Most of the name calling between the pundits isn’t very news worthy, but Alex Jones sounds so much like Sam Kinison its difficult not to laugh even when he is being serious.
Jones compares Beck to Grima Wormtongue in Lord of the Rings. Its a bit dated, but I think of most TV pundits as Larry ‘Lonesome’ Rhodes from A Face in the Crowd.
Once again Ron Paul demonstrates that being pro-liberty means pointing out any danger of unchecked power in government. Once again the far right will call Paul crazy because the CIA is the good kind of big government bureaucracy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLfd_IOneus
Ok…I’m officially a conspiracy nut now. There have been police helicopters for years, but using the same tools and tactics used to fight terrorism on US citizens is scary.
Ron Paul “What the people are upset about is the government can no longer function”
Anthony Weiner on Ron Paul “I’m not sure he’s in touch with the mothership”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m36rzWr1JHU&feature=player_embeddedWeiner evidently didn’t understand the anger message from the election results. I’m sure the hounds will be released shortly.
The lesson to learn in the latest ping pong game of politics is when governing with an agenda other than defending freedom, you are asking for rude awaking from voters. It wasn’t Obama’s agenda that was the problem in Massachusetts–it was having an agenda to begin with. The goal of our form of government is to defend freedom, and when the power of government is used to serve other purposes there will be consequences.
No amount of marketing or packaging or media can turn a loss of freedom into something everyone will gleefully accept as beneficial. Neoconservatives tried to sell national security in exchange for liberty and paid the price at the ballot booth. Progressives have been trying to sell the security of health care insurance in exchange for liberty, and will eventually suffer the same fate as neoconservatives.
The agenda of redefining freedom as security didn’t work for the Bush administration, and redefining freedom as health care security isn’t working for Obama’s administration. They can use the power they have to force their new definitions onto the public, but there will always (and should always) be a backlash for stripping freedom rather than preserving freedom.
What happened in Massachusetts is not a lesson in politics; it’s the rule of getting into trouble when you aren’t doing the job you were hired to do. Jobs have specific requirements. You are expected to X,Y and Z and if you add V and W and stop doing X and Y, you might get fired. We hired the President and Congress; they are our employees, not our leaders. They were not hired to create new definitions of their jobs or draw up a new rule book.
I hope Washington got the message loud and clear; it’s time to put the agendas aside and get back to doing the job you were hired to do. If there is any question or doubt about the responsibilities of their job, somewhere there is a two hundred year old employee manual to follow.
If you heard someone say, “Drinking Pepsi made me fat, so I’m switching to Coke,” you’d think they were joking, or ignorant of the fact there isn’t much difference between the two. Maybe this person just hasn’t heard about drinking water, tea or cappuccino? Perhaps they have a short memory, and forgot they put on weight when they used to drink Coke?
Much of the debate on political blogs runs along these same lines. The Republicans sure made a mess of things, so vote for the Democrats; the Democrats are screwing up worse than the Republicans, so vote Republican. The blogs sometimes say its the voters’ fault for not voting for the good candidates, but that’s like saying you got fat by picking the wrong can of Pepsi.
Democrats and Republicans keep telling us they have changed the formula in their products. They tell us this election is different. “We are now New Coke, and New Coke tastes much better than Pepsi or old Coke.” Then it turns out the formula hasn’t changed, and they’ve only put a new label or logo on the bottle.
As screwed up as things are right now, why do people insist on choosing between two obviously faulty products? I’m disappointed in America because there hasn’t been a third and fourth party emerge. How screwed up do things have to get before other political parties gain popularity when there is clearly a market for other brands of politics?
I like the Libertarian party, but things are so far removed from the ideas of limited governing that having Libertarians in office sounds dangerous to most. I’m not opposed to a radical change from the present situation, but to the general public, Libertarian views seem more radical than changes proposed by the far left.
I’d settle for something simpler at this point–something along the lines of a growing freedom party. Not a party to revolutionize or change everything at once, just a very simple philosophy of looking for ways to grow freedom. Any new or proposed change to legislation would be held up to the simple question: Will this lead to more or less freedom?
No hidden agenda with being pro-liberty; it would be a clear goal to restore freedom one baby step at a time. No overzealous unrealistic promises of changing the political landscape required; instead, just a very simple promise of increasing liberty when the opportunity presents itself.
It’s sad to be hoping for a party that in essence would be defending and upholding the Constitution, but that sums up just how far away from liberty we are.
An Illinois National Guard soldier has been charged with possession of child pornography over snapshots of a 4-year-old niece in a swimsuit. The story is important to mention because when the subject of children is thrown into political debate, liberty is thrown out the window.
The emotional strings pulled by playing the “children card” trump all reasoning. In the overzealousness to protect children, free speech and civil rights have been unintended victims. The story of this National Guard soldier illustrates the potential harm of protecting children at all costs.
What happened to this soldier could happen to anyone. The family photo albums of the when the kids were toddlers has to go in the trash. Do not dare take pictures of your own kids at a park. The 1978 version of Superman should be destroyed because it shows baby Clark Kent’s weenie. Anyone could potentially be charged as a child predator.
This isn’t about hatred for kids, but about not being blinded by the natural instinct to protect children. Playing the children card has been used in the war on drugs, war on poverty, censorship, smoking and gun control. Here are some examples when children are brought in the rules completely change.
Protecting children seems to supersede the US Constitution. Sex offenders can be held indefinitely in jail.
We have a National Sex Offender Registry but not a a murderer registry–at least not yet, although some have proposed a murderer listing.
Some states have proposed defining “smoking around children” as child abuse. So would it be an assault to smoke near an adult?
Many countries have internet censorship to protect children from harmful material. Free speech doesn’t apply if little ears are present.
SCHIP’s (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) get passed into law without the same amount of controversy health care reform has generated.
More often than not, the “protect the children” argument is thrown in simply to win the debate. Using children in politics is just a way of saying, “If you don’t agree with me, you hate children.” The people that support censorship would still support censorship, even if it were impossible for children to ever see a pornographic image.
When the children card is played, ask yourself, “Is the intent to protect kids, or is it really about controlling other people?” After asking this question, you’ll often see people who are promoting their own version of morality and aren’t interested in protecting children or liberty.
Fark.com – Seattle’s new city attorney dismissing all cases of pot possession. Conservatives outraged, saying that expensive, bureaucratic, pointless lawyers and jail cells are the GOOD kind of socialism (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
The headline is funny because its true; liberals and conservatives both suffer from “its not socialism when we do it” blindness.
It is socialism, because the mindset behind the war on drugs and health care reform are one and the same: creating a better society through force of government. It’s saying individuals don’t own the right to choose their actions if their actions don’t benefit society as a whole.
The definition of socialism is ownership and control of the means of production and distribution. When you can force your neighbor to follow your ideas of what is good for them, you are in essence claiming ownership of your neighbor’s morality and following the philosophy of socialism. You don’t own your neighbor. You are not your neighbor’s authority. You don’t own their thoughts, or the right to determine which actions are to their benefit.
Its a good thing to want to be part of a beneficial change. America is a society rich in morality. It comes as no surprise there are large numbers of people speaking out on issues that need improvement. Improving America’s society through force damages that source of morality, free people choosing to do the right thing without the intervention of others.
The way to achieve a better society is through persuasion and reason, not force. To those who embrace these socialist principles: the next time you see an evil in society and want to take a some action to improve the situation, speak up about it. Let others know how you think, explain your reasons for supporting or opposing an action. When reason fails to persuade and doesn’t change views , you should MAKE A BETTER ARGUMENT! Listen to the objections to your view, and use the feedback to craft a more persuasive argument.
Using force solve the problems in society is cowardly, because if you really believe in the logic and morality of your view, you’ll let the view stand on its own. If the change you seek really is beneficial, then it’s inevitable and predictable the change will come about, even if you take no action at all. Promoting a principle through force bastardizes the principle; a good principle doesn’t require force for others to adopt.
Using force to solve the problems in society is shortsighted. Force is only effective while force is present. When an authority isn’t present, people will do what they want to do. Forcing anything, even a good thing can cause people to reject it, because it’s natural to object to someone else running your life. The best society possible is one where people of good conscience act to the benefit of themselves and others by their own choice.
There is no good kind of socialism. Individuals with free will, reflecting principles of morality, own the means and production to a better society.
“Conspiracy Theories” by Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule is making the blog controversy rounds.
Background – Cass R. Sunstein is Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. The paper was written two years ago, before Sunstein became the Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator. It’s unknown if Sunstein still holds the views in this paper, but it’s fair to ask if Sunstein still holds these views.
The two lines in the paper that have set people off: (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. The paper discusses these options, but does not conclude to follow either of these options.
The paper does, however, conclude the way to combat groups formed from conspiracy theories is by the government infiltrating the groups to break them up–In other words, a government conspiracy to fight conspiracy theories.
Half the paper dives into the psychology behind conspiracy theories, or as Ric Romero would say “people hold beliefs that are not based in fact.”
The other half of the paper weighs how governments should deal with conspiracy theories, and some of those suggestions are just like pouring gasoline on conspiracy theory fires.
Excerpts from the paper –
Our ultimate goal is to explore how public officials might undermine such theories, and as a general rule, true accounts should not be undermined.
When civil rights and civil liberties are absent, people lack multiple information sources, and they are more likely to accept conspiracy theories.
Our principal claim here involves the potential value of cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, designed to introduce informational diversity into such groups and to expose indefensible conspiracy theories as such.
What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses.
(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.
(2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories.
(4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech.
(5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help.
Conclusion – Our goal here has been to understand the sources of conspiracy theories and to examine potential government responses.
Some conspiracy theories create serious risks. They do not merely undermine democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If government can dispel such theories, it should do so. One problem is that its efforts might be counterproductive, because efforts to rebut conspiracy theories also legitimate them.
We have suggested, however, that government can minimize this effect by rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy-minded groups and informationally isolated social networks.
The underlying argument in the conclusion is akin to declaring war on war, but not calling it a war. To support fighting the cognitive dissonance of conspiracy theories with cognitive infiltration requires a great deal of cognitive dissonance.
My favorite part of the paper – What causes such theories to arise and spread?