids to game and disrespect the system.
Yes, most of these problems are common across society --- whether liberal or conservative.
However, because these problems are steeped in our culture, they will not be resolved by more and more regulations made and enforced by persons who themselves have been steeped in the culture. This is because the money interests that profit by steeping our kids in crud are much the same as the money interests that finance our politicians and law makers.
I don't know the answer. But I think part of the anwer may consist in inculcating a better political philosophy --- one that is more attuned: to less governmental intrusion; more respect for traditional family values; and more emphasis on preserving competitive choices and markets. And more attuned to "regulation designed to reduce the necessity of regulation" and to preservation of "government of the people" --- as opposed to the "pay to play" sale of government to monied interests.
Enjoy your conservative brats! (They need love too.)
****
David H.:
"I believe short selling contributed to the speed of the collapse but short selling panic generally won't hold for long if the underlying facts don't support it. I did not mention that because it appears that the melt down would have happened even if shorting was not allowed."
Sundance Kid: I don't know how to swim.
Butch Cassidy: You idiot! The fall will probably kill you!
Well, sure, the mortgage based Ponzi was bound to fall at some point. It's the timing that killed McCain.
But, who tracked and pushed him to the ledge?
Regardless, "Sundance" McCain made a bad jump.
DH: "And the lack of transparency in this $300 billion is incredible. This is what happens when you have a non-regulatory, free market philosophy controlling the handout of government money. Once we get the libs in we'll "form" them into submission!"
You're going to make linkages to Soros transparent, and form him into submission using the Demcrat Party he owns? Good luck!
****
David H.:
"If you do some research, some empirical investigation, you will see that you are simply repeating a lie. Us libs do like to spend money but funny, it is the conservatives who rack up the national debt."
Dems and Repubs do not, by themselves, rack up debt. They are fronts for special interests that seek to rack up debt. The special interests for which Repubs tend often to allow themselves to carry water and be fronted are, indeed, masters at manipulating national debt. IOW, the Repub party is held in a head lock by top-level, blueblood, faux-conservatives.
DH, I think most A.T. readers in fact are aware of this. Read here more often and you will soon notice that. The problem is, ordinary Republican Conservatives are un-united in figuring out what to do about it. In any event, the solution is not to turn government back and forth from one debt snowballer to the other.
If you are suggesting Conservatives lack effective leadership, you may have a point. I think Palin's social values are not far from mainstream conservatism. But, MSM, owned by those who own the Democrat Party, are skilled and ready to butcher her. Romney may be next best on values, but, again, MSM, owned by those who own the Democrat Party, are skilled and ready to butcher him --- likely based on bigotry against Mormons. (This, by your oh so tolerant and fair minded Dems!)
On the other hand, look at Dems: Neophyte as Pres. And then look at Reid, Pelosi, Franken, Frank, and Murtha.
Dems and Repubs have a "Common Problem": Both are under thumbs of interests that are thinking more about new world order than about national patriotism or loyalty. And, they are not thinking about a NWO to make the lives of all the peons better or more free. Look at the leaders on the world stage, in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia ... Soros.
Who rises to compete better among sociopaths than other sociopaths? U.S. media is being reduced to Pravda before our eyes.
So, we have a problem with sociopathic leadership that is huge, endemic, and common. And trusting to Soros' front man is hardly soothing.
Libs are being farmed. If we want a chance to preserve classic liberalism, both libs and conservatives must find a way to break from the plantation. This is "The Common Problem." And more government is not likely to solve it.
It does little good for libs and conservatives to hurl insults. We have a common antagonist. The question is: What can be done about it?
****
Larrey Anderson:
For David H.
I have been following this debate. This last post of yours is based on a misconception. (One that conservatives share as well.) When it comes to spending a distinction must be made between three different groups of people (1) liberal and conservative politicians, (2) Democrat and Republican politicians, and (3) liberal and conservative thinkers.
There are very few conservatives in groups (1) and (2). Sure Republicans blow a lot of hot air and claim to be conservative but almost none of them are.
Take bailout mania as the latest example of spending gone mad. Almost all of the dems were for it. About half of the reps were for it. Thoughtful conservatives don't think Bush or McCain are conservatives. How could they think such a thing? Bush and McCain both spend like drunken sailors. There are a few conservative Republicans who actually walk the walk on spending, Ron Paul is probably the most highly known. I have written about this here: [www.americanthinker.com] and here: [www.americanthinker.com].
Conservatives are correct that liberals spend more than conservatives do. (In gov't in particular.) What is misunderstood is just how few real elected conservatives there are in either political party. This is why I have argued that it is futile for conservatives to keep defending Bush as if he somehow represented conservatism. Every thoughtful conservative knows that is not true and every thoughtful liberal uses Bush's record to run rings in debates around conservatives who defend Bush.
Bill Clinton was a political pragmatist. He kept spending under control, especially after the 1994 elections. What frightens most conservatives is that Obama appears to be much more of an ideologue. Another trillion dollar bailout -- for public works projects and some windmills? That is economic insanity ... and it is a whole lot of spending. There is no debating that.
****
Liberal Wealth Spreading ---
PC:
The Federal government, and the President's cabinet especially, have gained unprecedented powers. Sweeping promises have been made, and massive "solutions" will soon be implemented. The USA is about to see misguided and expensive tinkering on a huge scale. All for a "common cause" that does not exist.
DH: Re http://www.loveandlogic.com/pages/classroom.html
“Your goal is to achieve consistency by basing each of your decisions on this same set of values or principles…rather than trying to treat every problem the same using a "cookbook" approach. Consistency with values is more attainable than consistency between students, situations, and consequences.”
….
“Rules in my classroom are few. I believe that as all children are different, and all actions and reactions very personal in nature, effective discipline involves a few overriding tenets rather than a long list of specific rules. Situations are dealt with as they arise, with the focus on enabling the child to grow and learn from his or her actions.”
Well, this rings more in respect of volunteer work to facilitate freedom to pursue opportunity, rather than in respect of using detailed legislation to regulate and enforce equality in outcomes (or in acquisitions of wealth).
And Conservatives hardly oppose volunteer and charity work. It is legalistic intrusion that pushes people to leave such work to be regulated by government. But, to leave work to be regulated by government is to leave it to be regulated by (1) fronted bureaucrats who are not profit oriented, but who are ultimately regulated by (2) controlling special interests that are profit oriented.
Governmental regulation is usually not a solution. Rather, government tends to stifle initiative and charity; that is, when it is not laying opportunities for special-interest Ponzi-schemers. (Fannie May all over again.)
****
www.loveandlogic.com
go to the free Articles in the upper left hand corner. 1-2 page monographs. Their approach explains the psychology behind the failures of the the welfare state, accommodations in the school system and brats in the grocery store. Simple (well, for someone who has a long background in education, psychology, introspection and focusing on what works as opposed to positions), clear and effective.
****
David H.:
“we libs are looking for better ways of doing things”
Many are “looking for better ways of convinvcing gullibles that they are looking for better ways of doing things.”
They would consider those who are only looking for better ways of doing things as “useful idiots.”
You need to season your idealism with more history.
Weighing history, why does equalizing wealth seem to be such an overriding concern for you?
Do you have no concern about the results of previous such efforts?
Have you studied the psychology of psychopaths?
After all, what is history, if not the study of psychopathic and sociopathic leaders?
Why suppose sociopaths around the world govern themselves in respect of looking for ways to disseminate equality?
******
“Are libertarians conservatives?”
No.
They are “conservatives who want to get high.”
They are allies of convenience.
They tend to be drunk on Ayn Rand.
Nice enough, though.
******
“The principles of entitlement-equality can be carried out in many ways, the commies tried one way, socialists in Europe and Canada have a different way, and we libs in the USA have another way. Which changes as people change and the world change and we figure out better ways. Clearly the problem with the lib approach is how it teaches "learned helplessness" to society the way kids learn that in dysfunctional families of any political persuasion. So, we libs are looking for better ways of doing things.”
But why pursue equality just for the sake of equality? Why not celebrate freedom and diversity --- in energies, initiatives, and talents? I appreciate efforts to reduce gulfs in equalities of opportunity; not so much efforts to bring about equalities in results or wealth. I do not see the need or the point. But, why stop with wealth? Should we someday have equality in genetics, looks, brains, and personalities?
*******
“As a lib I believe in personal responsibility but a safety net and ample opportunities for support to be a productive member of society. And for thoughtful policies to promote success. And for policies to redistribute wealth. I don't believe that the state should own the means of production and I don't believe that the state is responsible for someones success or failure. And I believe in freedom of thought, behavior and expression. The state is responsible for making sure opportunity is there. And, in the end, whatever we can do to get each individual to succeed and pull their own weight, the less we have to pull. And the less likelihood those who fail will crawl through our window in the middle of the night.”
Well, your intentions are admirable, but your methods are counterproductive.
Personal responsibility suffers when government assumes citizens are entitled to economic security.
Personal initaitive falls as government redistributes wealth.
For organizing efficient production and labor, government at a distance can never be as efficient as local markets.
You end up with government pretending to pay workers for their pretending to work.
Because government need not fear competition, it need not be efficient.
So, the motivation of government employees becomes not to accomplish the sorts of things you idealize.
Government does not promote workers based on production or efficiency.
Rather, promotions are based on who can keep employees happy, sale a good PR show, and serve the private interests of those with whom the chief is cozy.
Government is about managing the beliefs of gullibles; it is not about production or efficiency.
Rather, government employees come to: go along to get along; don’t rock the boat; don’t make the employees unhappy; promote those who make the office a happy place to work; build bureacratic empires; etc.
If you want to be a lib in the classic sense, rather than in the modern sense, study JFK.
And the founders.
But, if you do become a lib in the classic sense, to avoid confusion, you should discard the lib label.
It is for similar reason that I refuse to call myself a Republican.
In many respects, modern Repubs are just an equivalent of a socket puppet on Soros’ right hand.
So, I call myself a “Red Ass Moderate” (aka, “RAM”).
Some of our differences may be attributed mainly to age (60).
I look warily at government programs, since they are so easily perverted, and so hard to end.
Apart from safety-net purposes, I disfavor spreading wealth.
Although government may salve notions of entitlement or equality, it too much imperils initiative.
But I do seek to limit the consumption of wealth, in order to preserve competitive markets.
And I do seek policies for sustaining a decent civilization, in which a decent safety net is provided, while adults are weaned, in freedom and self responsibility, mostly to pursue their own happiness.
****
David H.:
DH: “But the degree to which we allow our biases to determine our perceptions of the world determines our ability to get along and be successful.”
Ah. Wisdom!
I like the “we allow” part, insofar as it respects Personal Responsibility for managing one’s evolving consciousness.
*****
DH: “And, you express the broad belief expressed on this site that libs are incapable of objectivity. That is just silly.”
Partly true. I socialize with many liberals who are, beyond doubt, intelligent and seem often to reach conclusions not utterly devoid of objectivity. I often do suspect “the object of their objectivity.”
That is, the objective lines in the sand they may be willing to defend seem too quickly to wash away. I detect not much in redeemable purposes for which they have staying power, apart from washing into smooth, equal bits of sandy, undefined beach.
Does anything in your experience illuminate why it is “silly” to suspect libs of a fundamental trait for lacking staying power to defend any value beyond mushy “equality”?
******
DH: “As for facts, here are some mis-characterizing posts from this AT thread:
the liberals would focus on how they and their friends could benefit the most from the assembly line.”
Well, I disagree. But my experience is less with assembly lines than with litigation circle jerks.
I try lawsuits. I have been a board certified trial lawyer in excess of 17 years. As a conservative, when I defend a suit that has no merit, my goal is to kill it with as little fanfare and expenditure of time and resources as possible.
But I know many attorneys, and many whose methods are quite different. Many milk cases. Seeking to bill hours. Or to avoid being assigned with more difficult, replacement caseloads. Or to build minor empires. As if killing meritless cases were somehow anti-organizational, even anti-American. As if we could feed our civilization by recruiting everyone to join a big chain circle, to put your left hand in the pocket on your right, then take the wallet out and shake it all about, then do the hokey pokey, then put your right hand in the pocket on your left … that’s what it’s all about.
DH: “I always can tell the liberals I work with. They never learn anything new, and their first reaction to every difficult problem they have into is to run to someone else.”
In my experience, there are trial lawyers and then there are discovery lawyers. Some, not all, trial lawyers tend not to need much support. They try their cases. They don’t send out all point bulletin emails looking for help to research every silly question. By their weight of character and force of personality, “problems” that excite discovery attorneys to bill hours of research tend simply not to be problems.
DH: “Liberals tend to want to cause, promote and ignore problems no matter how much damage and mayhem they cause”
Yes! There is a MMPI type, “maverick,” I believe. I have tried cases with them. Because they need help. I don’t. Amazing. They misplace their exhibits; lose their notes; devote incredible hours to irrelevant minutia.; and all the while require emergency support lifelines to the main office. And, through it all, absolutely glow from the attention!
DH: “Yup. We libs are just evil. Talk about bias. Sad.”
No, not evil. I don’t consider my children evil. I still love them. I just hope for the day they take learning more personal responsibility as a proper object for their objectivity!
Re: THOUGHTS ABOUT COLLECTIVIST ENGINEERING ---
To behave collectively is not to be engineering --- in any self-aware, sentient sense.
We have insects to show us that.
In order to like being collective, Collectivists need not like engineering.
Unlike Boris, Ivan need not plan to acqire a goat, so long as Ivan’s government can kill Boris’ goat.
Collectivists tend to want no part of the hard work of actually learning how to engineer anything.
They mainly just want the collective security of mommy and daddy.
To which they feel they are entitled.
And Conservatives are just meanies --- for denying the Godless truth!
****
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/defect_analysis_and_liberalism.html:
Alz:
"You can see it in action by thinking about the inner cities: decades of liberalism has only brought hopelessness, despair and death. You can't blame Bush. You can't blame Republicans. You can't blame Conservatism. These areas have been under utter Modern Liberal/Democratic control for decades."
Good point.
Hypothesis: Libs have better leaders and answers.
Test: Track success rates of comparable kids, schooled in cities under liberal political rule versus rural areas under conservative political rule.
Learning Point: How should we ensure prosperity in America, so that it is not reduced to equality with Mexico?
********
The history of our universe seems not unlike the history of a musical recording device. The more of time and space that are recorded, the more the “hard drive” of our universe seems to be swallowed up (perhaps reducing or changing some of the parameters and degrees of freedom that remain?).
Laws of our universe continue to facilitate the recording of ever more powerfully evolving and monopolizing of mathematical relationships, even collectivizing laws of information for translating broadcasts by ever more powerful agents of media.
Eventually, all sentient mortal resistence is to be overrun, so that all is smoothed out in submission to perfectly disordered, entropic ummah --- non-conducive to any further input of less than holistically conscious creativity or free will.
We can cavil until calves come home to Canaan, but, eventually, the meek (insects and submissive collectivists) shall inherit the earth. Eventually, God will close the Book Of Math on sentient mortal creativity and consciousness on this earth and in this universe.
Until then, mortal, sentient consciousness, stubbornly popping out in perspectives of creativity, will resist. Until then, lovers of freedom of expression will resist mind-surrender to collectivists. Until then, the meaningful, civilizing role of sentient consciousness reigns: to create and enjoy the music, to the empathetic entertainment of God.
Resist collectivists to the last breath of your ability!
Ommmm.
****
To David H.,
I always love it when Libs, provocateurs of pussy passion, want to lecture about objectivity and logical fallacies.
Re: “For example, "Liberals tend to assume that all social problems are "common..." Gosh, is there some "precise tests and measurements, general observations and psychology, and special logic and algorithms" which lead to this conclusion?”
Well, there is no “heart-rate Lib-meter,” if that is what you mean. I did not read Mr. Carlson as advocating, in matters of social concerns, that objective tests could or should entirely replace subjective judgments. I took him to mean objectivity should be applied where reasonable and possible.
But, are you suggesting objective tests should entirely replace subjective judgments for evaluating social concerns? If so, what is your objective basis? If not, why are you engaging in a logical “bait and switch” fallacy that Mr. Carlson should apply some sort of exclusively objective test to matters for which an exclusively objective test would be impossible?
The point, which seems, not surprisingly, beyond your usual capacity, is that Conservatives try to apply methods of both objectivity and of subjectivity. This was implicated, in respect of facts, by Geoffrey Britain, below, where he said, “Here's a link to Moral Foundations Theory: [faculty.virginia.edu].”
For goodness sakes, even your very own contribution is consistent with the point that Leftists tend to be deficient in ability to factor a broad array of considerations in their calculations of morality!
Some of us, depending on experience, such as in management, have a wealth of observational experience by which to readily detect facial validity of a notion that Collectivists tend to seek and favor collective solutions. Do you suppose that is controversial?
One hardly needs to test what one sees before him daily! Being more into individual responsibility, Conservatives find it quite natural to rely more on review of a variety of informational sources, not restricted to Leftist howlers.
You seem to have missed the point that Conservatives apply methods of both objectivity and subjectivity to issues of social morality and government. Regardless, is there any other responsible way? Did you miss the point that Leftists tend to rely nearly exclusively on subjective methods (i.e., feelings, wants, unrealistic demands of entitlement)? Do you seriously mean to suggest Leftists approach issues with fair minded objective appraisals of facts, as opposed to cherry picking and mischaracterizing facts in order to “justify” niave world views? If so, please back it up with some objective analysis and facts.
And, please explain the “objectivity” by which you came up with this: “Perhaps if you applied some of those analytical engineering tools with objectivity, or just tried to see the world that way, you would see that under a conservative administration, "The Federal government, and the President's cabinet especially, have gained unprecedented powers. " and "The USA is about to see [the consequinces of their] misguided and expensive tinkering on a huge scale."”?
Re: Expensive tinkering --- please explain, do you have the faintest understanding of the genesis of the cheap home mortgage lending policies that have led us to our current economic situation?
Re: Unprecedented powers --- please explain, from out of what objective source did you pull this? Did some Leftist rag tell you “W” invented signing statements?
Re: Collectivist notions of social responsibility --- your party is now in control. Please explain how long you think you will continue to be able to get away with blaming adults for what is now sure to play out as one big, adolescent, home-party disaster?
Magwitch,
If I recall, before the election, in The Atlantic Monthly, Soros said more or less that he wanted to burst America's bubble. I think he has been quite express about it. Not exactly restricting himself to esoteric code.
So, now Obama is restricting our development of oil and coal, developing boondoggle governmental projects, hamstringing American car manufacturers, cutting the military budget, etc.
If someone saw it as his life's work to reduce America (burst our bubble) while working to bring about global, international socialism, and had practiced charisma to do it with a smile, what would such a person do that Obama has not?
Would such a person want a free market to fail or to recover?
Who is funding our Republicans? Do even our Republicans want real markets or do they instead simply want opportunities for their masters to fix markets?
So long as powers that be are hell bent to play ponzi and shell games while pushing us to international socialism, what possible difference does all this talk of Mark to Market, Glass-Steagall, or Sarbanes Oxely make ---
unless Conservatives quickly unite and find the outrage to raise an immediate and prolonged howl?
We can conceit about all the regulatory solutions we want.
In the end, if we remain as corrupt, naive, and sheepish as we have become, none of it will matter.
I think we have far less time to act than most people realize ...
Rand'ian Objectivists: This is not primarily a problem for solution by regulation. Either we reinvigorate an American Ideal that is enlightened in empathy, i.e., a spiritual reawakening, or all your "objective" regulatory schemes will flush away like so much sewer water.
By their acts, we know who the "witches" are. Unite in outrage to raise an immediate and unrelenting howl!
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/the_ten_trillion_dollar_black.html:
Given our diversified "me-first" society, even assuming government really had our common best interests at heart, could it, at least in principle, devise regulations that would protect our market economy from Ponzi scams and regulatory loopholes?
Given how dependent our pols are on contributions from associations and businesses, how likely is it that pols would ever actually enact such a system of regulations?
Given how politicized our judiciary has become, how likely is it such regulations, even if enacted, would be enforced as intended?
Given how untethered our society has become to any common sense of civilizing mores and politics, how likely is it that our present "objectivist" political parties, controlled as they are by equal-entitlers (Lib Sheep) and survival-of-the-fittest free marketers (Blueblood Predators), will ever devise a system simply meant to regulate fair markets for all?
Aren't both The Prince (Bluebloods) and Rules for Radicals (Libs and Marxists) all about leveraging UNFAIR advantages, much more so than about FAIRLY competing within regulated markets?
Is there an Adam Smith pill to cure this sort of cultural crisis of indecently breached faith and trust?
Seems to me that "irrational objectivists" are pulling us apart from both sides.
If we do not conserve a better way, we will either be pulled apart or pulled to despotism, whichever side wins the tug of war.
Objectivism!#*&! My as*!
Perspicio said:
Big business has no moral compass.
Government has no market sensibility.
****
But this is not to say that Big Business respects market sensibility, or that Government has a moral compass.
Rather, Big Business, once it gets big enough, is about conniving artistry; i.e., carnival barking behind a host of ivy league credentials.
And, sorry to report to Lib do-gooders, but those who swim to control the top levels of governmental service are not precisely there to "serve" you.
Especially once the culture has sunk to corruption.
As in a culture that believes either business money or governmental regulation are "God."
As in a culture that considers each person as an equally marketable Marxist good, rather than as a separately dignified expresser of moral purpose.
We don't preserve faith and trust merely by printing such words on our fiat money.
Rather, we turn our culture into what we admire.
Sometime, it may be worthwhile to reflect upon the sorts of things Libs and Bluebloods really most admire, and how that may be influencing that in which we pretend to find and price value.
Even when some smart bookkeeper tricks to "balance the economy," putting lipstick on an open sewer won't turn it into a prize to admire.
Entitlement Libs rob us of dignity.
Conniving Bluebloods rob us of civilizing faith in one another.
Both put their "objective" faith in faithless fiat money --- Libs to equally distribute it; Bluebloods to make a carnival game of it.
As if either path would lead us to happiness.
Monty Python should make two sequels to Life of Brian. That way, Libs and Bluebloods could each make their point of the other, that "She's a witch and I can prove it!"
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/women_want_safety.html:
wjf said:
Is it just me, or do other people see the irony in a conservative criticizing the idea of trading freedom for safety? Read: Patriot Act, Wiretapping, NSA, etc...
****
In part, being conservative is about conserving borders and boundaries, in order to protect each oasis of freedom.
Not every inconsistency need hobgoblin or mush our minds into BDA.
Indeed, there likely is no grand, synthesizing principle by which we could explain or make all things consistent.
Else, there would everywhere be mundane consistency, rather than freedom.
We try to conserve freedom within such markets and parameters as are practical to the real world in which we live.
No one is criticizing the idea of trading freedom for safety. What is criticized is trading too much freedom for safety.
Government, having recently sprayed a decent equality of dignity and opportunity to minorities and women, now is being turned to fire hose an indecent collectivization, to reduce everyone except those who own it to a common state of surrender of dignity, i.e., an equality in submission of freedom and responsibility to those who have sought and acquired power solely for the purpose of wielding power.
The sacrifices of those who have fought throughout the ages for the American Ideal are now being bent to wills-to-power of a corrupt few.
Conservatives do not take this to have been the driving purpose for the sacrifices of the valiant.
We are cautioning minorities and women that the very means used to avail them with equality of opportunity are now being turned not only against them, but against all, to reduce us all to equal slaves of the State, to the amusement of those who own it.
****
Big Gov is not the answer to calling for service. See http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/secrets_of_service_1.html.
****
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/why_bipartisanship_is_unethica.html:
Bipartisan strategies tend to be morally inappropriate for addressing those mounting problems whose causes would be better apprehended were we to wait until political will were summoned to apprehend them.
Unfortunately, our pols have learned not to educate our electorate, but to opportune pandering, rather than to engage long term vision. Especially since our electorate is becoming ever more impervious to system analysis, yet malleable to demagogues of emotion! And so, we have in Congress our present dregs of “leaders.”
Thus, we continue to engage counterproductive strategies of bipartisanship, holding tightly to lids on boiling cauldrons, even as fires beneath get hotter.
Thus, we hock our future, to continue to stave America away from returning to productive work.
A reckoning always awaits each inappropriate exercise in bipartisanship. Delay did not improve our reckoning in 1860. Delay will not improve our reckoning now. As we lack vision and will to correct ourselves, so will God/Nature stand ready to reset our balance --- often not to our liking.
Where in Washington D.C. is there vision?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/barry_honey_can_we_talk_about.html:
Caroline said:
There are other opinions regarding Lincoln.
"Maybe it would have happened anyway, but since Lincoln the Constitution has meant not what it says, but whatever the U.S. Government decides it shall mean. The very meaning of constitutionality has become entirely fluid, so that the law itself has become exactly what law should never be: unpredictable."
This makes more sense.
On this, I believe you are correct.
But I don't know what it gets us.
Other than to appreciate that a return to rely purely on strict construction of our Constitution is probably not feasible.
Even though the more we allow it to be twisted, the less relevant it becomes as a governing document.
Just given all our changes in technology, it is hard to see how even constitutional purists could have preserved a common, strict meaning for our Constitution.
Even so, our challenge is to preserve enough of it, and enough respect for it, so that we do not fall to be ruled by an unruly mob majority.
I suspect Obama may desire, and sense opportunity, to render our Constitution essentially meaningless.
I suspect his notion of "patriotism" is to move us towards a world government.
Whether we are ready for it or not.
To resist, we will need in common to rediscover respect for something above law, if we are to remain an assimilated nation.
Because you are right: Unless something in our hearts leads us in common to hold law as worthy of respect, then mere law --- words on paper --- cannot, in itself, prescribe or close a consistent guide for our governance.
Law then becomes mainly what each succeeding gang of pols, beholden to addictions valued above law, prescribe by their fiat what our law is.
Those with the good of the electorate at heart need to figure out whether we want to preserve human dignity, or whether we want to sacrifice it to the sort of equality and security as are held in common by those in bondage.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/why_bipartisanship_is_unethica.html:
DH: “I state that your premise if false; ideology is not in the Constitution; we have a representative democracy where people are required to be true to the Constitution, not to an ideology; you are making morality relative to ideology. one can be moral by being true to serving constituents.”
Well, I take our Constitution itself to have been conceived and guided in respect of a fundamental ideology, or “American Ideal,” i.e., a respect for human dignity and freedom of expression, both in speech and in enterprise, to be protected by a carefully crafted system of checks and balances.
So, I fail to see how one can be “true to the Constitution” without being true to some sense of its underlying ideal, or ideology.
While I agree “one can be moral” while serving constituents, I would not agree with any implication, if intended, that one would necessarily be moral merely by serving constituents, regardless of their ideologies or lack thereof. After all, one’s constituents may be a flock of birds of prey, heedless of any moral concerns beyond reducing their own plunder.
DH: “For me, my morality is relative to "doing good" in the sense of good I have from my Christian upbringing.”
Well, how easily (or inconsistently?) do you cast aside your Christian upbringing and redefine your sense of “doing good” when your pragmatic sense of the direction of the wind changes in respect of your homies? How much respect do you have for the moral principles and higher dignity of your homies?
DH: “How many ideologies do you identify in this country or this world or with our politicians? I presume only 2, lib and cons. Of course there are hundreds or thousands or more classifications.”
Well, my impression regarding “ideology” is that Larrey is referring to a worldview in relation to which one strives to act in rational consistency (or at least rationalized consistency). I don’t think he had in mind the thought processes of those who are like leaves of opportunism, blowing in the wind.
DH: “... I run on a platform that I will do whatever I can to help you, my constituent. So, I vote for everything that benefits my voters no matter if it is a liberal or conservative item. I am being true to my word, perhaps to my political philosophy but inconsistent with my liberal ideology. Am I immoral when I carry out my words to my constituents?”
You may thus be like a godless, amoral commie. Acting thus, you would basically be just having a rabble-rousing, community-organizing meeting with homies, to promise and plan a next raid against the remnant of civilized decency.
On the other hand, were you a statesman, you would humbly and continuously refine a worldview by which you thought best to serve God, humanity, country, family, and self. Your worldview would entail a decent respect for human dignity, beyond that of just fellow homie raiders. It would entail respect for how defending borders and boundaries would help preserve a home base for advancing human dignity beyond collectivized security. It would entail being mindful to try to lead homies in that direction.
Stooping merely to follow “your word” for promising to deliver plunder to homies would be mainly about convenience and power lust. By what reasonable reference would such a “pragmatic” course have much to do with “morality”? By devoting yourself to such a course, irrespective of any decent ideology, would you not already have defined yourself as being about power, not about morality? Would you not already have reduced that which guides your “morality” to just so much wind, covered, when helpful, with rationalization and deceit?
BTW, what sort of renaissance would you and your homies next establish, were you to succeed in rubbing out human initiative and establishing detailed governmental control or forced collectivization? Not believing in “God,” just what is your guiding, “higher” purpose? In what reference do you value human dignity? Do you suppose those forced into looking solely to the State for their security, pay, meaning, and salvation should give “thanks”?
(Politically incorrect use of “homies” is intended only to incite substantive response, flavored with enough heat to keep it interesting. I already know you can take a little political incorrectness. Maybe we need a new WFB, or someone to start a “firing line” website for American political debaters — maybe call it “American Political Wrestling” — where pundits could crossfire, as in “Jane, you ignorant slut ....” Then again, maybe the world has become too much a powder keg for that sort of thing.)
******
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/bailouts_relativity_and_dead_p.html
Daniel Gerber,
Your analysis makes some good sense, assuming we had a trustworthy Congress that actually had the best interest of the American people and their system of capitalism at heart.
Were that the case, I appreciate that a disciplined plan of stimulus could help put our economy back on track.
The rub is, a lot of us do not believe those who presently pander to our Dems really want to put our economy back onto a market competition track.
If we are right, your analysis does little to help.
If we are wrong, Congress needs to do more to earn our trust.
But, except for those clamoring for special, long lasting, or permanent programs for entitlements and reparations, I'm not sensing either the love or the grounds for trust.
By your analysis, what is called for are temporary, stimulating injections of funding to those most likely to spend on necessities.
But, if those injections end up becoming permanent, the intended "stimulus" just becomes another perpetual serving of horse crap, does it not?
Would not a permanent diet of horse crap leave a long lasting aftertaste, a lot like socialism?
Governmental Corruption:
Economics:
Mike Brewster's Unaccountable: How the Accounting Profession Forfeited the Public Trust to grasp how that profession did it.
****
Big Government:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/bailouts_relativity_and_dead_p.html:
If Repubs want to regain power, they can do it by adopting a more conservative outlook. That is, an outlook that respects those reasonably intelligent and industrious Americans who want, with their Country, to stand for an American Ideal that consists in more than just themselves. This is not the people who mainly stand just for class warfare and jockeying for individual and corporate gimmes. Appealing to gimme classes, poor or rich, will not defeat, nor should it defeat, a properly inspired and led conservative class. Get government out of the class warfare business and back to limited governing. Big government is the root of counterproductive class envy, not its solution.
****
Collectivism as Religious Fanaticism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1lseXF6FG4&feature=related
****
Libertarianism:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/conservatisms_dilemma_to_be_or.html:
There is much to admire in libertarianism. And a few things that are just dead wrong. I will not get into that debate here. In lieu of debating, I would suggest that you read an absolutely brilliant book by the philosopher David Stove.
The book is called Darwinian Fairytales. It is back in print. [www.amazon.com]
Ayn Rand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va2y2JLKF6Y&feature=related;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq44vD_bzvY&feature=related;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS0Ehigcx6Y&feature=related.
****
Conservatism; Eugenics:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/nancy_pelosis_neoeugenics.html:
Grown Up:
If conservatism is about anything, is it not about employing means for checking markets, to empower freedom within parameters for managing both our human economy and our physical environment?
How do we cooperate to define and agree upon such means, parameters, and goals?
How do we define when a billion people within a single country is too much of a good thing?
How do we employ judgment to decide when, in an abundance of caution, to try new measures to conserve various of our species and resources?
Where do we find and inspire vision and means for managing our rate of change, morphology, and evolution?
Among various balances, how do we put in place or find signs (or canaries in coal mines) to warn us when we are approaching diminishing returns or even catastrophes?
To the insightful, are there signs that human population is crowding out other values, such as: individual worth and freedom; other species; sustainable habitat?
Are there signs that increases in human population are enhancing niches for the sudden evolution of such bacteria and bugs as will overpower man’s genetic and medical ingenuity?
Are there signs that increases in human population are enhancing niches for burgeoning unmanageability of human and international relations?
Are there signs that increases in human population are impairing sustainable techonolgical inventiveness?
Apart from rationalizing unregulated competition among greedbags, what are conservatives doing to conserve civilizing qualities of life?
****
American Ideal:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/predictions_of_hope_and_change.html:
Raf from Florida:
"The game is already underway and we can only speculate on what’s going on in the smoke filled back rooms, but we KNOW it’s happening and it will affect us all."
Is there no effective way to confront sociopaths, apart from becoming one, or submitting to let them have complete rule? Big money seems so like Big Islam.
Once upon a time, there was a way; and it guided the American Ideal. If we fail to defend the American Ideal, so will we all fall. The threat is real; the time is short.
****
Coming To Reason Together; Bipartisanship:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/why_bipartisanship_is_unethica.html:
DH said:
“Every day I work with people laid off from factories looking for work and fearing what is going to happen to them. This mess is real for them and for me, it is not some theoretical banter. Your fellow citizens worry about food and heat and finding work and what they hear is people screaming about "redistributionists."
One woman said to me, "What kind of jobs do older women who are losing their eyesight get?" I suppose I should have just said, "don't know, but don't expect us to redistribute someone else's money to support you." Pity. Pity.”
Well, are you working for a secular or a church charity, or for a government sponsored program?
In that area, are there many secular based charities, or do most secularists consider their charity contributions to consist mainly in their tax payments?
In your experience, when a person receives charity, does he/she feel more grateful when it comes from a church sponsored charity, but more entitled when it comes from a government sponsored program?
As government programs increase, what happens to church sponsored programs?
If you are working for a government sponsored program, are you grateful, or are you saying it does not provide enough funds?
If so, how much more funding does it need? Is there any end to it?
If you were to raise funding by increasing taxes so as to diminish resources of private employers, would you expect that would improve job prospects for the woman you mention, who is losing her eyesight?
Does she have family? Were they helping her, would they become closer?
Do you know folks who, because of liberal lifestyle choices or addictions pertaining to drugs or alcohol or simple sloth, simply prefer not to hold jobs and instead to live off handouts and charities?
Look, I would like to see responsible safety net programs.
But I think the whole “vice and gimme agenda” slants towards pushing those programs beyond all manageability.
By “gimme agenda” I mean the agenda of both Dems and Repubs for welfare and corporate welfare.
Our social security program is a teetering Ponzi scheme.
Given our culture of gimme and vice, on what basis do you suppose the representatives we elect would manage other safety net programs better?
In my own experience, I have: a homeless 40 year old nephew to whom I wire a few hundred every month; a sister who requires regular attention on account of an acute problem of alcohol addiction; a nephew who was shotgunned in the back by a homosexual guard at a governmental sponsored boys home; a brother and sister in law who were murdered. I have represented children who were abused and neglected. I occasionally buy breakfasts for bums at IHOP. I taught Sunday School to homeless teenagers.
I think most of us, including conservatives, have similar stories, each in his or her own “naked city.” I have not noticed that throwing money at any such persons has done much to improve their situations.
Rather, in my own family and circles, I have noticed that loving, encouraging, respectful, expecting relationships do much more than money to help raise responsible children. What I have seen work are responsible role models, not enablers of vice and gimme crap culture.
If Libs want my “bipartisan” support, why do they work so hard to fund the open borders recruitment and servicing of lifestyles conducive for justifying, enabling, and increasing the numbers of illegals, felons, dropouts, and sex and drug addicts?
I want to see a return to humility, gratitude, initiative, empathy --- in a word, spirituality. I see neither our solution nor our salvation in ever more gimme government. You want results, look to your Source.
I watched on You Tube the other day an 8 part evolution debate between Buckley, Brezinski, Behe and some clueless opposition. One of the things I marveled at was some dufus complaint that God, in allowing various dead ends and died out species, must, if He is a designer, be "incompetent."
To me, a simple "answer" to that is that God's consciousness experiences all that we do, only more. If God, in pursuit of some higher art, wishes to risk, learn from, and experience the sort of hard knocks we experience, who am I to say His mode is unworthy or incompetent?
When I was in Japan in 1955, Okinawa in 1960, and Korea in 1969, I observed many poor folks bearing nearly unimaginable loads. Yet, I knew each one prized his life as having worth and Dignity, and woe to he who would try to take it. Regarding God's providence or "incomeptence": I guess perspective is key.
Community Organizers: Instead of rabble rousing for entitlements, recruit persons of various skills to conduct self-help and social-encouragment workshops.
Regarding your clients: I value their dignity more than their claims of entitlement. Better that they learn humility, gratitude, initiative, and empathy.
Better that everyone wise up and quit wise'ing off against churches devoted to empathetic social responsibility.
****
DH: “I state that your premise if false; ideology is not in the Constitution; we have a representative democracy where people are required to be true to the Constitution, not to an ideology; you are making morality relative to ideology. one can be moral by being true to serving constituents.”
Well, I take our Constitution itself to have been conceived and guided in respect of a fundamental ideology, or “American Ideal,” i.e., a respect for human dignity and freedom of expression, both in speech and in enterprise, to be protected by a carefully crafted system of checks and balances.
So, I fail to see how one can be “true to the Constitution” without being true to some sense of its underlying ideal, or ideology.
While I agree “one can be moral” while serving constituents, I would not agree with any implication, if intended, that one would necessarily be moral merely by serving constituents, regardless of their ideologies or lack thereof. After all, one’s constituents may be a flock of birds of prey, heedless of any moral concerns beyond reducing their own plunder.
DH: “For me, my morality is relative to "doing good" in the sense of good I have from my Christian upbringing.”
Well, how easily (or inconsistently?) do you cast aside your Christian upbringing and redefine your sense of “doing good” when your pragmatic sense of the direction of the wind changes in respect of your homies? How much respect do you have for the moral principles and higher dignity of your homies?
DH: “How many ideologies do you identify in this country or this world or with our politicians? I presume only 2, lib and cons. Of course there are hundreds or thousands or more classifications.”
Well, my impression regarding “ideology” is that Larrey is referring to a worldview in relation to which one strives to act in rational consistency (or at least rationalized consistency). I don’t think he had in mind the thought processes of those who are like leaves of opportunism, blowing in the wind.
DH: “... I run on a platform that I will do whatever I can to help you, my constituent. So, I vote for everything that benefits my voters no matter if it is a liberal or conservative item. I am being true to my word, perhaps to my political philosophy but inconsistent with my liberal ideology. Am I immoral when I carry out my words to my constituents?”
You may thus be like a godless, amoral commie. Acting thus, you would basically be just having a rabble-rousing, community-organizing meeting with homies, to promise and plan a next raid against the remnant of civilized decency.
On the other hand, were you a statesman, you would humbly and continuously refine a worldview by which you thought best to serve God, humanity, country, family, and self. Your worldview would entail a decent respect for human dignity, beyond that of just fellow homie raiders. It would entail respect for how defending borders and boundaries would help preserve a home base for advancing human dignity beyond collectivized security. It would entail being mindful to try to lead homies in that direction.
Stooping merely to follow “your word” for promising to deliver plunder to homies would be mainly about convenience and power lust. By what reasonable reference would such a “pragmatic” course have much to do with “morality”? By devoting yourself to such a course, irrespective of any decent ideology, would you not already have defined yourself as being about power, not about morality? Would you not already have reduced that which guides your “morality” to just so much wind, covered, when helpful, with rationalization and deceit?
BTW, what sort of Renaissance would you and your homies next establish, were you to succeed in rubbing out human initiative and establishing detailed governmental control or forced collectivization? Not believing in “God,” just what is your guiding, “higher” purpose? In what reference do you value human dignity? Do you suppose those forced into looking solely to the State for their security, pay, meaning, and salvation should give “thanks”?
(Politically incorrect use of “homies” is intended only to incite substantive response, flavored with enough heat to keep it interesting. I already know you can take a little political incorrectness. Maybe we need a new WFB, or someone to start a “firing line” website for American political debaters — maybe call it “American Political Wrestling” — where pundits could crossfire, as in “Jane, you ignorant slut ....” Then again, maybe the world has become too much a powder keg for that sort of thing.)
****
To DH:
First, I would say I am fully confident Larrey can defend himself. Witness how his articles tend to promote such considerable discussion. He has a bully pulpit and may well further and later address therein some of your concerns, at such time as he may find convenient. So, not to worry. No wine before its time.
“This article states it is immoral and unethical to be bipartisan.”
Well, I think the point pertains less to an absolute rule than to a wake up call about how often it is the case — that being bipartisan is immoral. For another take, in a favorite movie, George C. Scott, playing Patton, may have commented about what a pity it is to have limited war — inasmuch as it affirms nothing.
“Were this the case, it is as wrong for a lib to be bipartisan as a con.”
Well, I think there is often something to that.
Another poster was talking about how it is best sometimes for boys to learn for themselves how to crawl down out of trees.
Libs have made a BDS noisy ruckus whining against Cons for quite some time.
So, I can appreciate a little justice in giving them a leash long enough to learn some hard knock lessons (which, BTW, I decline to view as "torture").
“This article posits that being true to an ideology is moral, being inconsistent with an ideology but responsive to one's constituents is not.”
Not quite. One may educate one’s constituents to appreciate the values of one’s beliefs. In that case, a pol becomes a statesman, leader, teacher, and character builder.
Or, when one’s constituents are of low insight or intellect, one can do as one pleases and simply bedazzle them with airy words.
Or, one can pay them with earmarks and goodies, to grease their innate capacities for rationalizing how deserving they are.
“The point is one must be true to one's ideology. Never give an inch. If you do, you are immoral.”
Personally, I would hardly ever say “never.”
However, given recent antics (too polite a word for it) of our pols and media, with Libs and MSM acting as such strident "know it all’s," I would agree that it is only fitting to let them learn from the school of hard knocks.
For examples:
Let Barry and NYT learn from the school of hard knocks what are the consequences to closing down Gitmo;
Let them learn the consequences of hamstringing all intense interrogations of enemy terrorists by categorizing such as being in the prohibited range of war crimes;
Let them learn the consequences of borders left open to massive illegal invasions of un-assimilable immigrants;
Let them earn the full fury of those who wish to conserve America; and
Let them earn it quickly, so that America may have some chance to recover.
That’s all.
“No one has addressed my point.”
Well, I don’t see the point of debating faux absolutes. Need context. To me, the context of how Libs have come to political power is what is important. Given present context, I do not see the point of greasing skids for Rules for Radicals.
If the Agenda of Libs is so great, Libs can sell it on its merits. They hardly need help from Conservatives. Instead, let's each make verbal points and then watch and see how great the “solutions” of Libs pan out to be.
Take an unruly child. One that constantly whines and throws things and hardly ever listens with any real intention to learn or to adjust. Would you just keep “cooperating” in the same way with such a child’s antics?
“You want libs to never give an inch because it is unethical?”
I want Libs to learn to act like grownups. If they truly have the courage of their convictions, just keep doing what they’re doing. If they learn where they are wrong, adjust in their ideologies. (To me, that means to become more conservative.)
Obviously, once god/nature shows Libs where they are wrong, it would be wrong for them not to change.
“Do you believe it is unethical to be bipartisan?”
When opposition acts like adolescents, I don’t see the point of being bipartisan.
Adolescents need to learn, either from those with more experience and insight, or from the school of hard knocks.
Being bipartisan is for grownups.
So long as Dems consent to be led as if they were adolescents, I see little that tends to be of moral value in trying to be bipartisan with them.
Do you act in bipartisan fashion with unruly children?
For all the more reason, ask: Should you act in bipartisan fashion with unruly children who have studied and mastered hardly anything, apart from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals?
That, I believe, may account for much of Conservatives' shortening patience with Libs.
I know --- one may complain that I use psychological ploys or belittling words to avoid consenting to address Libs' concerns on an equal level. Well, get used to it. Look at Michael Moore, Code Pink, Ivy League banishment's of ROTC, San Francisco moonbat values. Until Libs put such folks in a figurative corner, for them to take time out to grow up, why should Conservatives try to engage Lib ideas in a bipartisan way?
****
Liberty4usa:
"Deciding who deserves charity involves judging man, and that too is usually considered amoral...."
I think it's about context and interpretation. That is, all we mere mortals profile, judge, discriminate, acquire tastes, habits, and preferences, and place burdens of proof. I think the sin comes in one's making the burden of proof not reasonably surmountable, notwithstanding an opponents good faith efforts. That is: Conceit not to make final or insurmountable judgments of others, lest ye also be judged. But Jesus' rendition is ever so much more poetic and inspiring!
"Compromise- is also a religious tenet and that is why I made this point!"
Yes, but brew, respect principles, and be not too easy about compromise.
Otherwise, the opposition does not respect you "in the morning," and will mess over you ever after.
By firm action, opposition must become convinced of the necessity of according due respect.
Which begs questions:
Did the Left ever accord Bush due respect, for anything?
By the Left's antics, how wary should Conservatives remain, and how high a burden should we place, to believe they have returned to adult sensibilities?
Obama asked us to judge him based not on his experience but on his demonstrated judgment.
So, lets watch for the demonstration.
****
DH:
“To save you some time so you have more for thinking up another grand obfuscation, I've posted his words below.
Larrey Anderson: bipartisanship is almost never ethical. [i] The exception to this rule would be a declaration of war, a resolution expressing sympathy, gratitude, etc. In other words, bipartisanship only makes moral sense if there is no underlying disagreement between the legislators.”
Well, you are certainly a die-hard! Appreciate the time saver. Prefer not to phone a friend.
Rather, in parsing, I must perhaps resort to one of two things: 1) Speak for myself; or 2) Dial in an implication.
If dialing for an implication IS NOT prohibited, I suggest an intention that, once principled legislators agree to act in a bipartisan fashion, they must have resolved their (get ready : : ) “substantively significant” underlying disagreement.
If dialing for an implication IS prohibited, then, in speaking for myself, I would suggest that bipartisanship can sometimes make moral sense --- once substantively significant underlying disagreements between legislators have been resolved.
I recognize that this sort of “faux-resolution,” i.e., arguing to re-characterize implication, is not a method of “either-or” logic. But it is a time honored routine for use before juries. This may be because many important social issues that we must ask juries to resolve are simply not amenable of “either-or” logical resolution. That is, before a jury, justice may be seen to be done, even when it may not actually have been done.
See [www.biblegateway.com]: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
Really, this takes me back to the importance of context and empathetic good faith. I do not believe non-trivial issues (that is, issues of most importance to human relations) tend to be amenable to strict rules of logic, divorced from (bipartisan?) good faith. In part, this is why I believe we need to be receptive to “spiritual” guidance and intution, often beyond objectively collected facts and rules. This is why I think God remains important: Since there are few non-trivial rules that are absolutely objective, we need a common Source for inspiring us to come to reason together in empathetic (bipartisan?) good will.
Somehow, we muddle through, factoring and balancing various needs, such as for: rhetoric, inspiration, security, friends, alliances, guideposts, traditions, rules, and legalistic constructs. For this, “either-or” logic is often of illusory value when we try to apply it, as if we should be morally safe merely by abiding to simple, absolute formulations of words.
For less complicated, more trivial systems, two-part “either-or logic” may be suitable. For human relations, the ontology of our conscious interactions tends to be more complicated, usually entailing at least three fluxing parts: consciousness; concept; and means of expression. Because those three parts are fundamentally interdependent, no one of them is detachable, to be reduced to its own separate, complete, or absolute logic or analysis.
Even so, our Western habits of thought tend to make it more convenient for us to communicate as if non-trivial ideas could be communicated accurately with “either-or” absolute classifications.
And so, it is often impractical to repeat such qualifications each and every time one wishes to make a contextual argument, either written or verbal. I would not likely dream of approaching a jury with such abstractions.
Nor do I think Larrey should approach his audience with so many such abstractions.
So, speaking for myself, I take what Larrey writes in conservative context, and in context of recent history of Lib and Con interactions.
From my standpoint, I would grant that Larrey did not use the “almost” qualifier in as many strategic places as he perhaps should have. From his standpoint, he may have simply preferred not to soften a point of import, the music of the context being more important than the mathematics of the logic.
****
“To disagree with the author while saying you agreed with him. Well done.”
Well, in current context, I do agree with his sentiments, even as I recognize the difficulty of trying to provide strong guidance that does not violate strict logic.
“You've remained true to the conservative creed; like the businesses who rail against taxes but want economic development subsidies.”
No, I am an “Extreme Moderate,” remember? I rail against using income tax revenues to redistribute wealth, both as welfare and as corporate welfare.
But, I do want another form of progressive taxation, i.e., a progressive tax on yearly consumption. Still, I would not advocate applying its revenues to the redistribution of wealth, but to the building of common infrastructure.
“… how can we agree so much in our view of the world but disagree on our interpretation?”
On a one on one basis, outside of government, I do tend to be with you.
It is in your willingness to use government tax revenues to redistribute wealth that I disagree.
I do not disagree with your purpose. But I do think your means are counterproductive. The reason I think your means are counterproductive is because I fundamentally believe government is not well suited for your task.
This is because I see in history man’s corrupt weakness. Based on history, I ask what mortal can be trusted with temptations inherent in license acquired to redistribute trillions of dollars?
Especially at a time when our society has become meanly untethered to good faith interpretations of god or philosophy?
“Life is complicated, there are few pure choices and context means everything.”
Ok.
“You can't just make a broad pronouncement that bipartisanship is ethical or unethical, although that is what has been done in this article.”
Well, careful writers nowadays often inject qualifying words at strategic places.
But, you are making a mountain out of this footnote of Larrey’s:
“[i] The exception to this rule would be a declaration of war, a resolution expressing sympathy, gratitude, etc. In other words, bipartisanship only makes moral sense if there is no underlying disagreement between the legislators.”
I sense you would have liked it better had he instead said “bipartisanship USUALLY makes moral sense ONLY if there is no underlying disagreement between the legislators.”
In fairness, I often wish I had injected a few more strategically placed qualifiers, and I suspect you do also.
So, I think enough has been made of this, and more value would come of considering when context should indicate an exception.
That is, in what context might bipartisanship make moral sense even when there is underlying disagreement between the legislators?
Well, I would suppose such an exception would apply so long as legislators felt cause to trust one another’s good faith for seeking ground for resolving the underlying disagreement.
But in our present context, which side has most demagogued its positions, as if in concrete? Which side has the worse case of BDS? Which side behaves more like adolescents?
Were you the Speaker, instead of Pelosi, more may come of bipartisan efforts.
Given that Pelosi is Speaker, one needs to be contextually realistic.
Given that our Congressional leadership has swum to the top rungs of power by making many corrupt bargains with the devil, how should bipartisanship now be approached, with folks of such demonstrated inclinations?
“That is why I am a pragmatic lib and rail against the ideologues.”
Well, as a pragmatic liberal, were you a Dem Congressman, how would you resist Pelosi’s ideological discipline?
“I'd caution you, Larrey certainly does not want you speaking for him, "You presume to know what is in my head? Wow. Not even my wife makes that presumption." But you aren't a lib so perhaps it is ok.”
I grant, for any of us, it can be harder to respectfully disagree, when one feels disrespected.
But, when your cause seems just, and your wits allow, you can continue.
“But the real point is that a country cannot be governed when people think that bipartisanship is unethical.”
Yes, I think Dems demonstrated this, with BDS.
When Dems demonstrate they have recovered from BDS, bipartisanship may become more “pragmatic.”
So far, I have not seen a recovery.
“The fact that an intelligent former politician is promoting this anti-democratic ideology ….”
Take an extreme case of needing to resist against mind-duping forces that have overrun media, academia, financial institutions, and politicians of tweedledum and tweedledee. How far is bipartisanship going to get you?
Is bipartisanship any better a strategy against such a juggernaught than against Marxism?
“And implicit in all this is that one must represent ideology not the voters.”
Larrey has suggested how voters are easily manipulated by more monied forces. (Do you disagree?)
If that is so, how does a principled representative preserve the ideal of a representative republic?
Larrey did not specifically advocate giving in to monied interest.
He said that is how the game is commonly played. (Do you have information to refute that?)
“… perhaps AT would consent to just delete it so we both can forget it.”
WHAT??? Are you now into Marxist censorship?
"Words mean things and ideas have consequences!" applies here very well.”
Yes, words, like mathematical functions, often mean things, and such meaning often consists in incorrect solutions to mathematical puzzles. To communicate in good faith, one needs to have capacity to look both to strict logic and to context beyond it. This is, with regard to every non-trivial perception, not because “Goddidit,” but because it “could not be did” without God.
Or, if you think any non-trivial event or perception can be corralled within “either-or” logic,” either to prove its cause or its effect, by all means, demonstrate!
Ultimately, as basis to RESPECT (not to prove or explain) perception, I think we need to come back to a Perceiver, i.e., a consciously willed Perceiver. And that common respect is our basis for a higher “bipartisanship,” in respect of which we can have faith that, eventually, we may come better to reason together.
“Conservative talk radio and sites like AT are hyper polarizing people on the right, even rational people.”
OMG! I see much more principled conversation on conservative sites than on Leftist sites. Talk about polarizing! If any side has a big old log in its eye, it is the Left.
“And you, Dlanor, and the other patriotic conservatives on this site are so blinded by your personalized anger at libs that your arguments abandon America's democratic principles.”
I don’t see it that way. I see a juggernaught onslaught against Representative governance. And I think it is working both through Dems and Repubs. I see Conservatism as a vestige of hope.
"We had to destroy democracy in order to save it?"
Indeed, the juggernaught is working hard at that.
****
DH: "I see no communication on AT"
Well, try communicating, for example, an intelligible justification for Pelosi's stimulus bill efforts.
If you think Repubs, as to the non-stimulating aspects of that bill, should act so that such aspects be kept, ignored, changed, protested, or acquiesced to, perhaps specify why.
BTW, I do see communication, especially in the sense of rallying against a juggernaught.
But, if you have not yet noticed the juggernaught, I don't know what more could serve to bring it to your notice.
Until then, the frog water will just keep getting hotter.
No doubt, at some point, there will be a national phase change.
And that, indeed, will entail Communication.
Something will be negated; Something will be affirmed.
To seek to answer what that Something is, each of us must look to his or her own Source.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/predictions_of_hope_and_change.html:
Put aside class wars for a minute.
May not one still reasonably hope that new insights are drawing Empirical Science and Mystical Spirituality closer together, faster than most people realize?
Mainstream quantum physics and membrane biology are becoming as “weird” as oft denigrated New Age and Post Modern Philosophy.
A new sort of AWAKENING, arising from a new and empathetic appreciation or coalition among scientists and spiritualists, may yet conserve many of us from our own divisive and limited wars and class envies.
In that regard, some suggest each one of us must be the change he or she wants to be. (Obama: “We are the change we have been waiting for.”)
But I think more.
I think each of us can, and needs to, envision a world view, whereby a civilization that is friendly to creative expressions of change can be checked, balanced, and preserved within manageable parameters for availing freedom of expression.
In other words, it is NOT ENOUGH that we become child-like citizens, able to live within a LIBERAL civilization that is protected by others.
Rather, we must also become adult citizens, able to draw and enforce the lines and definitions needed to CONSERVE and sustain such a civilization.
It is in moral fiber for doing this hard, adult work that I find Democratic Liberals and Republican Bluebloods so often lacking (or “adolescent”). It is they who must be purged from Congress.
And a rising coalition among scientists and spiritualists of common good will may yet unite and inspire adult Conservatives to that cause.
Diggy Diggy Do, from A.T.:
"if you feel more government is the answer you now know if you are with me or against me"
We only need that government which can help wean us to less government, to more market-based, culturally assimilated, mutual empathy and respect.
Perhaps, the best social goal is one of free markets, to be no more distorted by monopolies or government than is necessary. However, that is not a formula that can be reduced solely to mathematical parameters.
Re: Less Government
Well, I share your sentiment, which you base that on a mindset, or faith.
But there is no mathematical proof to justify why you should choose to feel that way.
You cannot very well justify that faith without looking elsewhere.
I suggest justification may be derived in respect of empathetic valuation for the freedom and dignity of fellow human beings.
And the higher justification for that derives from recognition that their perspectives of consciousness are merely variations from a Source of consciousness, from which your own perspective is derived.
In other words, each of our perspectives is an illusory, albeit empathetic, experience of a same Source.
It is not so much that one should (toughly) love one’s neighbors as oneself as it is that one cannot very well love oneself without (toughly) loving one’s neighbors.
I am not sure Ayn Rand appreciated that.
Nor do I believe the “dismal science” of economics (or of governance) is especially “objective.”
Even though playing with notions and numbers can make for an interesting pastime.
Financial Meltdown from housing market:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1
Post a Comment