Ahahahah. So, remember this post? Welp, chances are that if you stopped by enough to get where that was coming from and at least be sympathetic to it, this is probably the last post you're going to read here (provided that you're even actually reading this post because I've been gone for just under a year- though not for the first time).
Here's the rub, my former fellow right wingers, (yeah, former) I've left the fold. I am and have been for some time now, a hard line leftist. A liberal socialist to be exact. I thought any old readers stopping by deserve to know.
This can be considered an official declaration that I Was Wrong and that I'm Sorry I Was An Insufferable Asshole About A Lot Of Things.
I'm still not planning on doing a lot of talking about politics because that shit is still depressing- just for a bevy of other reasons.
The next post will be a video of some sort. Also, I started a Tumblr. It's a work in progress. I've stopped reading monthly comics in favor of a strict TPB regiment. Still playing Skyrim and my frothing rage over the Mass Effect 3 ending has settled into a simmering ever present disappointment, which manifests as a general apprehension when it comes to buying new games.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
11.07.2012
November 7
Only in America could a center right corporate apologist war-mongering imperialist be considered "center left", but hey- at least we didn't elect the fucking sociopath.
Props to Washington and Colorado on legalizing weed and demonstrating a modicum of sense on drug policy.
Props to Maryland on voting against bigotry twice over by providing in-state tuition to children of undocumented immigrants and furthering the goal equality for gay people.
Every time I see a map breaking down election results by district all I can think is "Fuck, am I thankful for fucking cities".
Props to Washington and Colorado on legalizing weed and demonstrating a modicum of sense on drug policy.
Props to Maryland on voting against bigotry twice over by providing in-state tuition to children of undocumented immigrants and furthering the goal equality for gay people.
Every time I see a map breaking down election results by district all I can think is "Fuck, am I thankful for fucking cities".
11.06.2012
1.19.2012
Anon Strikes Back
I just spent the last half and hour or so watching Twitter go crazy over Anon's response to the take down of Megaupload (currently trending under "the internet strikes back" at the time of this posting).
The call to arms went out earlier:
Here's the thing- this will probably prove to be counterproductive to yesterday's massive protests. Still, it feels damn good to watch the people hell bent on dismantling the greatest platform for free speech mankind has ever known get a little cyber cider in their eyes courtesy of Anonymous.
In case you were wondering? Some of the rat fucks behind PIPA are already running scared.
The call to arms went out earlier:
Here's the thing- this will probably prove to be counterproductive to yesterday's massive protests. Still, it feels damn good to watch the people hell bent on dismantling the greatest platform for free speech mankind has ever known get a little cyber cider in their eyes courtesy of Anonymous.
In case you were wondering? Some of the rat fucks behind PIPA are already running scared.
4.23.2009
So I Guess The Question Is....
Given the ideological mixed bag that is the tea party movement, is a federalism amendment a salable goal? I think that if it uses Mr. Barnett's wording it could be. It'll draw even more cooks out of the woodwork and the TPTB and the MSM will pull out all the stops in their efforts to marginalize and dismiss us. Heck, all we can agree on right now is ousting the incumbents and they're already 3 steps from crapping their pants. But if we were to respond like we're responding now I think, yeah, maybe it's just crazy and brazen enough to work. Maybe we could scare some pretty big concessions out of the feds.
What do you folks think? It's late and my general distaste for government always has had a touch of the extreme so maybe this is my pipe dream.
What do you folks think? It's late and my general distaste for government always has had a touch of the extreme so maybe this is my pipe dream.
3.27.2009
Doesn't Look Like I'm Doing It Wrong After All....
I can't say that I'm entirely certain what to make of the growing trend of "sovereignty bills", 28 of which have been introduced in state assemblies so far, but I know that they're the sort of escalation I've been worrying about. That worry was the beginning of my earlier post.
This could serve as a wake up call to Washington, but simply putting a pause on the expansion of the federal government and its reach may not be enough. And it shouldn't be.
*Hat tip, Instapundit
With revolutionary die-hards behind him, Mr. Pitts has fired a warning shot across the bow of the Washington establishment. As the writer of one of 28 state "sovereignty bills" – one even calls for outright dissolution of the Union if Washington doesn't rein itself in – Pitts is at the forefront of a states' rights revival, reasserting their say on everything from stem cell research to the Second Amendment.
This could serve as a wake up call to Washington, but simply putting a pause on the expansion of the federal government and its reach may not be enough. And it shouldn't be.
*Hat tip, Instapundit
3.26.2009
Whatever....
So I found this thing, and having a few minutes to kill, I gave it a go.
I scored 160/400, making me (according to this quiz) "very conservative". And to that I say "whatever." This quiz was designed by someone who's very progressive and it shows (I mean other than being on the Center for American Progress website):
Immigrants are a burden on the country because they take jobs and abuse social programs. And then you have to rank your agreement with the statement on a scale of 0 to 10. Another example would be It is unpatriotic to criticize the government or the military during a time of war.
Let's look at the first statement. Legal immigrants are frequently some of the hardest working members of our society, so that would clearly be a 'no'. However, illegal immigrants, assisted by the minimum wage and consuming benefits they don't help pay for, are a burden. (This is all being grossly simplified because there's a larger point I want to get to.)
Now, if we look at the second statement we see something similar; it's not whether you criticize the government or the military that's patriotic or unpatriotic, but how and why. Like the woman said, 'T ain't what you do it's the way that you do it.
Don't worry, I'm not going to beat the old patriots vs partisans horse. I just think that this quiz is a good and funny example of how completely worthless the word "conservative" is in today's political climate. Between the crunchy-cons', socio-cons', and the rest of the hyphenates, no one can honestly tell you what "conservative" is. The word is actually more worthless than Neocon, which (to everyone, but actual neocons) means "evil evil person, who disagrees with my ideas on foreign policy". "Conservative" is the mythical label of authenticity that generates the vast bulk of Republican infighting. The funny thing is, the left doesn't see distinctions. For them, Republican = conservative.
The left has a clearer definition of conservative than we do because authenticity is about a subjective set of standards. You can't draw the line at conserving the constitution because many "conservatives" would support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage; something which desecrates the very spirit of the constitution. Many "conservatives" support teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, which amounts to religious education in public classrooms. If it looks like I'm picking on social conservatives, it's because they're the most blatant examples. But even if we abandon those hobby horses, there are still plenty of examples. We can't say we draw the line at small government because there's a group of people who we refer to as big government conservatives. Sarah Palin, the "conservative" member on the Republican Presidential ticket, has overt populist sentiments regarding government's role in the market and (as evidenced by the people on the street) so do many "conservatives".
Whatever. I could keep going, but this thing is already an essay and I feel like I'd just be flogging a dead horse. Saying, "In this concert we're all manufactured boy bands wagging on about which of is us the more serious or authentic musicians, because the level intrusion by the federal government which we all tacitly accept would have the founding fathers spinning in the graves like jet turbines.", is ineffectual and pointless. True. But ineffectual and pointless. Much like this post.
I scored 160/400, making me (according to this quiz) "very conservative". And to that I say "whatever." This quiz was designed by someone who's very progressive and it shows (I mean other than being on the Center for American Progress website):
Immigrants are a burden on the country because they take jobs and abuse social programs. And then you have to rank your agreement with the statement on a scale of 0 to 10. Another example would be It is unpatriotic to criticize the government or the military during a time of war.
Let's look at the first statement. Legal immigrants are frequently some of the hardest working members of our society, so that would clearly be a 'no'. However, illegal immigrants, assisted by the minimum wage and consuming benefits they don't help pay for, are a burden. (This is all being grossly simplified because there's a larger point I want to get to.)
Now, if we look at the second statement we see something similar; it's not whether you criticize the government or the military that's patriotic or unpatriotic, but how and why. Like the woman said, 'T ain't what you do it's the way that you do it.
Don't worry, I'm not going to beat the old patriots vs partisans horse. I just think that this quiz is a good and funny example of how completely worthless the word "conservative" is in today's political climate. Between the crunchy-cons', socio-cons', and the rest of the hyphenates, no one can honestly tell you what "conservative" is. The word is actually more worthless than Neocon, which (to everyone, but actual neocons) means "evil evil person, who disagrees with my ideas on foreign policy". "Conservative" is the mythical label of authenticity that generates the vast bulk of Republican infighting. The funny thing is, the left doesn't see distinctions. For them, Republican = conservative.
The left has a clearer definition of conservative than we do because authenticity is about a subjective set of standards. You can't draw the line at conserving the constitution because many "conservatives" would support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage; something which desecrates the very spirit of the constitution. Many "conservatives" support teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, which amounts to religious education in public classrooms. If it looks like I'm picking on social conservatives, it's because they're the most blatant examples. But even if we abandon those hobby horses, there are still plenty of examples. We can't say we draw the line at small government because there's a group of people who we refer to as big government conservatives. Sarah Palin, the "conservative" member on the Republican Presidential ticket, has overt populist sentiments regarding government's role in the market and (as evidenced by the people on the street) so do many "conservatives".
Whatever. I could keep going, but this thing is already an essay and I feel like I'd just be flogging a dead horse. Saying, "In this concert we're all manufactured boy bands wagging on about which of is us the more serious or authentic musicians, because the level intrusion by the federal government which we all tacitly accept would have the founding fathers spinning in the graves like jet turbines.", is ineffectual and pointless. True. But ineffectual and pointless. Much like this post.
3.05.2009
RNC Shocked To Discover It's Steele not Steal
What I find absolutely hilarious about this is that when Michael Steel was being floated around as a possible VP pick during the '08 campaign I remember commenting on several occasions that he wasn't particularly impressive (to put it mildly). In fact, he was pretty worthless as Maryland's Lt. Governor. Not because he did a bad job at anything, but because he didn't do anything. Wikipedia credits him with reforming Maryland's Minority Business Enterprise program and chairing the Governor Erlich's Commission on Quality Education in Maryland. However, exactly what those things accomplished is questionable as how they didn't even make Fox New's short biography on him, though that biography does manage to list just about every other aspect of his career.
Being a Marylander I'd see Michael Steele in office, so when his name started popping up as the possible head of the RNC, I was pretty sure there were better candidates. Look, Michael Steele is a smart man and he'd probably do pretty well as a political author or something, but as head of the RNC he's sucking massively.
Granted he hasn't been in office that long, but in the interest of being bi-partisan, neither has our Presi-Jesus, and I certainly don't cut him any slack. Get it together Mr. Steele or step down and let someone else do it. Time's ticking.
Being a Marylander I'd see Michael Steele in office, so when his name started popping up as the possible head of the RNC, I was pretty sure there were better candidates. Look, Michael Steele is a smart man and he'd probably do pretty well as a political author or something, but as head of the RNC he's sucking massively.
Granted he hasn't been in office that long, but in the interest of being bi-partisan, neither has our Presi-Jesus, and I certainly don't cut him any slack. Get it together Mr. Steele or step down and let someone else do it. Time's ticking.
Laughing Through The Tears....
Oleg Atbashian serves up some America applicable Soviet style humor in the form of dialectical contradictions.
For example:
Dialectical contradictions are one of the pillars in Marxist philosophy, which states that contradictions eventually lead to a unity of opposites as the result of a struggle. This gave a convenient “scientific” excuse for the existence of contradictions in a socialist society, where opposites were nice and agreeable — unlike the wild and crazy opposites of capitalism that could never be reconciled. Hence the joke.
For example:
Economic justice:
* America is capitalist and greedy — yet half of the population is subsidized.
* Half of the population is subsidized — yet they think they are victims.
* They think they are victims — yet their representatives run the government.
* Their representatives run the government — yet the poor keep getting poorer.
* The poor keep getting poorer — yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
* They have things that people in other countries only dream about — yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
2.05.2009
The Importance Of Visibility....
...Or what Republicans can learn from the gay community.
*A quick note before we start: this post is really for any Republicans who, like me, live in an area dominated by Democrats. Now, on to the show.
Republicans have a serious image problem. And while it's true that much of the blame for that can be laid at the feet of our opposition, a large part of the fault is still ours. We complain about unfair representations in the media and pop culture, sure. But the primary objective of those complaints seems to be to get those two entities to give us a better shake. That's not a bad goal, but in a culture where the press is fully willing to throw away its credibility with 1/2 of the population in order to elect a political official, is it a realistic goal? The same can be said for Hollywood and their steady stream of films which alienate that same half of their potential audience; getting them to give Republicans/conservatives a better shake isn't a bad goal, but is it honestly realistic?
Granted, things like Big Hollywood, Pajamas Media, and PJTV are good ways to hit back by creating the content we feel is lacking, but let's face it- not all of us have the sort of talents that would enable us to really make a splash in that arena. (I certainly understand that this blog's primary contribution is simply being a place for me to clear my head so that I don't turn every social interaction I have throughout the day into a political debate/discussion. If it happens to entertain the few people who drop by every now and then or- against all conceivable odds- inform, then I'm thrilled beyond words, but I know where I stand in the internet hierarchy.) All of that is perfectly alright because fixing the popular image of Republicans is going to take more than carving out a Republican friendly niche in the press and pop culture. It's going to take visibility.
I'm not talking about the visibility of politicians, talking heads, or party organizations. I'm not talking about parades or week long parties either- that's not what I meant, by learning visibility from the gay community. I'm talking about those of us in the red closet (full time and part time) coming out (or at least a little more out).
You can live in the heart of Berkley, California right next door to the Code Pink HQ, completely surrounded by people who are certain they don't know a single solitary Republican, but they all know Republicans exist. Therefore visibility of the talking head/politician/party organization variety is essentially a moot point. In fact, so far as they know, those three things make up the entirety of their knowledge pool on Republicans. Additionally, being responsible for the redirection of traffic (and the resulting jams) is pretty much guaranteed to make your neighbors want to choke you, not get together for cocktails to see if they've been in error.
Republicans have to come out. The change in the public perception of gay people has less to do with lobbyists and parades than it does with the expanding portion of the population that personally knows at least one gay person. That person could be a friend, family member, co-worker, or just another responsible member of the community. That's who we have to be; we have to become that Republican your liberal mom/friend/co-worker will mention in a positive light the next time their liberal friends equate Republicans to the Antichrist.
Much like with gay people, they're not all going to be success stories. Coming out of the red closet pretty much ensures that you're going to lose at least one contact. Choosing to live outside of the red closet full time could get you completely ostracized. We haven't even talked about the harassment issue. But I'm not saying anything you don't already know. After all, this is exactly why so many of us have chosen to live in the red closet at least part of the time. That's also why not being openly Republican doesn't make a person a coward; you can't fault someone for not wanting their family to stop talking to them or for wanting to keep their job.
We all know the price of being openly Republican in a Democrat dominated area. What's the price of being a closeted Republican? What's the weight of all those little (and not so little) moments when you tuck your head down and keep your mouth shut in order to get along or fit in or just not be harassed? We all know benefits of keeping silent, being invisible. What are the benefits of visibility? What's it like to shed fear and speak boldly in defense of yourself and your beliefs? In the long run, creating an environment where it's not socially acceptable to harass or intimidate Republicans for the crime of disagreeing with liberal ideology is a win for political discourse in this country. That makes it a win for everyone. Well everyone except for those who are only concerned with the gaining and keeping of power, but those people are the true enemies of liberty and to know their names by their disdain for open discourse is a victory for liberty.
*A quick note before we start: this post is really for any Republicans who, like me, live in an area dominated by Democrats. Now, on to the show.
Republicans have a serious image problem. And while it's true that much of the blame for that can be laid at the feet of our opposition, a large part of the fault is still ours. We complain about unfair representations in the media and pop culture, sure. But the primary objective of those complaints seems to be to get those two entities to give us a better shake. That's not a bad goal, but in a culture where the press is fully willing to throw away its credibility with 1/2 of the population in order to elect a political official, is it a realistic goal? The same can be said for Hollywood and their steady stream of films which alienate that same half of their potential audience; getting them to give Republicans/conservatives a better shake isn't a bad goal, but is it honestly realistic?
Granted, things like Big Hollywood, Pajamas Media, and PJTV are good ways to hit back by creating the content we feel is lacking, but let's face it- not all of us have the sort of talents that would enable us to really make a splash in that arena. (I certainly understand that this blog's primary contribution is simply being a place for me to clear my head so that I don't turn every social interaction I have throughout the day into a political debate/discussion. If it happens to entertain the few people who drop by every now and then or- against all conceivable odds- inform, then I'm thrilled beyond words, but I know where I stand in the internet hierarchy.) All of that is perfectly alright because fixing the popular image of Republicans is going to take more than carving out a Republican friendly niche in the press and pop culture. It's going to take visibility.
I'm not talking about the visibility of politicians, talking heads, or party organizations. I'm not talking about parades or week long parties either- that's not what I meant, by learning visibility from the gay community. I'm talking about those of us in the red closet (full time and part time) coming out (or at least a little more out).
You can live in the heart of Berkley, California right next door to the Code Pink HQ, completely surrounded by people who are certain they don't know a single solitary Republican, but they all know Republicans exist. Therefore visibility of the talking head/politician/party organization variety is essentially a moot point. In fact, so far as they know, those three things make up the entirety of their knowledge pool on Republicans. Additionally, being responsible for the redirection of traffic (and the resulting jams) is pretty much guaranteed to make your neighbors want to choke you, not get together for cocktails to see if they've been in error.
Republicans have to come out. The change in the public perception of gay people has less to do with lobbyists and parades than it does with the expanding portion of the population that personally knows at least one gay person. That person could be a friend, family member, co-worker, or just another responsible member of the community. That's who we have to be; we have to become that Republican your liberal mom/friend/co-worker will mention in a positive light the next time their liberal friends equate Republicans to the Antichrist.
Much like with gay people, they're not all going to be success stories. Coming out of the red closet pretty much ensures that you're going to lose at least one contact. Choosing to live outside of the red closet full time could get you completely ostracized. We haven't even talked about the harassment issue. But I'm not saying anything you don't already know. After all, this is exactly why so many of us have chosen to live in the red closet at least part of the time. That's also why not being openly Republican doesn't make a person a coward; you can't fault someone for not wanting their family to stop talking to them or for wanting to keep their job.
We all know the price of being openly Republican in a Democrat dominated area. What's the price of being a closeted Republican? What's the weight of all those little (and not so little) moments when you tuck your head down and keep your mouth shut in order to get along or fit in or just not be harassed? We all know benefits of keeping silent, being invisible. What are the benefits of visibility? What's it like to shed fear and speak boldly in defense of yourself and your beliefs? In the long run, creating an environment where it's not socially acceptable to harass or intimidate Republicans for the crime of disagreeing with liberal ideology is a win for political discourse in this country. That makes it a win for everyone. Well everyone except for those who are only concerned with the gaining and keeping of power, but those people are the true enemies of liberty and to know their names by their disdain for open discourse is a victory for liberty.
2.04.2009
2.03.2009
Politicians And Taxes....
With something like the third of our new Teflon President's nominees having to bow out for tax evasion/fraud/stupidity/"oops that wasn't H&R Block/whatever shenanigans, I guess I should say something.
Look, I'm one of those people who believe that income tax is theft. Pure and simple. But these are the assholes mandating the theft in the first place (and demanding ever greater amounts) so when the highway man comes around they'd damn well better reach for the sky with the rest of us.
It's the whole income tax=theft part which made this poll grab my attention. I don't cheat on my taxes because I used to watch Oz on HBO and jail scares the low level civil disobedience out of me, but I don't really have a moral/ethical problem with other people not forking over what the government demands because the government hasn't earned a fucking red cent of anyone's money. But if you're one of the feckless louts giving the green light to the annual mugging of the American people and profiting off of it then you should certainly get mugged with the rest of us.
The funniest part of this whole thing (in a zen sort of " if I weren't laughing I'd be crying" way) is that if former President George W. Bush had goofed like this the left (and their propaganda arm, the MSM) would have held it up as incontrovertible proof of his stupidity/incompetence/crookedness. Change we can believe in....
Look, I'm one of those people who believe that income tax is theft. Pure and simple. But these are the assholes mandating the theft in the first place (and demanding ever greater amounts) so when the highway man comes around they'd damn well better reach for the sky with the rest of us.
It's the whole income tax=theft part which made this poll grab my attention. I don't cheat on my taxes because I used to watch Oz on HBO and jail scares the low level civil disobedience out of me, but I don't really have a moral/ethical problem with other people not forking over what the government demands because the government hasn't earned a fucking red cent of anyone's money. But if you're one of the feckless louts giving the green light to the annual mugging of the American people and profiting off of it then you should certainly get mugged with the rest of us.
The funniest part of this whole thing (in a zen sort of " if I weren't laughing I'd be crying" way) is that if former President George W. Bush had goofed like this the left (and their propaganda arm, the MSM) would have held it up as incontrovertible proof of his stupidity/incompetence/crookedness. Change we can believe in....
1.31.2009
On RINO's....
NeoCon Blonde is sick of the term RINO and I can understand the point. However I think the problem (as is with most words) is overuse. The tendency to call anyone who's allegedly less "conservative" than you consider yourself a RINO is insane and stupid. That said, I think there's a valid use of the term RINO. Moderate and RINO are not synonymous. But RINO and statist Republican are.
(Yeah, it's that trip again.)
Statism is the one thing that goes against Republican/conservative ideals no matter which way you try to spin it. It corrodes the very nature of the Republican party and those in our ranks who espouse it are in point of fact Republican in Name Only. Using the government to try to build a "better world" instead of letting free individuals do it, is completely at odds with the central idea of the Republican party. I don't care if your "better world" is a world of gods or men, if its foundation is the government and its guns instead of free people you're not a Republican. I don't care what you call yourself. There are a lot of ideas that can be open to debate in the Republican party, but statism isn't one of them.
This ended up being more confrontational than I expected, but maybe it should be. The stakes are high. They're always high.
(Yeah, it's that trip again.)
Statism is the one thing that goes against Republican/conservative ideals no matter which way you try to spin it. It corrodes the very nature of the Republican party and those in our ranks who espouse it are in point of fact Republican in Name Only. Using the government to try to build a "better world" instead of letting free individuals do it, is completely at odds with the central idea of the Republican party. I don't care if your "better world" is a world of gods or men, if its foundation is the government and its guns instead of free people you're not a Republican. I don't care what you call yourself. There are a lot of ideas that can be open to debate in the Republican party, but statism isn't one of them.
This ended up being more confrontational than I expected, but maybe it should be. The stakes are high. They're always high.
1.21.2009
On The Inauguration....
I haven't said much. What is there to say that I haven't already said about President Obama?
Still... I suppose something must be said, so I give you Whittle and Malkin parsing the inauguration speech.
Still... I suppose something must be said, so I give you Whittle and Malkin parsing the inauguration speech.
1.03.2009
You'll Forgive Me If I Look A Little Sick....
...but I just had a glimpse of the next 4 years.
Governors of five U.S. states urged the federal government to provide $1 trillion in aid to the country's 50 states to help pay for education, welfare and infrastructure as states struggle with steep budget deficits amid a deepening recession.
Chickens. Roost.
In light of the $700 billion provided to bail out the financial industry, "It's not shockingly large," he said.
Balls.
Look, let's be honest. People get the government they deserve. And we've been steadily sowing the seeds of statism at an ever increasing pace since Reagan left office. Democrats and Republicans alike. And in so far as all that it takes for evil to triumph is a lack of action from good men, any of us who value liberty but shied from the front lines of the culture war are to blame.
Many of us have allowed ourselves to be bullied and intimidated out of the conversation. Time and time again we've chosen "peace in our time" and in doing so have allowed our opponents to malign us, to redefine language, to recast history. We have allowed our opponents such dominance over the conversation that a great many of them believe it to be over. That they have won.
Quite frankly, when five Democratic governors can ask the federal government for 1 trillion dollars to bail out states which have overspent their way into multi-billion dollar deficits with a straight face, it's hard to remember that they haven't won. But they haven't. Sure. Things look dark. But we can take them. All we have to do is fight. If we fight, we will win because freedom and responsibility are always superior to the yoke of the state. This has never been and is not a now a country for those who would prefer to kneel. Freedom is a hard thing; it requires that you stand. But free men have done more to lift humanity from the muck and the mire than any tyrant, state, or bureaucrat ever has.
No, our opponents haven't won yet. But those of us who value freedom, whether you call yourself libertarian, classically liberal, conservative, whatever, it's time to abandon the silence. Engage in conversations. Challenge assumptions. Confront erroneous information. Don't be rude. There's no need to shout anyone down. We're not trying to convert zealots. We're illuminating an alternative for those who don't know one exists.
And if we want oust the in coming administration in 4 years instead of 8 we should kick the statists out of the Republican Party.
Governors of five U.S. states urged the federal government to provide $1 trillion in aid to the country's 50 states to help pay for education, welfare and infrastructure as states struggle with steep budget deficits amid a deepening recession.
Chickens. Roost.
In light of the $700 billion provided to bail out the financial industry, "It's not shockingly large," he said.
Balls.
Look, let's be honest. People get the government they deserve. And we've been steadily sowing the seeds of statism at an ever increasing pace since Reagan left office. Democrats and Republicans alike. And in so far as all that it takes for evil to triumph is a lack of action from good men, any of us who value liberty but shied from the front lines of the culture war are to blame.
Many of us have allowed ourselves to be bullied and intimidated out of the conversation. Time and time again we've chosen "peace in our time" and in doing so have allowed our opponents to malign us, to redefine language, to recast history. We have allowed our opponents such dominance over the conversation that a great many of them believe it to be over. That they have won.
Quite frankly, when five Democratic governors can ask the federal government for 1 trillion dollars to bail out states which have overspent their way into multi-billion dollar deficits with a straight face, it's hard to remember that they haven't won. But they haven't. Sure. Things look dark. But we can take them. All we have to do is fight. If we fight, we will win because freedom and responsibility are always superior to the yoke of the state. This has never been and is not a now a country for those who would prefer to kneel. Freedom is a hard thing; it requires that you stand. But free men have done more to lift humanity from the muck and the mire than any tyrant, state, or bureaucrat ever has.
No, our opponents haven't won yet. But those of us who value freedom, whether you call yourself libertarian, classically liberal, conservative, whatever, it's time to abandon the silence. Engage in conversations. Challenge assumptions. Confront erroneous information. Don't be rude. There's no need to shout anyone down. We're not trying to convert zealots. We're illuminating an alternative for those who don't know one exists.
And if we want oust the in coming administration in 4 years instead of 8 we should kick the statists out of the Republican Party.
11.13.2008
And The Lunacy Continues....
For those of you (okay, I was one) who tried to pull a silver lining from election day's cloud by hoping that Democrat control over both the legislative and executive branches of government would somehow spark a return to sanity and civility, it looks like crazy is harder to cure.
And Congressional Democrats say that they are determined to pursue their investigations — and that they expect career officials to disclose other issues after the Bush administration leaves. “We could spend the entire next four years investigating the Bush years,” Mr. Whitehouse said.
Where to begin? With Obama's staff stating that they'll keep much of President Bush's intelligence policies? Or with the fact that investigating out going presidents based purely and obviously on partisan grudges or policy disputes establishes a completely absurd precedent? Maybe with the fact that we currently have a multi-front war, an economic crisis, China, Russia, North Korea, and the potential of a nuclear Iran to deal with and they want to spend time pursuing an agenda that will only increase the divisiveness of political discourse? There's too much to chose from. I don't know. You decide. What's more insane?
Hat tip, Roger L. Simon
And Congressional Democrats say that they are determined to pursue their investigations — and that they expect career officials to disclose other issues after the Bush administration leaves. “We could spend the entire next four years investigating the Bush years,” Mr. Whitehouse said.
Where to begin? With Obama's staff stating that they'll keep much of President Bush's intelligence policies? Or with the fact that investigating out going presidents based purely and obviously on partisan grudges or policy disputes establishes a completely absurd precedent? Maybe with the fact that we currently have a multi-front war, an economic crisis, China, Russia, North Korea, and the potential of a nuclear Iran to deal with and they want to spend time pursuing an agenda that will only increase the divisiveness of political discourse? There's too much to chose from. I don't know. You decide. What's more insane?
Hat tip, Roger L. Simon
11.11.2008
And The Great Whitewash Begins....
....I mean, hey, it's never too early to start shoring up the legacy.
JamieWearingFool links to the full story.
So the President-in-Training gets hundreds of millions in dubious credit card money, but McCain follows the rules and he gets punished.
JamieWearingFool links to the full story.
Memories....
John Hawkins over at Right Wing News remembers the North American Union and pays homage to the paranoid idiots who parroted it.
Well, Barack Obama is our new President-elect and George Bush is twiddling his thumbs and waiting for January so he can go back to Crawford. Shockingly, well to incredibly gullible people who don't understand the basics of how the country works, Bush has not merged our country with Mexico and Canada.
The funny thing about conspiracy theorists is that they never let a little thing like proof get in the way of their ideas. Don't expect people to shut up about it now, just because it hasn't happened.
Hat tip, Steven Green.
Well, Barack Obama is our new President-elect and George Bush is twiddling his thumbs and waiting for January so he can go back to Crawford. Shockingly, well to incredibly gullible people who don't understand the basics of how the country works, Bush has not merged our country with Mexico and Canada.
The funny thing about conspiracy theorists is that they never let a little thing like proof get in the way of their ideas. Don't expect people to shut up about it now, just because it hasn't happened.
Hat tip, Steven Green.
The First Step....
I've long held that history will treat President Bush far kinder than his contemporaries have. Could this be the first step (of many) towards that eventuality? I hope so.
11.10.2008
New Conservative Brand?
Cassandra over at Villainous Company discusses the future of the conservative brand:
....We need to start making the case that nearly all of these issues are ones which have traditionally been resolved at the state and local level. We need to frame this as a "freedom" issue: when the federal government imposes a one-size-fits-all moral code upon 50 very different states, we LOSE the freedom to decide and debate amongst ourselves how we want to live....
....There may be better words for this, but in broad, overarching terms conservatives need to frame the choice facing voters as being between a Party of Opportunity and Freedom which maximizes individual dignity, responsibility, and choice and minimizes government interference in the lives of citizens a Party of Pessimism and Control which maximizes dependency on government, waste and inefficiency and minimizes productivity, opportunity, and accountability.
It seems to me that that's pretty much the conservative brand as it once was. The vast majority of conservatives who I know are "conservative because [they're] classical liberal[s]". But that's just a way of saying that you don't believe in turning your (or anyone else's) morals into legislation. (This could lead to another entire post about how a moral decision stops being moral, when it's made at gun point.) I forgot where I was going with this. Anyway, check it out.
....We need to start making the case that nearly all of these issues are ones which have traditionally been resolved at the state and local level. We need to frame this as a "freedom" issue: when the federal government imposes a one-size-fits-all moral code upon 50 very different states, we LOSE the freedom to decide and debate amongst ourselves how we want to live....
....There may be better words for this, but in broad, overarching terms conservatives need to frame the choice facing voters as being between a Party of Opportunity and Freedom which maximizes individual dignity, responsibility, and choice and minimizes government interference in the lives of citizens a Party of Pessimism and Control which maximizes dependency on government, waste and inefficiency and minimizes productivity, opportunity, and accountability.
It seems to me that that's pretty much the conservative brand as it once was. The vast majority of conservatives who I know are "conservative because [they're] classical liberal[s]". But that's just a way of saying that you don't believe in turning your (or anyone else's) morals into legislation. (This could lead to another entire post about how a moral decision stops being moral, when it's made at gun point.) I forgot where I was going with this. Anyway, check it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)