Archive for December, 2008
A common argument that comes up when discussing abortion is the equivocation of the murder involved in an abortion and the murder involved in dispensation of the death penalty. Personally, I find the two to be completely different. Many conservatives are pro-choice and pro-death penalty. The reverse is also true. Many more conservatives are pro-life and pro-death penalty, this is the category I belong to. If you are like me and have many socially liberal friends, I’m certain that you have debated these topics numerous times. You have also probably heard the line “How can you say that abortion is murder when you are willing to murder an actual human being?” Or you’ve heard something similar. For the record, let me say, that babies are human beings. I stand affirmed that an unborn child and a sentenced criminal are not the same.
The differences between the two couldn’t be more obvious.
- Guilt: Babies are inherently innocent. A criminal sentenced to death is not.
- Choice: The criminal made a choice that resulted in their death sentence. An unborn child CANNOT make any choices.
- Societal benefit: Babies are always wanted and adoption is a great option for those who can not commit to raising a child. Criminals are not wanted. Life sentences and parole strain the society that they harmed even more than their crimes did.
- Leverage: In the case of criminals, the death penalty is the greatest tool that a prosecutor has to compel confessions and plea agreements. In the case of an unborn child, the only thing being leveraged is motherhood vs. convenience.
There are a great many arguments to be made against abortion and in favor of the death penalty. Many people may not agree with either the pro-life or pro-death penalty stances. However, one thing is an absolute certainty. No matter how it is worded the judicious use of the death penalty is not even remotely similar to the act of an abortion.
***Once again, a very special thanks to Anna Tarkov for her editing, patience, and support. You’re a great help, Anna!***
An interesting question was posed yesterday on Twitter. “Should one’s abortion stance be used as a litmus test for conservative politicians?” PinkElephantPundit did a good job of answering that particular part so I won’t delve into it too much. What spawned from that was the inevitable “Isn’t it important enough to overturn Roe Vs Wade?” In the short of it, no it isn’t. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it isn’t important at all because it simply won’t happen. Roe is fait accompli. I wish that I could turn back time and somehow we could have made it a state issue as opposed to federal. The damage is done though. As the current bench stands there is a 7-2 split on overturning Roe. Seven will uphold it. We can see this because of the recent 5-4 partial-birth abortion ruling which banned the practice. However, only 2 justices (Scalia and Thomas) signed an opinion that in essence stated that the SCOTUS should have never heard Roe on the grounds of constitutionality. No others signed it. This means that only two justices are in favor of overturning. You can count the four dissenters as in favor of upholding Roe. Out of the remaining three justices (Alito, Kennedy, Roberts) Alito is the only one that I think can be readily flipped to overturn Roe. Kennedy is not likely at all and I am not sure about Roberts. Even if we managed to flip Alito and Roberts, we get a 4-5 vote in favor of upholding. Essentially, in order to get Roe overturned we need to flip no less than three justices. Four of which are in favor of partial-birth abortions… where do you think they stand on Roe? In short, ‘ain’t gonna happen.’
Please also consider the fact that Barack Obama, who supports judicial activism, will likely get to appoint at least two seats with the possibility of a third. We have a Democrat majority in the Senate and a Democrat President. Be honest with yourself. Do you really think that the same Democrats that support judicial litmus testing are going to let a couple of pro-lifers get past them? SCOTUS appointments are for life so the next President may get one or two (at most) appointments. It simply won’t be enough to shift the balance.
Looking for a President to overturn Roe would be like searching the depths of the ocean for dry land. Roe is a political hot potato that, frankly, benefits politicians to have on the books (even the pro-life candidates as it gives them a platform). No, the solution to the abortion problem does not lie in the law. The laws of supply and demand tell us this. Even if it were illegal, if there is a demand, someone will supply. We would have black-market abortions going on. The real solution to this problem lies not in the courts but with you and me. It lies in parenting, churches and social structures. If we teach our children the value of life, morals and principles they won’t need or want an abortion. If we teach our children abstinence or, at the very least, protected sex, then they won’t need or want an abortion. There is already great progress by many different pro-life organizations to educate the young. Statistics are showing that it is starting to work. Supply and demand - if there is no demand then there will be no supply. Roe itself will become pointless and then, and only then, will it be overturned.
***Special Thanks to Anna Tarkov for her help in editing. She didn’t have time to red ink all of my errors but she saved me from many.***
As it happens from time to time I was forced to brave the throngs of shoppers this weekend. In the name of great sales I ventured to the local mall. Let me just say that for all of the hype… the sales sucked. Anyway, as I maneuvered my way through the convulsing masses of post-Christmas bargain shoppers, I could not help but note the dispositions of our younger generation. Perhaps it is age slowly creeping up on me the way I swore, as a child, that it would not. But I find myself utterly and completely dismayed by what I see. Young girls and boys walking about, as capricious youths do, dressed and speaking in manners that would make a trollop and a sailor blanch. Today’s Pop culture has gotten out of hand. I’ve noticed this before, but I find myself more and more perplexed by how this is happening as the years go by. No doubt that this has been said of every generation. That being said, I cannot help but think that it has escalated even further than it had for my generation and that of the one preceding mine.
I, myself, am a member of the aptly self titled Y-bother generation. In my hay-day the trends were monstrously baggy and sagged jeans, untucked and unbuttoned flannel shirts, and longer (but kept) hair parted down the middle. While these were the trends for young and teenage boys care to guess how many of those trends I partook in? None. Not one. Though in fairness when I was 16-17 I was allowed to wear loose fitting jeans. Never sagged. God help me if I had ever done that. (I’ll explain why later)
Nowadays, the trend for young males is much akin to my generation. Exchange the flannel for a T-shirt so large that it could easily fit a Sumo wrestler with room to spare and you have the current style. Of course, the alternative to that looks like something out of a 70′s movie shot in the 80′s replete with painted on torn up jeans, “vintage” too tight and small polo (collar flipped up optional), and a myriad of wrist bands. The more unkept their hair looks the better. In fact, if you don’t wash it for a week and keep adding gel, you’ll get there. As for the girls, it seems like the closer they get to looking like a hooker the better. I see these 12-16yr old girls walking around in skirts so short that I’d be shocked NOT to know the color of their panties, if they’re even wearing them; for as low as those skirts are sitting I don’t see how they could be. Couple that with tight V neck shirts (a lot of which don’t come to the belly button) and enough make-up to make clown jealous and you have a “Lady of the night” in the makings. This isn’t to say that all of the youngsters are like this… but the vast majority that I see are.
The language and talk of this generation, while not too dissimilar to that of my own, has become far more mature in content. Some of the things that I hear these kids say… Wow! In the interest of fairness and full disclosure I’ll admit that I’ve been known to use obscenities that would make any stalwart Marine redden. However, I’m an adult, and it took me years to learn said obscenities and to understand their meanings. Yet this generation, that I propose we label XXX, seems to have a full complete grasp of every vulgar term and word that I’ve ever heard, much less used. Not only do they have the vulgarities down pat but their conversations have the maturity content of that of socially liberal 25yr olds (giggling aside). How is it that some young boy knows just how to nibble on a fledgling woman’s ear while he bends her over… (I’ll stop there)? How is it that these not yet licensed to drive teens know the joys of multiple orgasms? Explain to me, someone, how these young ladies already know what “personal massagers” are really for? Or, how to use what’s between their legs to get what they want??? We’re talking about an age group of 12-16 here… Not 18-25.
It’s the culture today. Just as every generation has its own (usually media related) culture, generation XXX has its. However, just because it is a culture that approves or encourages these behaviors and appearances doesn’t mean that the children should be acquiescing to it. Most people blame the music, or the TV, or the movies. Many folks, even amongst the conservative crowd, suggest that we censor the mediums that this culture uses to reach the kids (i.e. TV, Music, Movies). I couldn’t disagree more. Nope, no censorship is warranted here.
When I was younger we had a novel concept that I strongly suspect was a staple in most households for the better part of the life of mankind. This concept is called RULES. The rules were set in place, known to myself and my sister, and enforced by my parents. By enforced I mean that they were consistently enforced. If I skipped school or did something wrong I KNEW what I had coming to me; because each every time I broke the rules I got a punishment. As my step-father always said “This house is not a democracy, it’s a dictatorship, and while you live in it you only have the rights and privileges that I grant you”. I hated it then… but I’m thankful for it now. My parents, when we lived in Colorado and actually had cable, regulated when and what I watched. I may have thought that it was cruel or ridiculous at the time but looking back now, I get it. I wasn’t allowed to dress just any way. I had to dress respectably regardless of what my peers wore. Appearance is important… people judge you and your kin by what they initially see. I wasn’t allowed to hang out with just anyone either. My parents took the time to know who my friends were, and if they were trouble – I didn’t get to hang out with them anymore. My parents also taught me morals and scruples (that isn’t Russian money). I was taught principles and the differences between right and wrong. As a result of these things I never did drugs, I never went to jail, and I went on to lead a successful life. I also developed a stronger relationship with my parents than what I see in today’s generation of youngsters. Parents seem more interested in being their child’s friend. Parents, you are NOT your child’s friend. You are their Parent so act like it.
The solution to the decaying morality and decency of today’s youth does not lie in the censorship of media. It lies in the hands of parents doing what they are supposed to do. Regulate and educate your children! Frankly, we shouldn’t need content warnings on TV shows and video games. Parents should be paying attention and determining what is appropriate. You, as parents, should check out the video games BEFORE you buy them. Watch the TV show BEFORE you let your child watch it (or watch it with them and end the program should it be inappropriate). You, as parents, should take responsibility for the clothes and language of your child. I would NEVER let my daughter (should I be fortunate enough to have one) leave the house dressed as these girls do today. I would teach my girl the value of self-respect and dignity. That, while sex may be prevalent in today’s media, she does NOT need to be a part of it. It doesn’t make her cool, it makes her a slut (inevitably). I would teach her to respect her body and to value herself enough to not share it with the world. Likewise for my son. He would NEVER leave the house looking like the hoodlums that I see today. I would teach him that if he wished to succeed in life he would have to dress for it. The more respectable that he looked and acted the more respectable of woman that he would eventually draw. I would teach him that sagging your pants isn’t cool at all. For those of you not in the know. “Sagging pants” was started in prisons back in the early 60s (possibly earlier). Care to guess what it was for? It was what the boys did to show other prisoners that they were available…. Now it appears to be a fashion statement. One that no respectable parent would let their young boy make! Yet it seems that today’s parents have less vested interest in their children. Granted, nowadays in most households both parents have to work (if there are two parents in the house to begin with). However, that is no excuse for letting your kid do as they please. I know I’ve already stated it but it bears repeating. You are NOT your child’s friend. You are their parent. You are the adult. You are the arbiter of their LIFE. I’m not saying that you can’t be a friend when they need one. What I am saying is that first and foremost you are a parent. So as a parent, do your job! If you find yourself wondering why your child talks to you the way that they do, or has no respect for you and your rules, or why they act out… Go look in the mirror mom and dad. Chances are high that you spent more time trying to earn their friendship than you did their respect. Chances are that you never instilled discipline into their daily lives. Chances are high that you didn’t realize that they need to earn YOUR trust, not the other way around. Your child will trust you if they respect you. Again, this isn’t to say that you shouldn’t be their friend when they need one. It IS to say that your primary job is to be the parent, be the adult, set the rules and hold the child accountable.
How you discipline your child is up to you but an old adage comes to mind “Spare the rod, spoil the child”. Don’t be so afraid of their fragile self-esteem that you fail to use the belt should the situation warrant it. I will also suggest that you avoid the advice of Dr. Spock. You can see how well it worked out for his family.
With the beggary of the auto makers and subsequent bailout using TARP funds, courtesy of Pres. Bush, the auto makers have drawn a considerable amount of public attention. With that a lot of public ire as well. The question is, is that ire pointed in the right direction? I have heard a lot of belly-aching over the mismanagement of the companies by the the executives. Are they to blame? They certainly played a roll. Though I am of the opinion that they may have been able to fix their own mistakes if there were no other factors involved. I’ve seen many in the pundit circles heave the lion’s share of blame on the UAW. I can’t say that I totally disagree there. However, the UAW with all of its faults, is not the root cause. I am the type of person that always looks for the underlying root cause of things. You can treat symptoms until your blue in the face and they’ll keep coming back. If you find the illness and treat it… the symptoms go away by proxy. The same thing applies here with the auto industry. The root cause needs to be identified and fixed. Or no amount of bailouts or concessions will return these companies to full viability. So, what is the root cause, you ask?
Like almost everything else that goes awry in the free market world… The Government! That’s right, the U.S. Government is the underlying illness of the auto industry. While this particular side of the Auto Maker’s problem has been spoken of, it hasn’t gotten nearly enough attention. Ironically, those that have given it the publicity it deserves have been in favor of bailing them out. Citing that since the government caused the problem they should pony up the dough. (The inherent barrier to this particular argument is that the government has NO money. They use our money. We didn’t cause the problem, why should WE pay for it?). I know, I know, but but but the evil UAW!! While they certainly are to blame for their fair (and rather large share) of the problem, again, they are not the root cause. They could not have inflicted the damage that they have, through their own greed, if they didn’t have the backing of members in Congress. I won’t be going into too much detail regarding the relationship between UAW and Congress. As I will be covering the relationship between Congress and unions in another post.
Instead I will be focusing the majority of my attention, in this post, on the stifling mandates that were crammed down our auto industry’s throat. There are so many convoluted and ridiculous mandates that it would take forever and 20 pages to go through them all. So instead, I will talk about the most inflammatory, ridiculous, obnoxious, fool-hearty, anti-free market mandate of them all. CAFE standards. The standards celebrated by our tree-hugging global warming fanatics. The standards lumped onto the camel’s back with no care for the fact that it left but a straw’s worth of weight in the camel’s carrying capacity. Now I know the arguments in favor of CAFE. I know that people think it reduces the amount of pollution we expel into our environment. It helps save us from ourselves. If you want to know what I think about that, read here. But before I move on allow me to dispel a myth here. CAFE reduces nothing in the way of pollution. I know, I know, “those standards increase fuel economy and therefore we use less fuel and pollute less”. While CAFE may FORCE companies to increase fuel economy it does not actually reduce the amount of fuel consumed or pollution expelled from vehicles. Studies have shown that since our vehicles get better mileage… we simply drive more and drive them further than before. Thus using MORE fuel and pushing more pollution out of our exhaust pipes. Essentially CAFE does more harm than good for the environment.
Moving on. What happened here is once again Congress, in their infinite ignorance, dipped their hands into the free market and muddled things up. How are CAFE standards and mandates tinkering with the free market? Simple. In a free market the consumer decides the fate of a company. We do this with our purchasing power by purchasing the items that we want or need. If enough people purchase an item from a company… that company’s competitors will most likely begin producing that product (or they likely will fail). Other companies will begin trying to improve upon the products that their competitors are producing in order to gain market share. That is how free market works (yes I am over simplifying it a bit). You and I, the consumer, control what products and companies succeed or fail. What Congress did, in essence, was decide by mandate what you and I get to buy. They did this by forcing our auto manufacturers to change not just their product lines, but also the way that they are produced. Aside from the initial cost of retooling all of their plants they also had the added cost of redesigning their fleets. In order to keep the already rising cost (thanks, UAW) to purchase their products down they had to start skimping on the quality materials. They had to make vehicles lighter or heavier to meet the fuel efficiency marks set by CAFE. The extra costs from this are also rolled into the price. (Keep in mind that none of this was due to consumer demand. We were still demanding what they already made.)
Price is tertiary to my main point though. To illustrate my main point let’s look at GM. When you think GM, what do you (or did you – pre-bailout) think of? TRUCKS, big-freakin’-trucks & SUVs. That is what they are known for because that is what they do best. What’s the number one stolen vehicle in the US? The Hummer and the Escalade. Both GM SUVs. Their failure has nothing to do with people not wanting their products. Clearly they do. While GM makes a few good cars (most notably the Corvette and Impala) that isn’t their strong suit. People don’t want GM cars. People want GM trucks… but they want them to be GM trucks. Not Tonka toys. They want that quality steel-frame, the metal paneling, the high-torque engine. People want big safe SUVs and trucks. GM can’t make those anymore. They’ve had to trim that out to meet government mandates. No more fully metal body on that pickup. No more overhaul engines. GM is being forced to make crap that we don’t actually want. Why would I buy a GM truck that looks and feels like a Honda, when I can buy the Honda truck for less?
Many people are also not aware that cars cost about as much as a truck to make. However, people expect cars to cheap. Trucks have the luxury of having a much higher purchase price ceiling than the econoboxes. Anyone who has ever traded in upside down before knows that the higher the price of the car being traded on, the more wiggle room you have to hide the negative balance of your trade-in. The same rule holds true for production costs. GM can hide a lot more of the production costs in a truck than it can in a car. Due to the higher cost of production for GM (versus, say, Honda) they have to essentially sell their cars at a loss. So GM rolls that cost into their trucks. So the trucks and SUVs get the roll-up from higher production costs and the negative selling of their cars. On top of the fact that in order to cut production costs they have had trim back on the features in their vehicles. Don’t get me wrong. GM has done some great things with their features considering the little room that they have to play.
Couple this with the political pressure to cut out GM’s bread and butter products (trucks and SUVs) and the exorbitant gas prices for the last few years and you have a failure stew simmering. The last few years of extremely high gas prices have sent would be buyers of trucks over to the Prius. It was the final straw. However, I maintain that this would not have been a problem if the government had stayed out of the mix. You see, if people wanted nothing but cheap and fuel efficient cars, GM & Chrysler would have killed off their other programs and gone over to cars on their own… or have simply perished. The companies follow our demands as long as the government isn’t forcing them down a different path. We demand big, safe, quality trucks and SUVs. Let the company meet the laws of supply and demand… instead of perverting the supply in order to shift demand. The political powers that be want us all driving econoboxes so that they can feel better about themselves. So they force companies like GM to only make the junk that we don’t want (little POS econoboxes). This in turn kills off viable supply of what we want, therefore; demand shifts to other products. The trouble is that there are no products that we demand. We are forced to purchase what we don’t “want”. If I have to buy an econobox, chances are high that I will go with a company that makes them better than the others at a price that I like. None of the Big 3 are on that list and due to mandates and the UAW simply they can’t be.
So there you have it. If you want to point fingers… make sure they are aimed at Capitol Hill. While there may be many factors that have contributed to the downfall of our auto industry, the government is the source of the biggest ones. From their undying affection for the UAW to their blitheful machinating against the free market. From head to toe they wreak from the stench of guilt. So bend over America. They stuck it to the Big 3 with their screw-ups. Now their going to stick it to us for the bill.
I would like to address all of the eco-nuts and green peacers out there.
Everywhere that we look today we see “green”. Going “green” is the latest fad in just about everything. The problem with going “green” is that it is a non-economically viable response to faith based myth called global warming. Simply put, global warming runs to the contrary of everything that actually proven science tells us. The very idea that human activity is shifting the climate is absurd on its face. It is BUNK!
The beauty of the Man-Made Global Warming argument is that everything is attributed to it. If it’s a warmer day than expected.. Look, evidence of global warming! When we have the coldest weather on record… well that is caused by global warming as well. There is NO empirical evidence (which is what science is built on) to support it. If it wasn’t such a prevalent myth created by nut-roots and perpetuated by media and politicians, I would find the notion hilarious. It has become fashionable to believe in global warming.
You see, folks, their entire argument relies on one thing… one thing that simply doesn’t exist. That thing would be a static baseline for climate. How ridiculous is it to say that climate has a baseline? To say that climate didn’t change until the CFC years is just hogwash. The climate of this planet changes constantly as has been proven throughout history. Remember when the drive-bys and nut-roots were screaming about the polar ice caps melting? What did they say when the ice began to reform? Remember when the nut-roots yelled from roof tops about the warmest springs and winters on record? What do they have to say now that there is a decrease in solar-flare activity which suggests a cooling period? I won’t even bring up the aptly named “Gore Effect”. (Oh wait, guess I just did). Just as a reminder, when the seasons change… so does the weather. Try not to be alarmed when the ice caps melt a bit during the summer, the leaves fall in the Fall, you get a plethora of rain in the Spring, and the ice caps re-freeze in the Winter. So called “Climate Change” is a naturally occurring event directly linked to the rotation and obit pattern of the Earth. Man did NOT cause that, nor can we.
This is not to say that we do not have an impact on our environments. If you build a major factory, then chances are that the immediate area surrounding it will have a denser smog layer and be a touch warmer than the outlying areas. This is because of running machinery. It isn’t because you have destroyed the ozone. Sure, if we dump enough non-biodegradable garbage into the earth we will eventually run out of space for it… and run out of crop lands (that will take a VERY VERY long time). Certainly if you dump toxic waste near a river bed it can, and probably will, poison a water supply and kill or harm the things living in or drinking said water supply. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be responsible with our waste. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t recycle either (it should be voluntary and never forced). What I am saying is that it is utterly ridiculous to presume that our activity changes the global climate. I’m sorry folks, driving my car to work does not cause a change in the trade winds. Nor can it cause a blizzard in the Sahara.
The fad that is global warming is political in its nature. It is easy for politicians to capitulate to that crowd and receive little opposition on it despite the fact that most scientists call the theory garbage or remain skeptical. Those few actual scientists (not bureaucratic panels filled with politicians) that have supported the theory have admitted to over-exaggerating and manipulating past data to support their conclusions – in order to garner attention. Most notably of the Pro-Global Warming group is James Hansen. This guy is a real piece of work. They go on and on and on about the end of the earth because we use fossil fuels and natural resources. They do this so that they keep that huge chunk of gov’t cheese coming in every year. Without the Global Warming research grants and donations… these guys would be out of a job. In all likelihood, they keep it up to continue lining their pockets from speaking engagements and the like as well.
Part of the trouble with the NASA crowd is that their own tests have shown that the Earth’s temperature has been steady since ’98 and has begun dipping down. Since when is cooling a symptom of warming? Not to mention the HUGE conflict of interest for Mr. Al “Global Warming” Gore himself. This guy is making his fortune in the biggest rip-off scam ever perpetrated across the nation. Carbon credits. Mr. Alarmist rings the panic bell and drives up sales for his carbon credit firm. Yup, his company is paid to plant trees in order to offset the so-called carbon footprints of companies. Essentially, Gore’s company goes out and measures a company’s carbon footprint (or the company can simply purchase a volume of credits of their choosing at a set price) and then the company pays an exorbitant amount of “green-backs” to get “Green”. Gore then goes out and plants a few trees and bushes or builds a wind-mill farm to compensate for the amount of “carbon pollution” (CO2 – you know.. what we exhale) produced by the company. You pay them for the amount of CO2 you produce and they promise to cut CO2 from someplace else by funding eco-friendly energy (wind farms – you know, those ghastly things that can’t power a city for a year and cost a fortune in upkeep) or planting shrubbery elsewhere. This supposedly offsets the size of your carbon footprint by lowering carbon footprints elsewhere. Want more info on Carbon Credits? Go here for a nice brief article.
I would like for someone to show me some empirical evidence of man made global warming. Unfortunately, there really isn’t any. I hear all of the talk about “trends” and how we experience higher or lower temperatures than recorded history. That isn’t evidence of anything really. Even if it was suggestive… as I mentioned before these same scientists were caught manipulating historical temperatures to show that we have experienced a warming trend.
This is the opening of a paper written by Dr. Linden of MIT (it is a long 36pg read… but worth it)
For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective. The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.
Rather than reiterate all of Dr. Linden’s points I will simply let you read the paper and formulate your own conclusions.
The short and skinny of the entire Man-made Global Warming crisis is that is nothing more than a faith based political and monetary movement. The vast majority of the proponent scientists are in it for the funding… The politicians are in it for clout… The Al Gores are in it for the money. All of these individuals are tied to this theory like a rock climber on a static line 300′ up a rock face — that is to say nice and tight, like their lives depend on it. Because they do.
If you want to stick it to the “liberals who hide their shame filled lives behind money-bought lunacy” then follow this linkvia michellemalkin.com.
As most of you that have been paying attention know, the talking heads in the media (and even some in the blogosphere) have been trying to advise the Republican party on how to return from exile. One of the most prevalent themes seems to be that of “updating” our “message”. Not so much the Republican message, but the Conservative message. They’re saying that our ideals are out-dated and out of touch with reality. They say that small government is but a thing of the past. It is simply no longer feasible. They have been all too quick to suggest a major overhaul of the movement. Essentially, they have suggested that we cut off the “religious right”, start thinking “big government”, and forget about abortion. Seems to me that that would make us Democrats.
There are those within our own party suggesting much of the same. To them I say this – we just ran your candidate… and lost horribly. There are also those among us that think that the solution is “RINO” hunting. While I do not entirely disagree with weeding out the Dem. Lites in the Congress… it isn’t the path out of the woods.
When it comes to messaging the primary difference between liberals and conservatives is this: Liberals’ message always changes with the times as it relies on crises to carry weight, whereas; the conservative message never changes and never ages. The only thing that changes with the conservative message is the mode of delivery. This, my friends, is where we failed. We have not carried our message to the people. We fell behind the times with technology and the school systems. This is what has to change. If we change our methods of delivery we will again succeed. We need to embrace the newer technologies and forms of communication. We need to utilize the social networking sites. We need to get our message out in the only medium where we can reach the younger generations unfettered and unfiltered – the Internet. If we succeed at this, we will again be given the opportunity to prove ourselves by the voters. Prove ourselves we will. Because the conservative way has been proven effective time and time again. It works. You see, the message of small government, personal responsibility, independence, opportunity, strong national security, and the free market is ALWAYS relevant. It is always going to remain relevant. The ideals behind the conservative movement are as solid as the bedrock that this nation rests on. In fact those ideals ARE the bedrock that this nation was built upon.
I, do not, for one moment believe that more government will ever be the best solution. Over-regulation of a free market is fool-hardy and self-defeating. It also brings us the economic troubles that we face today. Individualism will always progress a society further than group-think. Group-think mentality leads to politically correctness, death of entrepreneurialism, and creates sheep. Sheep are direction-less w/o their shepherd… and who really wants Capitol Hill leading us out of the mountains? Personal responsibility means that your life is yours to make of it what you will. Success is there for the making, but so is failure. YOUR choices will decide which happens. It means that you are responsible for yourself and too yourself. Independence means that you don’t need a nanny micro-managing your life. You make your own choices and carve your own path to your success or detriment. Opportunity is the ONLY thing that we are guaranteed in this country. Equal opportunity. This doesn’t mean you get a hand out. It means that you have the chance to succeed or fail. You can turn failure into success and vice versa. All that you have to do is take the opportunity. Our national security is key to survival. Without that security our economy and freedoms mean nothing… because we won’t have them for long. Anyone who thinks that kind words will keep our enemies at bay needs to have their head examined. It is naive to think that those that hate us will love us if we just use the right words. Typically if you have all of these things: independence, free market, national security, personal responsibility, then you have a smaller government. Why is that? Because inevitably as you let the government grow… you loose those things! The smaller the government – the less intrusive the government is. This breeds more opportunity, a stronger economy, better standard of living, and greater freedoms with more independence.
I think that most people in this country feel the same way.. We just haven’t had a messenger connect to them yet. We haven’t had any great examples. We have instead had what the media keeps telling us we need more of: Dem Lites. Here’s the rub – those talking heads in the media ARE dems. Of course they want us to go Dem Lite. If you were a rabbit you wouldn’t seek the advice of the fox when it comes to prime hiding spots, would you? Then why should conservatives heed the advice of the liberal punditry?
Instead I suggest that the movement and leadership heed the advice of a young conservative. Invest in technology like the .com bubble never burst. Gather up the Beta-Males / Females and organise them… let them run wild on the Internet for you, spreading a consolidated and harmonious message. This is the age of the geek. Embrace it or fail to do so at your own peril.
Hey, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
In society’s quest for complete and total neutrality we have forgotten ourselves. This all started long ago with the complete and utter deterioration of “common sense”. I have been told tales of when this concept of “common sense” was taught as a basic tenant in nearly every house. Now it is all but left out of the education of our children within our own homes (and it certainly isn’t taught in school). Instead we have replaced it with politically correctness. Frankly, I find this disconcerting. It used to be, and in my circle of friends still is, that if someone wished you a good day – no matter the language – you returned the wish and simply understood that they are wishing you well. Now that we have removed common sense in favor of the P.C. this is no longer the case. You can’t wish someone a Merry Christmas. No, you instead, must say Happy Holidays lest you offend someone by not knowing their religion. Now I can’t speak for everyone but I have NEVER met a person of another religion that was offended by me saying “Merry Christmas” to them. They simply understand that I am wishing them well. You wouldn’t get offended if someone called you from California and said “good morning” when it was noon your time, would you? If a Jew walked up to me and said “Happy Hanukkah” I wouldn’t be offended in the least. I would know that this person is wishing me well. Use common sense, folks. You can’t tell someone’s religion just at a glance. If you can’t do that, chances are high that neither can the person greeting you. So if someone is greeting you with Happy Kwanzaa and you are a Christian.. simply return the greeting and know that the person is wishing you well. We should NOT have to loose personal identity to satisfy some ridiculously futile quest to never offend anyone. Instead I propose that everyone grow a thicker skin and try applying some common sense. I should not have to tailor my greetings to something offensively neutral to appease people that I don’t know… and neither should they.
Personally, I make it a point to say “Merry Christmas” to everyone. Management in my office was constantly using “Happy Holidays” yesterday (they say this while wearing Santa hats and standing near a Christmas Tree – go figure), naturally I respond with “Merry Christmas”. They didn’t get it… It has been so ingrained into society that Happy Holidays is now the norm and a habit. I find it sickening and offensive that people so readily have given up personal identity in favor of politically correctness, instead of apply basic common sense. We can change this, though. We can shed the chains of oppressive politically correctness. It is quite simple really, all you have to do is be yourself. Be yourself, and let others be themselves. If you’re an atheist and someone wishes you “Merry Christmas”, “Happy Hanukkah”, “Happy Kwanzaa”, or even “Happy Festivus”, simply reply in kind or say “Have a nice day”. The same should be applied to anyone that is greeted with a seasonal greeting of another religious persuasion. Me? I tend to reply in kind. The choice is yours. What is important is that we all simply reclaim our identities and apply common sense.
I guess that I can summarize all of this into one all important sentence: “Screw being Politically Correct.”