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.
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.
The latest round of race relations being discussed in the news has created a flurry of emails from zombies reminding me of how poorly they are treated in society. Zombies face an abundance of ignorance, intolerance, and hate on a daily basis. This is a summary of the most common racial intolerance zombies face.
Zombies are upset about the insensitive comments made towards how they stink, talk funny, are stupid, and are slow.
Zombies are tired of hearing , “All you zombies talk funny; it’s brains, not ‘braaaaaaaaaaains.’ Get a job, deadbeat zombie. Go back to Hell, where you came from. Kill a zombie for your mommie.” Humans can’t seem to say zombie without saying “stupid zombie.”
Backhanded compliments from humans: “You have nice skin, for a zombie. You are smart, for a braindead zombie. At least you aren’t French.”
There are no laws to protect zombies from discrimination. Zombies are barred from voting, jobs, homes, marrying, education, and police protection. Zombies are only protected while in a grave, and even there they have to defend themselves from necrophiliacs.
There is no double standard in the news where Zombies are concerned because there is only one standard. There aren’t any networks or news shows with a zombie bias. News programs don’t have hours of debate when a human makes a racially charged anti-zombie comment. No one has ever been asked to resign because of an off-color remark about zombies.
Hollywood clearly has an anti-zombie bias. Other undead creatures like ghosts and spirits are treated as heroes. How many love scenes have you seen between a zombie and a human? There are zero romances with zombies, but Vampires get laid all the time.
Zombies are racially profiled without fail. Humans don’t stop and ask themselves before chopping one in half, “Maybe this one isn’t a bad zombie?” If a human dare speak out in defense of zombies, they are quickly labeled a zombie-lover.
Just because they are Life-force challenged is no reason for the unequal treatment zombies receive in society.
Health care reform was sold with the argument that all Americans had the right to health care. How can something you are forced to do be considered a right? Call me mad, call me crazy, but I thought a right was something you could choose to do, or not do.
Imagine –
You were required to speak out.
You were forced to prove you are a member of a religious organization.
You were mandated to publish something.
You must own a weapon to defend yourself.
You had to peaceably assemble a certain amount of times each year.
Imagine if you didn’t do any of the above, you had to pay a 750 dollar fine for not exercising each of these rights.
This is the logic behind the health care reform bill: you have the right to health care insurance, and if you choose not to exercise this new right, you’ll pay a heavy penalty.
To sum it up, we are are being sold a lie that individual rights are an old-fashioned notion. A negative campaign is being waged that says America needs to change and be more like modern advanced countries that believe society as a whole has rights that supersede individual rights. Putting individual liberties first is only old-fashioned to Americans, because the rest of the world is still catching up with the concept. Ignoring individual rights is an age-old concept and that can hardly be described as modern or advanced.
Let me point out some less advertised features of these advanced countries American has been compared to. These are examples of what happens in countries where individual rights are placed behind society rights:
Canada – The Customs and Revenue Agency is responsible for determining which books, videos, comics, and other material should be allowed into the country.
Germany – Declared the Church of Scientology unconstitutional.
France – Wants fines for wearing burqas in public.
United Kingdom – Censors political speech and attitudes.
These countries should be examples of what not to do; they are example of the dangers of putting individual rights at the back of bus. Don’t look to them for examples on how to run America, because changing the definition of rights is not progress, it’s not advanced, and it is not a bright future.
In the anti-fandom of politics, there is a Wicked Witch of the left (Nancy Pelosi) and a Wicked Witch of the Right (Sarah Palin). Somehow Pelosi usurped the wicked witch of the left position formerly held by Hillary Clinton. Palin might also be replaced for Wicked Witch of the Right by Michele Bachmann.
Something about these individuals seems to bring out pure hatred from people with opposing political views. Almost anything they say is like pouring gasoline on the anti-fans’ fire. I don’t understand the vitriol response, because there isn’t anything I’ve heard them say that I haven’t heard from someone else before.
I don’t believe it’s a male vs. female issue because Obama and Cheney have comparable anti-fan bases. Pundits Olbermann and Beck have their anti-fan audience. I only used female figures because the wicked witch analogy is funny, and the male analogies are usually Hitler and Stalin.
I’ve heard others describe every word spoken by the people mentioned as “like hearing nails on a chalkboard.” The hated people didn’t create liberal and conservative values, so why the complete disdain for their every spoken word?
The reason for the hatred is these people are viewed as the embodiment of polarized viewpoints. Each of them represents a complete persona of what is wrong in this country to their political polar opposites. For the anti-fan, the view is, “If only we didn’t have people like [Pelosi | Palin | Clinton | Backmann], we wouldn’t have to worry about the country going into the toilet.”
To all the anti-fans out there, I am your anti-fan, because your hand is on the plunger. The biggest fear I have is that only what anti-fans have to say will be considered newsworthy. The underlying issues are getting buried under the belching bile of whom or what people are against and not about what values they support.
Anti-fans – next time you hear the “nails on a chalkboard” sound, use that energy generated to speak out for the value you wish to protect and avoid the personification of opposing views. I’d rather hear stories of heroes and heroines than the tales of big bad witches.
Frequently in the universal health care debate, those opposed are asserted to be selfish. I am one of those amoral, self-serving bastards that would rather see people die than part with any of my money– at least, this is how it’s presented.
“How can anyone of good conscience not be concerned about helping those in need? Aren’t we our brother’s keeper? We all have a moral obligation to care for others.”
Liberty-minded people often respond, “The route suggested to accomplish these good deeds requires coercion and force by government. Robbing to help someone else is still robbery.”
This is a valid argument to me, but will only appeal to those with similar views. Others quickly dismiss the argument as a questionable analogy. Those advocating being our “brother’s keeper” will still be convinced they have the moral high ground, because they are talking about saving lives and we are defending abstract concepts.
For them, the debate between the realities of someone dying vs. an aloof concept of personal freedom is foolish. To them, freedom isn’t a real and tangible thing. I understand. You can’t say, “Here–have a big ol’ cup of freedom on me.” Freedom isn’t something you can roll around in and say, “Damn, this freedom feels good today!” You can’t eat freedom, freedom won’t keep you warm, and it sure won’t heal the sick.
To the liberty-minded, however, freedom is every bit as real as slavery. Unfortunately, it isn’t obvious just how real and vital freedom is until that freedom has been lost. Freedom is a hard sell in a world that isn’t meeting the basic needs of all its inhabitants. When I say, “I don’t believe my needs and wants supersede the rights of others, ” the response is often, “So others have to die so you can have your freedom? Sleep well, you cold-hearted bastard.”
Just because there isn’t a state-run program to solve a given problem doesn’t mean no one cares. We rely on the morality of others every day, simply not realizing how much we depend on this moral capital. We don’t need police everywhere people gather, because only a small percentage of the population steals or harms others. Police don’t create peace; they are there to preserve peace that the group as a whole created spontaneously.
It’s true that relying on the kindness of others doesn’t sound very reliable. A law stating your needs will be taken care of is much more concrete (and comforting) than arguing people might choose to help if they are in the mood. To many, laws and police just force us to be good people. Some seem to believe laws create civility, rather than civil people created laws to protect one another from harm.
Anti-big-government types will point out times the government hasn’t helped at all–when it was people on the spot that saw a need and solved problems. I wholeheartedly agree that immediate needs are best met by free people taking action in the moment– as in the Christmas terrorist plot thwarted by a passenger. It’s a matter of having faith in others. You either do or you don’t. I have faith in others because I experienced their kindness many times in my life, but I know others are rightfully cynical, because they’ve experienced cruelty.
Several countries have a state religion. In some, people are put to death for joining a different faith–that state believes allowing the people to choose for themselves what is right and wrong is courting immorality. To the state, having a state religion that mandates morality makes for moral people.
In reality, you can’t have a moral society without free will. State religions are akin to having someone follow you around your whole life with a gun to your head, telling you to “be good.” Even if you would choose to act morally on your own, you can’t take credit for acts of kindness, because someone else made the decision for you. The people with the most freedom are the most moral people, because their kindness is a choice.
I do believe I have a moral obligation to care about others. I am my brother’s keeper. I draw distinctions between helping others, forcing others to help, and forcing help upon others.
Forcing others to help is immoral, because I would be taking away their right to decide what is caring. I like to think of myself as a caring and giving person, but I know there are others more caring and giving. I strive to be more like them. Striving to become a better person is a basic human right, as important as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Forcing others to act in a caring manner dehumanizes them by robbing them of their own normal and natural development.
Forcing people to wear seat belts has saved lives. Forcing people to get regular checkups would save lives, and forcing people to treat illnesses will save lives. In matters of life and death, is it wrong to use force to save lives? If someone was terminally ill and there was a painful procedure that could prolong their life by a week, would you force the procedure? Where would you draw the line at when force is appropriate? What if the procedure would keep them alive for a month, six months, a year–where is the line between caring and cruelty? A moral obligation to help others doesn’t make it right to force that help upon others.
The moral high ground is in being our brother’s keeper, and with it comes with the moral obligation of defending our brother’s free will.
I was browsing through the latest topics on Crooks and Liars , and this topic about Candy Crowley Still Touting ‘Security Moms’ Nonsense stood out because the comments about Candy Crowley were pretty harsh. This comment on Crooks and Liars stood out to me. “She is now a partisan hack”—because I remember conservatives saying Crowley is partisan over at NewsBusters in CNN’s Crowley: NY 23’s Hoffman the Choice of ‘Tea Bag Partyers?’
Comments from Crooks and Liars about Crowley using Conservative Talking Points:
“Security moms is a smoke screen for repub talking points!!”
“Candy loves her some uncheck republican talking points.”
Comment on Candy’s Weight:
“Rove is getting divorced , Porky Pig and Petunia here should get hooked up.”
Comments from NewsBusters about Crowley using Liiberal Talking Points:
“Please, bt. Candy Crowley? “Kisser”? Blehhhhhhhh! The “Mainstream” Media: By liberals. For liberals.”
“Their insults are simply a quick way to verify their ideology, they don’t get a rise out of me, either.”
Comment on Candy’s Weight:
“She hardly looks like a “Candy” anymore. She may have been ‘Candy’ material several decades ago but today she looks more like a bag of marshmellow [sic] peeps that got left on the truck dashboard in the hot sun and all the little eyes have run together.”
In Candy Crowley’s defense, it is her job to as a political correspondent to share her views. When you share political views, they are supposed to be your views with your own bias. There is insight gained from simply reporting different sides of issues, but that isn’t Crowley’s role all the time. Crowley is expected to draw upon two decades of covering elections and offer her own analysis.
Crowley is old and fat – to me that gives Crowley more credibility because you don’t see a lot of older, heavyset women on television news. That fact that Crowley is still on TV when so many other women are put out to pasture to me says someone finds her views valuable. Anderson Cooper words it much more eloquently than me: “She’s not the stereo typical political reporter, which, for me adds to her charm.”
Bill Ayers is pretty liberal from my point of view. Ayers described President Obama as a “moderate, pragmatic, compromising politician” and from Ayers far-left perspective, the President is a moderate. What I’ve gathered from comparing views from liberals and conservatives is partisanship is relative. It doesn’t matter where you own views fall in the left/right continuum–if someone’s view is to the left of your views they are liberals; if the views are to the right of yours, they are conservatives.
Because of the mindset “a view far from my own view is a very biased view,” I now have some sympathy for those in the media, because it seems you are damned if you and damned if you don’t. It doesn’t seem to matter what you say because you are bound to offend someone. I’m surprised after being attacked by both sides for being partisan she doesn’t just give up and go full tilt partisan because that’s where the money is.
There has been lots of debate the last few days about what motivates a person to become a terrorist. There are two camps on what causes terrorism: the “its all ideology” camp and the “it’s all unintended consequences” camp. Both groups are correct, because either can generate terrorists; I see unintended consequences as the symptom and fundamentalist ideology as the disease.
Terrorism is rooted with an ideology that sees itself in danger of extinction. Yesterday I mentioned the Boko Haram. It’s a militant Islamist group that basically sees western or non-Islamic education as evil. The followers of Boko Haram reject the notion the earth is a sphere. It stands to reason they feel they are being attacked by western science, because science has the innate ability to deal some serious damage to ignorance.
There are several parts of the world that are under “attack” from western science and culture. Baywatch was a popular show around the world and from some people’s perspective just flat-out anit-burqa. In truth, the views and ways of life all around the world are being challenged–but not intentionally challenged–by the west. Most people will speak up in defense when they feel their values are under attack and state the virtues behind their beliefs. Terrorist choose the violent path because they believe there is a sinister plot behind opposing views. They are the ones that see Baywatch as a western plot to destroy their culture. If you thought someone was plotting your demise, you might attack back too.
From the terrorist perspective–they feel that their way of life is under attack and those around them are slowly being corrupted–what should they do? Just follow the anarchy. Pull yourself out of the corrupt society and set up your own pure society. The regions with little or no government control are the best place for terrorists to set up shop. If everyone is armed with rifles to defend themselves, a terrorist won’t stand out. No government to monitor or crack down on their activities. From the protection zone of anarchy, you can start freeing the world from satanic plots. As long as there are regions of anarchy, terrorists will have safe bases of operation.
Dynamics of terrorism – how wars of terrorism are fought on both sides
Side A – declares war on side B but side A has little to no army.
Side B – is the opposing government or ideology of side A
Side A – can’t fight side B on an open battlefield because they would be wiped out and instead picks civilian targets to attack.
For terrorists, the justification for murdering civilians is that the values the terrorists are defending is more important than human life. If you are willing to die for these values then others should be just as willing to die, and if they aren’t willing to die for those values they weren’t a good person to begin with. For governments, the justification of stepping on civil rights is that all your civil rights are gone if a you are killed by a terrorist.
The side that does the most harm to civilians will probably lose hearts and minds. The harm isn’t measured only in causalities. When terrorists cause the public to be afraid of normal day to day activities, they become the bad guys. When governments crack down too hard, as in house-to-house searches, they become the bad guys.
The calculation often overlooked is how people view potential harm differently from real harm. You don’t normally sympathize with someone causing you real harm in order to prevent future harm.
Examples – The current group of terrorist argue their way of life is threatened by the opposing ideology or government. They are arguing that harm will come in the future whereas someone being killed by a bomb is a real and tangible harm. When the terrorists set off a bomb and people die, they represent the real harm.
The government argues for searching people and residences to protect the public from harm. If the government starts strip searches to prevent terrorist from blowing people up, it’s the potential threat of a bomb vs. the reality of having your privacy violated. When governments violate civil rights, they represent the real harm.
Blowback or unintentionally creating terrorists happens when in fighting terrorism the government does more harm to civilians than terrorists have done to civilians. Terrorist set off a bomb that kills 100 people–and while hunting down the terrorist, the government kills 500 people. The terrorists are still jerks; the problem is in doing even more harm, the government has legitimized the terrorists for attacking in the first place. From the uninvolved civilian perspective, the government is now the bad guys; their enemy appears to be the good guys, so where do I sign up?
I’m not empathizing with the terrorists groups, but I have to agree that western civilization is a powerful force and is corrupting civilizations around the world. I’m also very proud of “corrupting the world.” When I heard that Baywatch was a popular show in the Middle East, I felt a sense of American pride. Baywatch is no work of art in a literary sense, but its something to be proud of in that free people produce the things that people around the world want.
I too believe the world is slowly being conquered by western culture and technology. The culture of free societies will always dominate high-control societies for the simple fact we give people just want they want without any regulation. I watch news and documentaries from around the world and I see western clothing and technology everywhere. Hollywood and the media, through the use of technology, have become one of the most powerful forces on the planet.
So far the damage done to these fundamentalist groups ideology has been unintentional. The west has unintentionally created freedom junkies, because once you’ve had a taste of freedom you are hooked for life. I think its time to start intentionally damaging their culture with as much free and open access to information and entertainment as possible. The west is getting blamed for intentionally trying to corrupt other cultures, so why not start actively pursing their “corruption?” It’s time for governments to team up with the tech industry and entertainment industry to plan a bombardment of portable media players and laptops and highspeed internet access to all the information and entertainment deprived areas of the world.
Baywatch ’em back from the Stone Age!