Many people are at a loss when it comes to coming up with a counter-argument when confronted with something with which they disagree. The conversation goes something like this: First, there's a strong statement from a speaker who believes what he's saying is true, like, "The sky is blue." The person who disagrees with that statement then says something like, "That's ridiculous." or, "No, the grass is green." or, "Blue is an ugly color."
For the record, these are not arguments. They range from childish name calling to the irrelevant. Yet, so often, this is what I get back when I make an argument. And that's from normal adults. I don't know if people are just lazy or they just can't bring themselves to care about what I've said. I'd like to believe that they're so cowed by my reasoning that they find themselves bereft of even one active braincell.
In keeping with my initial statement, let me try to come up with some more effective counter-arguments.
"No, the sky isn't actually blue. What you're seeing is space and space is black. The sun's rays merely make it appear blue." or, "It looks more grey to me." or, "No, it's technically azure."
Oh well. I guess I can also choose to believe that the reason I get almost no feedback on my blog is that the few who've read it find my points irrefutable. Or maybe they're just scared. Pansies. The truth is, the counter-arguments I have gotten have all been as feeble as those illustrated above. It's really rather pathetic.
Actually, I would love to have a conversation with someone. There's so much I learn whenever someone will actually engage me. And, for me, this is the preferred venue for that kind of an exchange. I think it's good to argue. To do it in writing gives your cooler head a chance to prevail. Dennis Praeger once said that you don't really know what you think about something until you write about it. I find I'm also much clearer in writing than in person.
I don't enjoy face to face conversations nearly as much. Mostly this is because, in person, the loud-mouth me-monsters take over. They're used to talking a lot, been doing it their whole lives. It never occurs to them that though they talk the most, they truly have the least to say. These are the guys who'll raise their voices and drown you out if they even think there's a chance you'll try to interrupt them. They just parrot some crap they heard some newscaster or talk show host say, hoping they'll sound smart.
And that's if you can even get them to talk about anything important. That's the other thing I hate about social situations. Look, I really don't care about the weather or sports or Dancing with the Stars or the latest dirty laundry somebody aired on the news last night.
So, between the yackers and the irrelevance of the topics of conversation, I guess I'd just as soon sit here and blog to no one or write comments to stories online that I find relevant.
Bottom line: all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. This blog is me doing something. And you who read but won't engage because you're to busy or you just can't bring yourself to muster the effort because you're lazy or you don't think it matters, that's you doing nothing.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Distilling Ron Paul's "Foreign Policy"
Rush disparaged RP's foreign policy once again today. So I'm compelled to make a follow up post.
Foreign Policy is just a deliberately intimidating phrase some numbskull in Washington came up with. It simply refers to a way of dealing with people. So let's get over it and begin to think for ourselves instead of listening to those who project themselves as way smarter than we are. I mean journalists, talk show hosts and other pundits and talking heads.
Ron Paul says our actions led to the attacks against us on 9/11. This is not to excuse or justify the murders of our fellow Americans that took place that day. What he means is, we did some things they didn't like so in response they committed some horrific, evil acts.
Let's distill this down to the local level to make it more understandable. Let's say I live on your block in your neighborhood. The neighborhood consists mostly of small abodes, some of them barely inhabitable shacks. You live in one of those shacks; yours happens to be on the corner. I live in the middle of the block in a huge mansion. I'm rich and powerful. You're not. I figure there's a chance that thieves, rapists and murderers will try to enter the neighborhood. Since you're on the corner, I figure that's a strategic spot to set up some neighborhood defenses; say, a small bunker with a machine gun. You're not happy about it, but I elbow my way into your yard. After all, it makes you and me safer, right? Well, you make it clear you want me off of your property. I won't leave. So you blow up my house, killing part of my family. It's obvious that your crime of murder is much more heinous than my crime of trespassing. But it's hard to argue against the fact that my actions led you to yours. You're not excused or justified. But, in hindsight, I can see that maybe it wasn't right for me to violate your individual inalienable (read: God-given) right to private property.
Here's another example: The mayor of an affluent, neighboring town disagrees with what we allow to go on in our town. The women are too immodest, too many people own guns, the church is teaching false doctrine, the divorce laws are too lax. The neighboring town sends its police over and they capture and kill our mayor. And install a new mayor of their choosing. Are we okay with that?
What if China invaded us, out of concern for our underprivileged working class, and they imposed communism? Yea! They saved us from ourselves! Thanks, China!
To repeat: even when you're right, it's wrong to force others to do what you think is right.
Evil dictators and regimes murder their people overseas. It's terrible. But they're adults. They have to solve their own problems. It's not possible for us to police the world. And HELLO, look at the disastrous results when we try. Vietnam, anyone? How are things in Egypt? "Palestine?" Libya? Korea? Iraq? Afghanistan? We take out one evil regime, only to see it replaced by another, often worse evil regime. If you watched the video in my last post, you know we've done this several times in Iran. What are we, Mrs. Kravitz? Let's get our noses out of other people's business.
Ron Paul just wants us to bring our troops home from Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, etc. and strengthen our home defenses. Let's make America an impenetrable fortress and let those other sleeping dogs lie. Besides, we can't afford it.
Foreign Policy is just a deliberately intimidating phrase some numbskull in Washington came up with. It simply refers to a way of dealing with people. So let's get over it and begin to think for ourselves instead of listening to those who project themselves as way smarter than we are. I mean journalists, talk show hosts and other pundits and talking heads.
Ron Paul says our actions led to the attacks against us on 9/11. This is not to excuse or justify the murders of our fellow Americans that took place that day. What he means is, we did some things they didn't like so in response they committed some horrific, evil acts.
Let's distill this down to the local level to make it more understandable. Let's say I live on your block in your neighborhood. The neighborhood consists mostly of small abodes, some of them barely inhabitable shacks. You live in one of those shacks; yours happens to be on the corner. I live in the middle of the block in a huge mansion. I'm rich and powerful. You're not. I figure there's a chance that thieves, rapists and murderers will try to enter the neighborhood. Since you're on the corner, I figure that's a strategic spot to set up some neighborhood defenses; say, a small bunker with a machine gun. You're not happy about it, but I elbow my way into your yard. After all, it makes you and me safer, right? Well, you make it clear you want me off of your property. I won't leave. So you blow up my house, killing part of my family. It's obvious that your crime of murder is much more heinous than my crime of trespassing. But it's hard to argue against the fact that my actions led you to yours. You're not excused or justified. But, in hindsight, I can see that maybe it wasn't right for me to violate your individual inalienable (read: God-given) right to private property.
Here's another example: The mayor of an affluent, neighboring town disagrees with what we allow to go on in our town. The women are too immodest, too many people own guns, the church is teaching false doctrine, the divorce laws are too lax. The neighboring town sends its police over and they capture and kill our mayor. And install a new mayor of their choosing. Are we okay with that?
What if China invaded us, out of concern for our underprivileged working class, and they imposed communism? Yea! They saved us from ourselves! Thanks, China!
To repeat: even when you're right, it's wrong to force others to do what you think is right.
Evil dictators and regimes murder their people overseas. It's terrible. But they're adults. They have to solve their own problems. It's not possible for us to police the world. And HELLO, look at the disastrous results when we try. Vietnam, anyone? How are things in Egypt? "Palestine?" Libya? Korea? Iraq? Afghanistan? We take out one evil regime, only to see it replaced by another, often worse evil regime. If you watched the video in my last post, you know we've done this several times in Iran. What are we, Mrs. Kravitz? Let's get our noses out of other people's business.
Ron Paul just wants us to bring our troops home from Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, etc. and strengthen our home defenses. Let's make America an impenetrable fortress and let those other sleeping dogs lie. Besides, we can't afford it.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
This is why I'll vote Ron Paul again in 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPFQaLh-ycM
Please, please click the above link and watch the video.
Many are with Ron Paul domestically but not when it comes to foreign policy. This has become the "conventional wisdom." The "cool kids" are all down with the idea that, as Rush put it today, RP's foreign policy ideas are, "tin hat." From Rush to Hannity to Glenn Beck to Michelle Malkin et. al. that's their view of Ron Paul.
Well, watch the video and decide for yourself. Then continue your research of RP and let's restore this country to its constitutional roots.
I voted for him in 2008 because I couldn't countenance McCain. I now understand him even better and he may be the last hope for the Republic.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Romney and his buds are the equivalent of turning the reins over to someone who will slightly slow our career toward the cliff, but still take us into the abyss. We MUST do a 180 and run back toward the constitution. RP will do that. THAT'S what's brought this country to its unprecedented prosperity: the FREEDOM protected by the constitution.
My siblings, force doesn't work. Freedom works. Force is evil. It's the essence of unrighteous dominion. God forces no one. Even if you are right, it's wrong to force anyone to do what is right. That goes for individuals as well as countries.
Do I wish for more handouts for the poor, free healthcare, education, citizenship, food, $million/year jobs for everyone? Do I feel like we all should be giving more, as the Savior would have us do? Of course! Where Dr. Paul and I differ from the rest of you and your candidates is that we know that you can't put a gun to anyone's head and force him to give, to do those things.
Well, that's what America has become. The government points a gun at those who earn money, takes it from them via taxes, and proceeds to give it to those who didn't earn it. I'm all for giving to the poor, but let me be free to choose to do it; and let me also be free not to do it, if I so choose. THAT is God's way. And that way brings blessings to the giver as well as the receiver. Come on. You don't really think He blesses legalized government mugging, do you?
It's called freedom. And it's our only hope. It's the only thing that makes America different from the dictatorships of the world, whether they be socialist, communist, fascist or monarchist. Instead of trying to be like the "cool kids" here or around the world, let's be ourselves. Let's be Americans. And freedom is what makes us uniquely Americans.
Please, please click the above link and watch the video.
Many are with Ron Paul domestically but not when it comes to foreign policy. This has become the "conventional wisdom." The "cool kids" are all down with the idea that, as Rush put it today, RP's foreign policy ideas are, "tin hat." From Rush to Hannity to Glenn Beck to Michelle Malkin et. al. that's their view of Ron Paul.
Well, watch the video and decide for yourself. Then continue your research of RP and let's restore this country to its constitutional roots.
I voted for him in 2008 because I couldn't countenance McCain. I now understand him even better and he may be the last hope for the Republic.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Romney and his buds are the equivalent of turning the reins over to someone who will slightly slow our career toward the cliff, but still take us into the abyss. We MUST do a 180 and run back toward the constitution. RP will do that. THAT'S what's brought this country to its unprecedented prosperity: the FREEDOM protected by the constitution.
My siblings, force doesn't work. Freedom works. Force is evil. It's the essence of unrighteous dominion. God forces no one. Even if you are right, it's wrong to force anyone to do what is right. That goes for individuals as well as countries.
Do I wish for more handouts for the poor, free healthcare, education, citizenship, food, $million/year jobs for everyone? Do I feel like we all should be giving more, as the Savior would have us do? Of course! Where Dr. Paul and I differ from the rest of you and your candidates is that we know that you can't put a gun to anyone's head and force him to give, to do those things.
Well, that's what America has become. The government points a gun at those who earn money, takes it from them via taxes, and proceeds to give it to those who didn't earn it. I'm all for giving to the poor, but let me be free to choose to do it; and let me also be free not to do it, if I so choose. THAT is God's way. And that way brings blessings to the giver as well as the receiver. Come on. You don't really think He blesses legalized government mugging, do you?
It's called freedom. And it's our only hope. It's the only thing that makes America different from the dictatorships of the world, whether they be socialist, communist, fascist or monarchist. Instead of trying to be like the "cool kids" here or around the world, let's be ourselves. Let's be Americans. And freedom is what makes us uniquely Americans.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Childishness and All-Too-Willing Parentishness
I remember, from my college study of psychology, transactional analysis from Eric Berne. His theory mirrors Freud with his id, ego and super-ego. Berne uses the terms 'child', 'adult' and 'parent' to describe people's interactions with each other. The 'child' is immature, weak, self-centered, the ultimate victim. The 'adult' is reason-based and mature. The 'parent' is judgmental, condescending, has a knee-jerk answer to every problem and is always full of unsolicited advice. The 'child' and 'parent' are emotion driven while the 'adult' is thoughtful and deliberate.
In America today, we find ourselves surrounded by (grown-up) 'children' (think: occupy wall st) with a government ever ready to step in and be everyone's 'parent.' Many outside of government also react to problems as a 'parent' with the underlying assumption that, "Well, I know I can do it, but other people can't seem to do it, so they need help." And they vote with that mindset. So the government has become the means by which the 'parents' in society help the 'children.' But, just as it's wrong for real parents to force kids to do right, it's wrong for voters, acting from the perspective of Berne's 'parent' are wrong to force the rest of us to do right; right being defined here as helping those in need. As a side note, the 'parent' treats everyone like a child regardless of his perspective.
It's easily understood from the perspective of Berne's rational 'adult' that it's wrong to forcibly take from some to give to others. And that's why those who willfully take us in the direction of socialism do so from the all-knowing, enabling perspective of Berne's 'parent.'
One shining example of this phenomenon is society's ('parent's') treatment of any and all "at-risk minorities." Minorities are labeled as victims and unfortunately, for them, they embrace victimhood and allow things to be done for them which they could do for themselves. It's easy to see the childishness in their behavior. It's also easy to relate. We all allow others to do things for us we could do ourselves. But certainly the government shouldn't encourage this behavior by compelling us to be each others' 'parent.'
Another example of 'parenting' with disastrous consequences is the state of our public schools. Over the past 150 years we've gone from educating kids using the Bible, classical literature, the constitution, history, geography and the hard sciences to institutional schooling where attendance is mandatory, the Bible is banned, the constitution is unknown, hard science often has been replaced by social science and history is now called social studies. The kids are conditioned to depend on an all-knowing 'parent' (the teacher,) the nuclear family is de-emphasized and political-correctness reigns supreme. But don't worry, it's "free." Although, to have accepted the status quo, we 'adults' have had to come to see things from the 'child's' perspective. That is, we've abdicated our responsibility to educate our kids. For an insiders perspective on the last 150 years of the history of schooling, see John Taylor Gatto's "Dumbing Us Down' and "The Underground History of American Education." Mr. Gatto taught Jr. High for 30 years.
Each of us must find himself in the role of the 'adult'. And from there we must act. Over the past 100 years, we've sunk evermore into Berne's other two perspectives and doing so, we've lost freedom. Only the 'adult' merits freedom and indeed, only the 'adult' can cope with freedom's eternal companion, responsibility. The real trick is to trust that others, if we allow them to do so, CAN cope with the freedom and responsibility we crave and which we know is man's birthright. Please, my friends, let's do what it takes to preserve that freedom.
In America today, we find ourselves surrounded by (grown-up) 'children' (think: occupy wall st) with a government ever ready to step in and be everyone's 'parent.' Many outside of government also react to problems as a 'parent' with the underlying assumption that, "Well, I know I can do it, but other people can't seem to do it, so they need help." And they vote with that mindset. So the government has become the means by which the 'parents' in society help the 'children.' But, just as it's wrong for real parents to force kids to do right, it's wrong for voters, acting from the perspective of Berne's 'parent' are wrong to force the rest of us to do right; right being defined here as helping those in need. As a side note, the 'parent' treats everyone like a child regardless of his perspective.
It's easily understood from the perspective of Berne's rational 'adult' that it's wrong to forcibly take from some to give to others. And that's why those who willfully take us in the direction of socialism do so from the all-knowing, enabling perspective of Berne's 'parent.'
One shining example of this phenomenon is society's ('parent's') treatment of any and all "at-risk minorities." Minorities are labeled as victims and unfortunately, for them, they embrace victimhood and allow things to be done for them which they could do for themselves. It's easy to see the childishness in their behavior. It's also easy to relate. We all allow others to do things for us we could do ourselves. But certainly the government shouldn't encourage this behavior by compelling us to be each others' 'parent.'
Another example of 'parenting' with disastrous consequences is the state of our public schools. Over the past 150 years we've gone from educating kids using the Bible, classical literature, the constitution, history, geography and the hard sciences to institutional schooling where attendance is mandatory, the Bible is banned, the constitution is unknown, hard science often has been replaced by social science and history is now called social studies. The kids are conditioned to depend on an all-knowing 'parent' (the teacher,) the nuclear family is de-emphasized and political-correctness reigns supreme. But don't worry, it's "free." Although, to have accepted the status quo, we 'adults' have had to come to see things from the 'child's' perspective. That is, we've abdicated our responsibility to educate our kids. For an insiders perspective on the last 150 years of the history of schooling, see John Taylor Gatto's "Dumbing Us Down' and "The Underground History of American Education." Mr. Gatto taught Jr. High for 30 years.
Each of us must find himself in the role of the 'adult'. And from there we must act. Over the past 100 years, we've sunk evermore into Berne's other two perspectives and doing so, we've lost freedom. Only the 'adult' merits freedom and indeed, only the 'adult' can cope with freedom's eternal companion, responsibility. The real trick is to trust that others, if we allow them to do so, CAN cope with the freedom and responsibility we crave and which we know is man's birthright. Please, my friends, let's do what it takes to preserve that freedom.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Pro-discrimination
Discrimination and prejudice have been given a bad name. The political-correctness nazis have succeeded, or, better said, we've stood by and allowed them to succeed in painting us into a corner when it comes to our freedoms of association and exchange.
I have the right to be/deal with whomever I wish. If I own a business and I don't want to serve black people or Mexicans or whomever, for whatever reason, I don't have to serve them, period. Now, I didn't say it was legal not to serve certain people or that I wouldn't get into trouble. But remember, rights aren't granted by the government or even by the constitution. Rights are granted by God.
Now, you may say that it would be wrong for me to refuse to serve certain people. And I might be inclined to agree with you. But, is it right that I should be forced by the government to associate or exchange with people with whom, if I were free, I wouldn't choose to associate/exchange?
Who gets to decide what's appropriate or good, if not me? Who gets to draw that line? Most would say, for instance, that it's ok for me to discriminate against one customer who offers to pay less than another customer, all other factors being equal. So, is that the line in the sand? Do we just all agree on it and then abide by it. Is there no individuality? No individual inalienable right to free association.exchange?
Let me see if I can bring this closer to home, literally. Part of the recent debate on the subject also holds that, for instance, if you own a duplex, you can't "discriminate" against potential renters. Really? So, what's the rule? First come, first serve? You suspend reason and judgement and randomly draw a name out of a hat? Or is there a rational way to meet with each potential renter and select whom you think is the best one? Remember, whatever your selection, you are discriminating against each and every one of the other hopefuls. You prejudiced crumb! Oh, wait, I get it. It's ok to discriminate against all of those other potential renters, as long as the person you selected is a member of a protected minority, right? Or as long as you can somehow prove that you used no untoward criteria in your decision, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religious affiliation (certainly you couldn't turn away a cagey looking group of twenty something Muslim men. Please, can we please start profiling...but, I digress.) etc., etc. Well, let me see. Let's say someone shows up on your doorstep one night. You don't know him. You have a bad feeling about him. You see no reason to trust him. Too bad. You have to let him in. You can't discriminate against him by turning him away. Oh, I forgot to mention, he's a minority. Yep- mi casa su casa, come on in. How long will you be staying? Am I, as a white male, allowed to stay while you're here? No? Oh well. At least I can find solace in the fact that I'm not a _____ist.
This is illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Read that last sentence back to yourself. Yes, it's absurd to deny even white, rich males their rights of free association/exchange. And it's self-defeating. It looks pretty good when the rich white guy loses his rights, but what will you do when they come and take yours?
Now, am I stupid if I don't serve certain people, say, black people, in my business? Is it wrong? Well, I'd say yes. But I maintain that I have that right.
And Walter E. Williams, a black man, agrees with me, as illustrated in his column, "The Right to Discriminate."
I have the right to be/deal with whomever I wish. If I own a business and I don't want to serve black people or Mexicans or whomever, for whatever reason, I don't have to serve them, period. Now, I didn't say it was legal not to serve certain people or that I wouldn't get into trouble. But remember, rights aren't granted by the government or even by the constitution. Rights are granted by God.
Now, you may say that it would be wrong for me to refuse to serve certain people. And I might be inclined to agree with you. But, is it right that I should be forced by the government to associate or exchange with people with whom, if I were free, I wouldn't choose to associate/exchange?
Who gets to decide what's appropriate or good, if not me? Who gets to draw that line? Most would say, for instance, that it's ok for me to discriminate against one customer who offers to pay less than another customer, all other factors being equal. So, is that the line in the sand? Do we just all agree on it and then abide by it. Is there no individuality? No individual inalienable right to free association.exchange?
Let me see if I can bring this closer to home, literally. Part of the recent debate on the subject also holds that, for instance, if you own a duplex, you can't "discriminate" against potential renters. Really? So, what's the rule? First come, first serve? You suspend reason and judgement and randomly draw a name out of a hat? Or is there a rational way to meet with each potential renter and select whom you think is the best one? Remember, whatever your selection, you are discriminating against each and every one of the other hopefuls. You prejudiced crumb! Oh, wait, I get it. It's ok to discriminate against all of those other potential renters, as long as the person you selected is a member of a protected minority, right? Or as long as you can somehow prove that you used no untoward criteria in your decision, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religious affiliation (certainly you couldn't turn away a cagey looking group of twenty something Muslim men. Please, can we please start profiling...but, I digress.) etc., etc. Well, let me see. Let's say someone shows up on your doorstep one night. You don't know him. You have a bad feeling about him. You see no reason to trust him. Too bad. You have to let him in. You can't discriminate against him by turning him away. Oh, I forgot to mention, he's a minority. Yep- mi casa su casa, come on in. How long will you be staying? Am I, as a white male, allowed to stay while you're here? No? Oh well. At least I can find solace in the fact that I'm not a _____ist.
This is illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Read that last sentence back to yourself. Yes, it's absurd to deny even white, rich males their rights of free association/exchange. And it's self-defeating. It looks pretty good when the rich white guy loses his rights, but what will you do when they come and take yours?
Now, am I stupid if I don't serve certain people, say, black people, in my business? Is it wrong? Well, I'd say yes. But I maintain that I have that right.
And Walter E. Williams, a black man, agrees with me, as illustrated in his column, "The Right to Discriminate."
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Casey Anthony and Big Guys vs. Little Guys
Let's get racial for a minute. There is some similarity between this recent acquittal and the acquittal of the police who were accused of brutalizing Rodney King. There is a group of people, I might argue- mostly white people, who are just as upset today as black people were in 1992.
Well, my question is, why didn't we see riots, looting and violence, in reaction to the Casey Anthony verdict, like we saw in L.A. back then?
I believe the answer may lie in this false enmity that, unfortunately, is still felt by the little guy for the big guy; the minority for the majority; this hatred for "the man."
When you've convinced yourself you're picked on, a victim, powerless, it's easy to rationalize bad behavior. Maybe this is why people of color commit, as a percentage of the entire population, such a disproportionate number of the crimes.
Well, life has progressively become more challenging for white males as we have been discriminated against in recent decades. And, again, we haven't seen an uptick in violence or crime from our population.
You can call a white man any number of names: cracker, honkey; but I'm afraid to even properly spell ni66er on my blog for fear of being shut down. You can make TV shows or movies where the white guy is routinely stereotyped as the dork or the bad guy. We all know white men can't jump or sing or dance and that they have no rhythm. Yet we don't care. Go ahead and call names, portray us however you want. As Rush says, you can't live for other people. You have to be you. No one will know whether he likes you if you're not you. Who cares what anybody thinks?
Why do none of these portrayals or name calling bother white guys? Maybe it's because we don't have racial advocates working day and night to make sure we retain our victim status and to make sure others are held back so we can advance because we can't do it for ourselves. And to make sure we always have an excuse, a scapegoat if we don't succeed.
Well, people of color, women, gay people, you can have your victim status. I want nothing to do with it. No thanks. I can do it on my own. But you know what? So can you. Wake up. There was a time when you were oppressed. In some ways you're still oppressed. But you're being done no favors by all of the advocates and politically correct crap that's out there. You're better than that.
And the degree to which you allow your way, your pain to be eased is the degree to which you weaken yourself. "No pain, no gain" isn't just for weightlifters. And, enough with the crime already. It hurts you more than anyone else and gains you nothing. You, too, are God's sons and daughters. We all need to live up to that.
Well, my question is, why didn't we see riots, looting and violence, in reaction to the Casey Anthony verdict, like we saw in L.A. back then?
I believe the answer may lie in this false enmity that, unfortunately, is still felt by the little guy for the big guy; the minority for the majority; this hatred for "the man."
When you've convinced yourself you're picked on, a victim, powerless, it's easy to rationalize bad behavior. Maybe this is why people of color commit, as a percentage of the entire population, such a disproportionate number of the crimes.
Well, life has progressively become more challenging for white males as we have been discriminated against in recent decades. And, again, we haven't seen an uptick in violence or crime from our population.
You can call a white man any number of names: cracker, honkey; but I'm afraid to even properly spell ni66er on my blog for fear of being shut down. You can make TV shows or movies where the white guy is routinely stereotyped as the dork or the bad guy. We all know white men can't jump or sing or dance and that they have no rhythm. Yet we don't care. Go ahead and call names, portray us however you want. As Rush says, you can't live for other people. You have to be you. No one will know whether he likes you if you're not you. Who cares what anybody thinks?
Why do none of these portrayals or name calling bother white guys? Maybe it's because we don't have racial advocates working day and night to make sure we retain our victim status and to make sure others are held back so we can advance because we can't do it for ourselves. And to make sure we always have an excuse, a scapegoat if we don't succeed.
Well, people of color, women, gay people, you can have your victim status. I want nothing to do with it. No thanks. I can do it on my own. But you know what? So can you. Wake up. There was a time when you were oppressed. In some ways you're still oppressed. But you're being done no favors by all of the advocates and politically correct crap that's out there. You're better than that.
And the degree to which you allow your way, your pain to be eased is the degree to which you weaken yourself. "No pain, no gain" isn't just for weightlifters. And, enough with the crime already. It hurts you more than anyone else and gains you nothing. You, too, are God's sons and daughters. We all need to live up to that.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Limp-wristed Voters and Candidates
In Utah, it seems to me that we have a problem. We're considered a "conservative" state. But conservatism often relies heavily on social issues for its definition. Fine. We're against gay marriage and abortion and we're pro-gun. Now what? Well, it's the fiscal side where it breaks down. Most wouldn't argue against the idea that it's wrong to mug someone, even if you give all of the "proceeds" from said mugging to the poor. But at the same time, many are ok with the idea of a social safety net, that is to say, with government welfare.
There may have been a time when we could afford to make these fiscal errors in judgement, but now is not that time. Our problems have progressed past the point where the same old, lame old politics and politicians will do. The "change," to borrow a word from a previous election cycle, needs to be more radical than has been offered in previous elections.
With that in mind, our two Mormon candidates for president have something in common with the lackadaisical Utah politics I described above. They're ok guys; better than Obama, but not good enough. They strike me as the same old republicans of yesteryear. There may be something to be said for their electability over some others in the race. But I disagree. I think the republicans can win with any of the candidates currently running. I also happen to think Sarah Palin could win.
The point I'm trying to make is that we need to do more than just slow our descent into socialism. We need to do an about face and return to the constitution. When a candidate is pro cap and trade or has socialistic healthcare in his past, which he refuses to even denounce as a mistake, that's a problem. Again, it's the constitution that has made this country great. Not all ideas are equal. Some paths aren't just different, they're wrong. And when you have a candidate who, at this early stage in the game is already trying to curry favor with those who have us ignoring the constitution, that should be a red flag. The oath of office is to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution;" not to preserve, protect and defend each individual's or special interest group's feelings. When a politician leaves the realm of adherence to the constitution- the law of the land, he immediately enters a place where his subjective, highly limited perspective takes over and he begins to force people to do what he feels is best. That would be fine, "if men were angels," but they're not.
On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't endorse the idea of a third party candidate because I think that hand delivers victory for Obama. I'm not certain where the line is between standing for principle and compromising for victory, but our compromises, our concessions to the left, our attempts to reach across the aisle haven't borne the best of fruit. Again, we've ended up with outcomes which are not quite as bad as pure socialism, but not that great, either. I actually think I'd almost rather lose with someone I can fully support than win with either of these go-along-to-get-along types.
There may have been a time when we could afford to make these fiscal errors in judgement, but now is not that time. Our problems have progressed past the point where the same old, lame old politics and politicians will do. The "change," to borrow a word from a previous election cycle, needs to be more radical than has been offered in previous elections.
With that in mind, our two Mormon candidates for president have something in common with the lackadaisical Utah politics I described above. They're ok guys; better than Obama, but not good enough. They strike me as the same old republicans of yesteryear. There may be something to be said for their electability over some others in the race. But I disagree. I think the republicans can win with any of the candidates currently running. I also happen to think Sarah Palin could win.
The point I'm trying to make is that we need to do more than just slow our descent into socialism. We need to do an about face and return to the constitution. When a candidate is pro cap and trade or has socialistic healthcare in his past, which he refuses to even denounce as a mistake, that's a problem. Again, it's the constitution that has made this country great. Not all ideas are equal. Some paths aren't just different, they're wrong. And when you have a candidate who, at this early stage in the game is already trying to curry favor with those who have us ignoring the constitution, that should be a red flag. The oath of office is to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution;" not to preserve, protect and defend each individual's or special interest group's feelings. When a politician leaves the realm of adherence to the constitution- the law of the land, he immediately enters a place where his subjective, highly limited perspective takes over and he begins to force people to do what he feels is best. That would be fine, "if men were angels," but they're not.
On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't endorse the idea of a third party candidate because I think that hand delivers victory for Obama. I'm not certain where the line is between standing for principle and compromising for victory, but our compromises, our concessions to the left, our attempts to reach across the aisle haven't borne the best of fruit. Again, we've ended up with outcomes which are not quite as bad as pure socialism, but not that great, either. I actually think I'd almost rather lose with someone I can fully support than win with either of these go-along-to-get-along types.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)