Wow! With no offense due those who have a different opinion, I have to say that considering health care a right is an absolute mockery of rights! I can explain this in many ways, but the religious argument is very simple:
D&C 101
77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
What a perfect summary of the idea of rights with the perfect constitutional context!
Here's the idea simplified: in order to fulfill God's will concerning the plan of salvation we need to make moral choices individually concerning ourselves and others. Government exists to preserve our ability to do so (against the infringement of others).
There is some debate about what sort of economic responsibilities the government has in terms of protecting people from others' choices and so forth, but the question of health care is beyond debate.
If healthcare is a 'right' then the government must enforce its completely equal and maximally beneficial application in society.
There are problems with this: not everyone has the same health needs, and health care itself is by no means a perfected practice.
Hence, if healthcare is a 'right' the government must make a stupendous amount of choices. These choices range from basic health treatment decisions to the very distribution of resources and even labor in society.
There is no defensible way you could argue that a government could engage in this without unreasonably infringing on important moral choices on the part of its citizens.
I'm not necessarily talking about universal/single payer healthcare, I'm talking about what it would mean if healthcare was a 'right'. So if you disagree with me on this point, then you aren't talking about rights, maybe you're talking about 'everyone being covered' being a good idea, but rights aren't involved.
Of course, I shouldn't even have to go here. Really 'government hands off!' should be all my argument needs to be. Nevertheless, I have indulged the other side because this issue seems so clear to me - that of 'rights'.
Look, Marx invented the whole idea that economic factors determine all history and society and macro human decisions and then overplayed it in order to win an argument in favor of socialism.
There's this idea that the 'invisible hand' of capitalism will ravage people who are helpless before it unless they band together and support a common morality embodied in a social contract which is a government that enforces 'positive rights' or rights to food, healthcare, whatever.
The problem is that we are individuals and GOD inspired the Constitution so that individual moral decisions could be protected from outside coercion. The 'invisible hand' is the product of society's moral decisions. History and life and even economics can be the product of moral decisions, not the other way around.
Government has a role, there's a good debate about exactly what, but at two ends there are two opposing visions. One's from God, I have a firm conviction of the originator of the other philosophy.
Be careful about 'rights'.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Rahm Immanuel, Israel, Iran
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710862759&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
In summary, Rahm Immanuel tells Jewish donors that they must expect Israel to accept more peace with the Palestinians if they hope to deal with the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons. Why is this significant?
He knows that between the decades-long conflict with Palestinian terrorists, and the threat of nuclear annihilation, the pro-Israel lobby would choose the latter as more significant. Playing on these fears, it would be natural for him to use them as leverage against the pro-Israel group. It's not easy to know if Rahm Immanuel is being realistic himself, or whether he is playing politics: retaining support of one (pro-Israel jews) lobby, while holding policies meant to gratify another (extreme anti-Israel left).
That's the significance. Is this an issue of the Palestinian and Iranian issues being intrinsically linked, and the White House's foreign policy reflecting this - or is it an issue of plain politics? The answer affects our foreign policy, and speaks to what solutions are best for the situation.
If this is about politics, that is unfortunate. Our foreign policy, if based on politics, must be unabashedly so. That way the public can connect its preferences to foreign actions. To ascribe some intellectually nuanced justification to what is in reality a political calculation is very harmful. Policies based on true intellectual assessments are at least consistent, and then can be rejected if consistently unsuccessful. Likewise, if policies are based on pure politics, a people can hold themselves accountable for unpopular or unsuccessful actions. Rahm's way has no accountability, and is therefore nihilistic.
But let's assume the nuanced position is the real justification for his comments. Let's assume the Obama administration believes that the Iranian nuke issue is intrinsically linked to the Palestine issue. Is this a sound position, requiring advances in the latter for advances in the former?
First, let's consider the 'realist' position. It could be that despite reality (as to the actual helpfulness of putting pressure on Israel visavis Iran), foreign nations will perceive enough 'good intentions' from an aggressive stance against Israel to support pressure against Iran. But this assumes a sort of diplomacy would work.
The fact is that all means of diplomacy short of blockade and other military responses were used against Iran during the past few years. It was only a fraudulent, deceptive national intelligence estimate (NIE) constructed by leftist anti-Bush bureaucrats in the state department in 2007 that halted this effort. The effort hadn't been working. Iran just kept dodging.
And here's the problem, let's state it clearly: Iran is currently building the materials for nuclear weapons and claiming it is for peaceful energy production - they can keep this up until they weaponize the materials - they can make enough materials for many many weapons before they need to take that step. So, by the time it's over, they might have lots and lots of weapon materials and thus weapons.
The problem is weapons development. Some claim they aren't intending to do this. If so, moot issue
- So will they make weapons? Good question, but considering belligerent rhetoric, belligerent history, and a record of inhumane terrible acts and a continued support to all kinds of terrorist groups and activities I'd say it is very possible they want to make weapons.
Assuming they want weapons, the goal is to stop them - because weapons will allow them to have their way in the Middle East, and they have stated goals of dominating the region, are a brutal theocratic intolerant totalitarian regime, have engaged in brutal wars in the past, and have stated the desire to 'wipe Israel off the map'.
So, assuming we want to stop them, any solution is valued as good if it can... stop them. Diplomacy hasn't stopped them. So why would we need the support of other nations? Maybe for military support, or approval of the use of military action.
True!
What about placating Iran by engaging in the peace process? The Arab nations could have alleviated the humanitarian crisis in Palestine long ago, and the Palestinians could help peace by rejecting the brutal, deceptive, hypocritical Hamas. Hamas has the stated goal of wiping Israel off of the map. This is similar to Hezbollah (Iran's terrorist group) and the stated goal of the rulers in Iran.
-So forcing Israel to make concessions will not help Iran make any concessions, and will only weaken Israel and America in the eyes of Iran. The only benefit is to convince other nations to be more 'okay' if America wanted to be more militarily aggressive against Iran.
Obama and the left-wing has rejected this approach. They want to talk, or they have said as much. So I think this is just politics to support the Democratic party.
IN FACT, I THINK THE ONLY ROLE OF FOREIGN POLICY IN THE DEMOCRATIC PLAYBOOK IS TO MAKE THE PARTY LOOK GOOD TO AMERICAN VOTERS SO A PERMANENT DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY CAN TAKE OVER DOMESTIC ISSUES IN AMERICA.
So don't be surprised if Obama's foreign policy seems conservative and aggressive at times, and surreptitiously liberal at others. The goal is to appease voting interests and donors.
As for the Iran issue, I don't think America will ever get support for military action in Iran. Iraq proved that, the world has no stomach for any show of American power. Only if it is dressed up as purely non-American can they stomach it. Those instances involve countries with no effective militaries to speak of.
So peace must come from America and Israel, and only an aggressive but consistent foreign policy will be successful. We have a right, by virtue of our right to protect ourselves and with a clear moral sanction (by being compared to Iran), to demand that Iran prove decisively that they will not make weaponized nukes. Only by being unapologetically aggressive can we succeed in this policy.
-We cannot allow them to come anywhere near having weapons (to be used by the state or state terrorists)
-We must and have the right to be aggressive in pursuing that goal
-Our aggressiveness must be nuanced according to the above stated principles.
If an inspections regime is corrupt or ineffective, we must state why, and immediately pursue the next step. This should be our m.o.:
-Clarity in giving reasons for action, and in stating goals and expectations.
-Consistency in the above
-The willingness to be aggressive in that consistency
-The willingness to adopt more peaceful compromises if they will be reasonably successful in place of war
-The willingness to reject said compromises quickly if they fail to achieve goals.
That's it! We need to tell Iran our expectations, and what we'll do to achieve them. Then we must do it. If they are not open, and don't shut down certain facilities, we bomb
In summary, Rahm Immanuel tells Jewish donors that they must expect Israel to accept more peace with the Palestinians if they hope to deal with the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons. Why is this significant?
He knows that between the decades-long conflict with Palestinian terrorists, and the threat of nuclear annihilation, the pro-Israel lobby would choose the latter as more significant. Playing on these fears, it would be natural for him to use them as leverage against the pro-Israel group. It's not easy to know if Rahm Immanuel is being realistic himself, or whether he is playing politics: retaining support of one (pro-Israel jews) lobby, while holding policies meant to gratify another (extreme anti-Israel left).
That's the significance. Is this an issue of the Palestinian and Iranian issues being intrinsically linked, and the White House's foreign policy reflecting this - or is it an issue of plain politics? The answer affects our foreign policy, and speaks to what solutions are best for the situation.
If this is about politics, that is unfortunate. Our foreign policy, if based on politics, must be unabashedly so. That way the public can connect its preferences to foreign actions. To ascribe some intellectually nuanced justification to what is in reality a political calculation is very harmful. Policies based on true intellectual assessments are at least consistent, and then can be rejected if consistently unsuccessful. Likewise, if policies are based on pure politics, a people can hold themselves accountable for unpopular or unsuccessful actions. Rahm's way has no accountability, and is therefore nihilistic.
But let's assume the nuanced position is the real justification for his comments. Let's assume the Obama administration believes that the Iranian nuke issue is intrinsically linked to the Palestine issue. Is this a sound position, requiring advances in the latter for advances in the former?
First, let's consider the 'realist' position. It could be that despite reality (as to the actual helpfulness of putting pressure on Israel visavis Iran), foreign nations will perceive enough 'good intentions' from an aggressive stance against Israel to support pressure against Iran. But this assumes a sort of diplomacy would work.
The fact is that all means of diplomacy short of blockade and other military responses were used against Iran during the past few years. It was only a fraudulent, deceptive national intelligence estimate (NIE) constructed by leftist anti-Bush bureaucrats in the state department in 2007 that halted this effort. The effort hadn't been working. Iran just kept dodging.
And here's the problem, let's state it clearly: Iran is currently building the materials for nuclear weapons and claiming it is for peaceful energy production - they can keep this up until they weaponize the materials - they can make enough materials for many many weapons before they need to take that step. So, by the time it's over, they might have lots and lots of weapon materials and thus weapons.
The problem is weapons development. Some claim they aren't intending to do this. If so, moot issue
- So will they make weapons? Good question, but considering belligerent rhetoric, belligerent history, and a record of inhumane terrible acts and a continued support to all kinds of terrorist groups and activities I'd say it is very possible they want to make weapons.
Assuming they want weapons, the goal is to stop them - because weapons will allow them to have their way in the Middle East, and they have stated goals of dominating the region, are a brutal theocratic intolerant totalitarian regime, have engaged in brutal wars in the past, and have stated the desire to 'wipe Israel off the map'.
So, assuming we want to stop them, any solution is valued as good if it can... stop them. Diplomacy hasn't stopped them. So why would we need the support of other nations? Maybe for military support, or approval of the use of military action.
True!
What about placating Iran by engaging in the peace process? The Arab nations could have alleviated the humanitarian crisis in Palestine long ago, and the Palestinians could help peace by rejecting the brutal, deceptive, hypocritical Hamas. Hamas has the stated goal of wiping Israel off of the map. This is similar to Hezbollah (Iran's terrorist group) and the stated goal of the rulers in Iran.
-So forcing Israel to make concessions will not help Iran make any concessions, and will only weaken Israel and America in the eyes of Iran. The only benefit is to convince other nations to be more 'okay' if America wanted to be more militarily aggressive against Iran.
Obama and the left-wing has rejected this approach. They want to talk, or they have said as much. So I think this is just politics to support the Democratic party.
IN FACT, I THINK THE ONLY ROLE OF FOREIGN POLICY IN THE DEMOCRATIC PLAYBOOK IS TO MAKE THE PARTY LOOK GOOD TO AMERICAN VOTERS SO A PERMANENT DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY CAN TAKE OVER DOMESTIC ISSUES IN AMERICA.
So don't be surprised if Obama's foreign policy seems conservative and aggressive at times, and surreptitiously liberal at others. The goal is to appease voting interests and donors.
As for the Iran issue, I don't think America will ever get support for military action in Iran. Iraq proved that, the world has no stomach for any show of American power. Only if it is dressed up as purely non-American can they stomach it. Those instances involve countries with no effective militaries to speak of.
So peace must come from America and Israel, and only an aggressive but consistent foreign policy will be successful. We have a right, by virtue of our right to protect ourselves and with a clear moral sanction (by being compared to Iran), to demand that Iran prove decisively that they will not make weaponized nukes. Only by being unapologetically aggressive can we succeed in this policy.
-We cannot allow them to come anywhere near having weapons (to be used by the state or state terrorists)
-We must and have the right to be aggressive in pursuing that goal
-Our aggressiveness must be nuanced according to the above stated principles.
If an inspections regime is corrupt or ineffective, we must state why, and immediately pursue the next step. This should be our m.o.:
-Clarity in giving reasons for action, and in stating goals and expectations.
-Consistency in the above
-The willingness to be aggressive in that consistency
-The willingness to adopt more peaceful compromises if they will be reasonably successful in place of war
-The willingness to reject said compromises quickly if they fail to achieve goals.
That's it! We need to tell Iran our expectations, and what we'll do to achieve them. Then we must do it. If they are not open, and don't shut down certain facilities, we bomb
THE NEW FORMAT
From now on, the Sorenson Speaks blog will return to its roots and intended purpose!
Every day there will be two posts.
Each post will take one of the day's top issues, and discuss a solution to it. Presumably, an issue is newsworthy because it represents a problem in society. I, Sorenson, will address the problem and identify a solution. In addition to, or in place of, a solution, I will identify what knowledge is necessary to solve the problem, and frame the moral essence of the problem.
Today, I will post once more with the first example of this.
Read on!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Tea Party Platform
Every movement needs a simple, populist message. This movement is and ought to be revolutionary. We are upon a new age. A truly global economy is emerging. Current methods of resource production are reaching limits that demand an adaptive, innovative capitalism more than ever. The post-WWII financial order has reached it's limit. Concurrently, unresolved questions concerning liberty and the role of government from the beginnings of the industrial revolution raise the spectre of future tyranny.
It is truly time for a revolution, one in the virtuous and tempered style of our American forefathers!
This should be the message repeated over and over, revolutionary, pragmatic, achievable:
Taxes:
-Each year's budget is formulated the year before. Taxes are levied only sufficient to cover what expenditures have already been planned.
-Emergency funds are raised by special issue bonds only, and this seperate from the monetary authority.
-The taxes you pay are a portion of the allocated budget in proportion to the portion of national wealth you control.
Money:
The sole single solitary responsibility of the Fed is monetary policy. This means keeping up with growth and not outpacing it. Congress will have no access whatsoever to 'fiscal policy' control of the money supply.
Labor Rights/Regulations
-All forms of relief for the impoverished shall be administered year by year according to the allocated budget. Let relief replace entitlement in our language.
-Financial regulations shall occur as a legal matter of rights as opposed to strict government oversight. Fraud, breach of contract, etc. shall be punishable by law.
-Let the government buy up the toxic assests that can be reasonably linked to government sponsored programs and policies, and do no more.
And we, the people - the ignorant masses - shall develop the culture, institutions, and solutions on our own!
Please review, copy, spread, discuss. We can implement these simple policies, we can do it through the Republican party (and Democratic, for those politicians whose constituencies so demand). This revolution can be accomplished!
Let this be our common banner, simple, clear, populist, full of liberty, and desperately needed.
-ZSorenson
It is truly time for a revolution, one in the virtuous and tempered style of our American forefathers!
This should be the message repeated over and over, revolutionary, pragmatic, achievable:
Taxes:
-Each year's budget is formulated the year before. Taxes are levied only sufficient to cover what expenditures have already been planned.
-Emergency funds are raised by special issue bonds only, and this seperate from the monetary authority.
-The taxes you pay are a portion of the allocated budget in proportion to the portion of national wealth you control.
Money:
The sole single solitary responsibility of the Fed is monetary policy. This means keeping up with growth and not outpacing it. Congress will have no access whatsoever to 'fiscal policy' control of the money supply.
Labor Rights/Regulations
-All forms of relief for the impoverished shall be administered year by year according to the allocated budget. Let relief replace entitlement in our language.
-Financial regulations shall occur as a legal matter of rights as opposed to strict government oversight. Fraud, breach of contract, etc. shall be punishable by law.
-Let the government buy up the toxic assests that can be reasonably linked to government sponsored programs and policies, and do no more.
And we, the people - the ignorant masses - shall develop the culture, institutions, and solutions on our own!
Please review, copy, spread, discuss. We can implement these simple policies, we can do it through the Republican party (and Democratic, for those politicians whose constituencies so demand). This revolution can be accomplished!
Let this be our common banner, simple, clear, populist, full of liberty, and desperately needed.
-ZSorenson
Monday, October 27, 2008
Some Recent Emails That Are Good
Those are rumors or loose associations.
Palin was quoted as saying "Our troops are on a mission from God."
This was by AP, used by Charlie Gibson. This was a lie.
She said, "Let us pray for our leaders that they send our troops on a mission from God."
Or some such thing, in other words, let's pray that our leaders will do what God wants and not something else. To misrepresent that is outrageously dishonest, yet never did the AP or ABC ever apologize or correct the misrepresentation.
Obama did attend Wright's church for 20 years. No one is commenting on the spiritual practices of the church in any way shape or form (tongues is just a form of worship, and to ridicule it - though I disagree with it - is to mock people for believing something and is crass and contemptuous). Wright had very heavily political messages, which Obama must have understood over the course of that time.
Ayers, as an educational advocate, is radical. That was my point, it doesn't matter if he bombed people or not. He had radical views about what to teach children and why. It was more than "Let's teach them how to read better". It was "Let's teach them about the injustices of society so they will grow up and support our political ideology". So, it's not a personal attack, just stating the fact that he is left-wing, and Obama's association with him does not implicate Obama as a terrorist, it only implicates Obama as someone who supports a radical ideology. That doesn't make him a bad person, it just means that all the voters who like Obama and think he is centrist should realize that he probably isn't, at least not in his personal convictions.
As a community organizer, Obama was radical. I kept thinking organizing meant, "hey, let me help you figure out how to get together and help each other out so you can grow out of poverty" kind of like a charity thing. However, organizing is political. It is creating groups of people to vote for an ideology and extract from others their way out of poverty. Yes, organizing in a political sense is good if those doing it seek civil rights and redresses from the government, but otherwise - especially if they seek assistance or wealth redistribution - it is pure socialism.
That's what Obama seems to be. It doesn't make him a bad person, it's just that lots of people feel socialism would be bad for America, and they don't think Obama is one. That's all.
Moreover, in this economic climate Obama can get away with murder!
Consder Biden's "there will be a crisis and people won't like how we respond to it"
I'm giving him a break on that one, I only mean to say that it seems probable that Obama plans to implement his 'change' even if the annoying 60% bitter gun-religion-clinging Americans don't like it.
Why?
Because he already has a 100 day plan starting Nov.5 with legislative measures already on the table. If the dems win big majorities in congress, and Obama wins you better bet that they will implement very dramatic policy changes in this country.
No, it won't be Soviet Russia, gosh, but it will be dramatic and very socialistic. Bad economic times are used as a mantra for pushing this sort of thing. FDR had a lot of people who opposed the New Deal, but the poorer folks believed in him, and the newspapers helped out. The news is helping Obama out big time. Yes, there's Fox and Rush. The point is though, if 60% of the country doesn't realize what Obama's doing it doesn't matter if 40% listen to Fox because they are racist Republicans.
The Obama campaign has at sundry times said the use of terrorist, socialist, welfare etc. with Obama is covert racism.
I know I've written a lot, and you may disagree with me.
Palin is probably dumb, and Obama seems to be smart. Yes.
Obama is not a bad guy. Yes.
However, Obama does seem to be very radical, and the implementation of left-wing extreme policies does seem to be in the works. If you are sympathetic to the idea that government intervention in our lives to redistribute resources to help the poor and equalize things, and involvement in education to teach children what to believe politically, and fairness doctrines where the ruling party can decide what balance in media looks like, and in the notion that a little voter fraud is okay because the Republicans just can't have another 4 years is okay, than Obama is a perfect candidate for you.
It would be wrong to think that he is not those things though. That's my point, maybe you have that vision for America, it's not 'evil' (well, not insidious), but if you don't have that vision you need to know that that is what Obama represents - and the majority of the news is intentionally avoiding that discussion.
That's all. I hope I haven't sounded to harsh, I'm just trying to present the information as it seems accurate (you can drop the voting fraud thing, but the rest is really legitimate stuff, all substantiated).
see you tomorrow
AND
When socialism comes to America, it won't be called socialism, because Americans don't like the word.
The idea can come being called something else. "Spreading the Wealth" has surprised me. Many Americans who are adverse to the word 'socialism' don't seem to mind 'spreading the wealth'. That surprises me, because it isn't thinly veiled.
Socialism is essentially a moral/political framework that runs counter to our founding liberties. The constitution actually gets in the way of socialism, which is why FDR had such a hard time with even some New Deal programs. This is why leftists don't like the courts or strict interpretation.
The liberties embodied in the constitution, as OBAMA himself said in that youtube are those which restrict the government from intervening in private lives. That is the American definition of liberty.
There are other definitions of liberty. The ancient greeks saw liberty as the ability to vote and influence public affairs, but after that point, all were slaves to the law. In other words, no individual liberty, but a social liberty. That's what socialism is, it is the idea that our liberties come from the government. That we are free because the government gives us things. We are free from fear because the government gives us protection, we are free from want because the government gives us food.
American liberty is the opposite, we are free from fear because we are free to protect ourselves (2nd ammendment) we are free from want because the government doesn't restrict our right to engage in commerce and production. Our rights come from God or nature, and limiting government protects those rights.
This was what the American revolution was fought over. Those who supported the king felt that a few tax breaks and conveniences were not worth the fighting, and that the king provided support and 'liberty' to the colonies by protecting them. The taxes were only a social burden paid to sustain the 'liberty' the king gave, because any rights came from him.
Some crazy guys called jefferson and adams and payne and henry thought that rights come from nature, not the king, and that the liberty afforded by the king wasn't worth the price of loss of personal liberty. So the war was fought.
In this climate, 'unAmerican' is considered an insult. I will use it now not as an insult. If you are unAmerican, you aren't a bad person, it is only describing that you disagree with American principles of liberty. Socialism is unAmerican, unequivocally.
Unfortunately, extreme wealth has allowed some rich to exploit de facto individuals, if not de jure. Hence, socialism is seen as restoring this balance. That is wrong, socialism is permanent. Socialism is the restoration of the King.
The thing is, lots of people like living under a king. Security for the price of a few liberties.
Obama is a socialist, his past makes that clear, so does the youtube. He believes in rights that come from government. He doesn't want to oppress or exploit people. But his views are unAmerican.
There are probably many good Americans that are 'unAmerican'. However, we must be honest about it and realize that if we really still believe in America's founding principles for which we fought the revolution, which revolution was the first and uniting cause that makes America a nation, than Obama is not the guy to pick.
However, modern liberals don't believe in that America. They believe in making a new American founded on other principles. American and an constitution that changes. The revolution would be a distasteful, if not quaint, relic. Again, they aren't bad people. Lots of people want a different America.
You probably believe in a different America. That doesn't make you a bad person.
I believe in the same America the revolutionaries fought for. I would fight for those principles again. That is why I can't support Obama ever.
I believe he is smart, capable, a good person, and eloquent. His views are radically different from mine.
What I'm saying is that Obama would probably not look down on or curse or do anything but honor our founding fathers, but if the revolution was fought today, he probably wouldn't fight in it. Not out of cowardice, but that he doesn't support those values of liberty that are uniquely American. The same values that I think have made America the wealthiest and most progressive (yes, despite Sweden's success, racial/ethnic integration and women's rights exist in America on a scale yet unmatched in the world). in the world
That's all, see ya
AND
You have to forgive me, I finished reading Atlas Shrugged last night.
People who like being loved are those who do it especially to avoid working for that love. In other words, people you like being loved have contempt for people who actually deserve love.
In Bill Clinton's case, this contempt was seen on a more personal level. He could mistreat his wife and his lovers and so forth and his advisors, and feel good. Thus maintaining a happy public image was enough to help him satisfy his needs personally.
Other require more public love, and the contempt is more public. Even republicans do this, in fact notoriously. John McCain I think has been guilty oft. I think George H.W. Bush was probably guilty of this as well. George W. Bush, to his credit, seems immune. But in fact he isn't. Think No child left behind, think the spending and so forth.
Greatness in Presidents is found when they don't need to be loved, because the principles by which they govern are more dear to them than adoration. W seems to have this quality in some sense, Lincoln died for it. My opinion is that what is wrong with the Iraq war is 1)stubborness 2)incompetence 3)poor judgement. However, as far as W has been committed to it despite public opinion, he really shines as a phenomenal leader. Other than a superfluous connection between that and stubbornness, the principle of having conviction over desire to be loved is good.
The contempt comes in when the desire to be loved is severe. This contempt is the spiritual fuel of socialism. No man who loves himself is a rational socialist. (some support socialism in a misguided way, not understanding what it really is).
I object respectfully, yet completely to your analysis. The more a President wants to be liked, the less he does of principle. The less he does of principle, the more quickly our rights and security crumble away. If he extremely desires love, he will have contempt for the successful. Then he is most dangerous.
Palin was quoted as saying "Our troops are on a mission from God."
This was by AP, used by Charlie Gibson. This was a lie.
She said, "Let us pray for our leaders that they send our troops on a mission from God."
Or some such thing, in other words, let's pray that our leaders will do what God wants and not something else. To misrepresent that is outrageously dishonest, yet never did the AP or ABC ever apologize or correct the misrepresentation.
Obama did attend Wright's church for 20 years. No one is commenting on the spiritual practices of the church in any way shape or form (tongues is just a form of worship, and to ridicule it - though I disagree with it - is to mock people for believing something and is crass and contemptuous). Wright had very heavily political messages, which Obama must have understood over the course of that time.
Ayers, as an educational advocate, is radical. That was my point, it doesn't matter if he bombed people or not. He had radical views about what to teach children and why. It was more than "Let's teach them how to read better". It was "Let's teach them about the injustices of society so they will grow up and support our political ideology". So, it's not a personal attack, just stating the fact that he is left-wing, and Obama's association with him does not implicate Obama as a terrorist, it only implicates Obama as someone who supports a radical ideology. That doesn't make him a bad person, it just means that all the voters who like Obama and think he is centrist should realize that he probably isn't, at least not in his personal convictions.
As a community organizer, Obama was radical. I kept thinking organizing meant, "hey, let me help you figure out how to get together and help each other out so you can grow out of poverty" kind of like a charity thing. However, organizing is political. It is creating groups of people to vote for an ideology and extract from others their way out of poverty. Yes, organizing in a political sense is good if those doing it seek civil rights and redresses from the government, but otherwise - especially if they seek assistance or wealth redistribution - it is pure socialism.
That's what Obama seems to be. It doesn't make him a bad person, it's just that lots of people feel socialism would be bad for America, and they don't think Obama is one. That's all.
Moreover, in this economic climate Obama can get away with murder!
Consder Biden's "there will be a crisis and people won't like how we respond to it"
I'm giving him a break on that one, I only mean to say that it seems probable that Obama plans to implement his 'change' even if the annoying 60% bitter gun-religion-clinging Americans don't like it.
Why?
Because he already has a 100 day plan starting Nov.5 with legislative measures already on the table. If the dems win big majorities in congress, and Obama wins you better bet that they will implement very dramatic policy changes in this country.
No, it won't be Soviet Russia, gosh, but it will be dramatic and very socialistic. Bad economic times are used as a mantra for pushing this sort of thing. FDR had a lot of people who opposed the New Deal, but the poorer folks believed in him, and the newspapers helped out. The news is helping Obama out big time. Yes, there's Fox and Rush. The point is though, if 60% of the country doesn't realize what Obama's doing it doesn't matter if 40% listen to Fox because they are racist Republicans.
The Obama campaign has at sundry times said the use of terrorist, socialist, welfare etc. with Obama is covert racism.
I know I've written a lot, and you may disagree with me.
Palin is probably dumb, and Obama seems to be smart. Yes.
Obama is not a bad guy. Yes.
However, Obama does seem to be very radical, and the implementation of left-wing extreme policies does seem to be in the works. If you are sympathetic to the idea that government intervention in our lives to redistribute resources to help the poor and equalize things, and involvement in education to teach children what to believe politically, and fairness doctrines where the ruling party can decide what balance in media looks like, and in the notion that a little voter fraud is okay because the Republicans just can't have another 4 years is okay, than Obama is a perfect candidate for you.
It would be wrong to think that he is not those things though. That's my point, maybe you have that vision for America, it's not 'evil' (well, not insidious), but if you don't have that vision you need to know that that is what Obama represents - and the majority of the news is intentionally avoiding that discussion.
That's all. I hope I haven't sounded to harsh, I'm just trying to present the information as it seems accurate (you can drop the voting fraud thing, but the rest is really legitimate stuff, all substantiated).
see you tomorrow
AND
When socialism comes to America, it won't be called socialism, because Americans don't like the word.
The idea can come being called something else. "Spreading the Wealth" has surprised me. Many Americans who are adverse to the word 'socialism' don't seem to mind 'spreading the wealth'. That surprises me, because it isn't thinly veiled.
Socialism is essentially a moral/political framework that runs counter to our founding liberties. The constitution actually gets in the way of socialism, which is why FDR had such a hard time with even some New Deal programs. This is why leftists don't like the courts or strict interpretation.
The liberties embodied in the constitution, as OBAMA himself said in that youtube are those which restrict the government from intervening in private lives. That is the American definition of liberty.
There are other definitions of liberty. The ancient greeks saw liberty as the ability to vote and influence public affairs, but after that point, all were slaves to the law. In other words, no individual liberty, but a social liberty. That's what socialism is, it is the idea that our liberties come from the government. That we are free because the government gives us things. We are free from fear because the government gives us protection, we are free from want because the government gives us food.
American liberty is the opposite, we are free from fear because we are free to protect ourselves (2nd ammendment) we are free from want because the government doesn't restrict our right to engage in commerce and production. Our rights come from God or nature, and limiting government protects those rights.
This was what the American revolution was fought over. Those who supported the king felt that a few tax breaks and conveniences were not worth the fighting, and that the king provided support and 'liberty' to the colonies by protecting them. The taxes were only a social burden paid to sustain the 'liberty' the king gave, because any rights came from him.
Some crazy guys called jefferson and adams and payne and henry thought that rights come from nature, not the king, and that the liberty afforded by the king wasn't worth the price of loss of personal liberty. So the war was fought.
In this climate, 'unAmerican' is considered an insult. I will use it now not as an insult. If you are unAmerican, you aren't a bad person, it is only describing that you disagree with American principles of liberty. Socialism is unAmerican, unequivocally.
Unfortunately, extreme wealth has allowed some rich to exploit de facto individuals, if not de jure. Hence, socialism is seen as restoring this balance. That is wrong, socialism is permanent. Socialism is the restoration of the King.
The thing is, lots of people like living under a king. Security for the price of a few liberties.
Obama is a socialist, his past makes that clear, so does the youtube. He believes in rights that come from government. He doesn't want to oppress or exploit people. But his views are unAmerican.
There are probably many good Americans that are 'unAmerican'. However, we must be honest about it and realize that if we really still believe in America's founding principles for which we fought the revolution, which revolution was the first and uniting cause that makes America a nation, than Obama is not the guy to pick.
However, modern liberals don't believe in that America. They believe in making a new American founded on other principles. American and an constitution that changes. The revolution would be a distasteful, if not quaint, relic. Again, they aren't bad people. Lots of people want a different America.
You probably believe in a different America. That doesn't make you a bad person.
I believe in the same America the revolutionaries fought for. I would fight for those principles again. That is why I can't support Obama ever.
I believe he is smart, capable, a good person, and eloquent. His views are radically different from mine.
What I'm saying is that Obama would probably not look down on or curse or do anything but honor our founding fathers, but if the revolution was fought today, he probably wouldn't fight in it. Not out of cowardice, but that he doesn't support those values of liberty that are uniquely American. The same values that I think have made America the wealthiest and most progressive (yes, despite Sweden's success, racial/ethnic integration and women's rights exist in America on a scale yet unmatched in the world). in the world
That's all, see ya
AND
You have to forgive me, I finished reading Atlas Shrugged last night.
People who like being loved are those who do it especially to avoid working for that love. In other words, people you like being loved have contempt for people who actually deserve love.
In Bill Clinton's case, this contempt was seen on a more personal level. He could mistreat his wife and his lovers and so forth and his advisors, and feel good. Thus maintaining a happy public image was enough to help him satisfy his needs personally.
Other require more public love, and the contempt is more public. Even republicans do this, in fact notoriously. John McCain I think has been guilty oft. I think George H.W. Bush was probably guilty of this as well. George W. Bush, to his credit, seems immune. But in fact he isn't. Think No child left behind, think the spending and so forth.
Greatness in Presidents is found when they don't need to be loved, because the principles by which they govern are more dear to them than adoration. W seems to have this quality in some sense, Lincoln died for it. My opinion is that what is wrong with the Iraq war is 1)stubborness 2)incompetence 3)poor judgement. However, as far as W has been committed to it despite public opinion, he really shines as a phenomenal leader. Other than a superfluous connection between that and stubbornness, the principle of having conviction over desire to be loved is good.
The contempt comes in when the desire to be loved is severe. This contempt is the spiritual fuel of socialism. No man who loves himself is a rational socialist. (some support socialism in a misguided way, not understanding what it really is).
I object respectfully, yet completely to your analysis. The more a President wants to be liked, the less he does of principle. The less he does of principle, the more quickly our rights and security crumble away. If he extremely desires love, he will have contempt for the successful. Then he is most dangerous.
Obama's Historic Run
We have heard time and again about how 'historic' Barack Obama's run for presidency is.
Historic Times
These Ways
What makes it historic?
Well, first lets just throw out a little evidence, or an anecdote to set the mood:
So, it's historic.
Why?
I know! Obama will change the country in historic ways. Which ways?
These Ways
Oh.
.
.
So do journalists really want that? Probably, but so long as I'm not being that cynical, what is really historic about Obama?
Oh, he's half black.
My only point is that I find all of these reasons to be completely inappropriate in electing a president. In other words, socialists shouldn't be president! And we shouldn't elect people, who are probably socialist, but ignore what they really want to do, but still get super excited that they are running, just because of race.
It's really sad.
Were discrimination and hatred sad, and pathetic? Oh yeah, really really pathetic. But this is pathetic too.
Hopefully they're just socialists, but I hope not...
What an election!
Friday, September 5, 2008
Quick Thought on Sarah Palin
What gets the left-wing of American into such a fury? When they think the other side can actually win.
I believe that most of the time, liberals think that they not only deserve to win, but will most certainly win because everyone else must obviously be on the same page. To disagree with the party line is to be a jerk and an idiot.
So when the other side seems to be succeeding, it makes them nuts. That's why Oprah doesn't want Sarah Palin on her show and the main reason why people don't like her. It's because she raises the specter of victory for Republicans in November. That is maddening, the prospect preposterous.
Why do people hate John McCain so much? It's irrational, it has nothing to do with him, it's because he is the 'republican'.
Some day, the left will just have to accept that they might not always be right. The right is stubborn too, but it spends much more time caving than the other side.
I believe that most of the time, liberals think that they not only deserve to win, but will most certainly win because everyone else must obviously be on the same page. To disagree with the party line is to be a jerk and an idiot.
So when the other side seems to be succeeding, it makes them nuts. That's why Oprah doesn't want Sarah Palin on her show and the main reason why people don't like her. It's because she raises the specter of victory for Republicans in November. That is maddening, the prospect preposterous.
Why do people hate John McCain so much? It's irrational, it has nothing to do with him, it's because he is the 'republican'.
Some day, the left will just have to accept that they might not always be right. The right is stubborn too, but it spends much more time caving than the other side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
