John McCain’s tax plan is far from perfect, but at its core is reducing taxes on businesses, small and large, to encourage job creation and kick-start the economy. The idea behind the plan is that a good job with a strong and growing business is a far better way to drive Americans’ incomes up than to distribute short-term government handouts, as the Obama plan does. Tax relief on individuals is certainly nice, but is really small potatoes compared with tax relief on businesses - in terms of both dollars and societal impact. To wit:
If my taxes are reduced to 1%, I'm going to have a lot more cash, right? Every paycheck will be larger, and that money has to go somewhere (as a fundamental law of physics). I could leave it in the bank, giving them money to lend (and earning interest for us both); I could invest it in the market, helping to spur job creation (and earning money for us both, if I pick the right companies in which to invest); or I could purchase products and services (thereby enriching other people - businesses and their employees). The trouble is that with the taxation on businesses so high, my purchasing power is pretty low - each of my dollars doesn't go very far, because taxes on businesses are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Just look at the price of a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk.
In my view it's better for the country to have a mix of the two - lower taxes on AMERICANS (no matter whether they be middle-class, upper-middle-class, etc.; we're all SUPPOSED to be equal under the law, not 'progressively' taxed at different rates as we earn more, anyway) and on businesses.
Modern economies build their wealth through investment and job creation, and Obama’s tax plan is aimed squarely at reducing investment and punishing wealth creation. Obama’s tax increases to pay for his new spending programs amount to billions of dollars of higher taxes on investments, businesses and individuals. This sends both businesses and investment dollars overseas, benefiting NO ONE in America - but absolutely fomenting more class envy and class warfare rhetoric.
The main people who suffer under such a plan are at the bottom of the economic ladder, because though they receive more government handouts, they will have fewer and fewer prospects for employment - to say nothing of entrepreneurship.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Share the Wealth
I laugh when I hear liberal politicians wax rhapsodic about taxes and the economy. They all believe that they can spend your money better than you can, and that's the basis of their entire 'tax the rich' and 'distribute the wealth' philosophy. Period. There's nothing in a Democratic economic platform regarding wealth or growth; there could not possibly be, when they want to double taxes on capital gains.
Sharing the wealth (better known as 'income redistribution') is straight out of the Marxist playbook, but all you will hear are platitudes about helping 'the needy' or 'the working poor'. You won't see the statistics showing how horribly awry the 'War on Poverty' has gone, or how raising taxes increases unemployment, and so on. Politicians don't get elected telling people how to do for themselves; they get elected promising to give the people things, whether money or privileges, to which they are not entitled and did not earn.
To me, there's something not quite right about taxing one American at a higher rate than another American, but I don't see that changing anytime soon. Seems to me that it's illegal - I seem to recall something in the Constitution about 'equal treatment under the law', but I guess that doesn't apply if you make more than $250k per year.
You'll likely hear a bunch of happy... ummmm... meadow muffins!... about how 'the rich' make use of so many tax loopholes and shelters that they 'don't pay their fair share'. To some extent, that's true - but 50% of Americans last year paid NO income taxes at all. And many of those received a nice check from the government!
Raising taxes on 'the rich' is simply a way for Democrats to BUY the votes of the less-privileged, who of course outnumber 'the rich' by a large margin. It all trickles down eventually, which is why higher taxes result in higher unemployment - making 'the rich' business owner pay more means he will pass that cost onto his consumers, and what he can't pass on directly will have to come off of the bottom line - expenses. #1 expense? Employees.
The economy will turn around on its own; the less government interference, the better.
Sharing the wealth (better known as 'income redistribution') is straight out of the Marxist playbook, but all you will hear are platitudes about helping 'the needy' or 'the working poor'. You won't see the statistics showing how horribly awry the 'War on Poverty' has gone, or how raising taxes increases unemployment, and so on. Politicians don't get elected telling people how to do for themselves; they get elected promising to give the people things, whether money or privileges, to which they are not entitled and did not earn.
To me, there's something not quite right about taxing one American at a higher rate than another American, but I don't see that changing anytime soon. Seems to me that it's illegal - I seem to recall something in the Constitution about 'equal treatment under the law', but I guess that doesn't apply if you make more than $250k per year.
You'll likely hear a bunch of happy... ummmm... meadow muffins!... about how 'the rich' make use of so many tax loopholes and shelters that they 'don't pay their fair share'. To some extent, that's true - but 50% of Americans last year paid NO income taxes at all. And many of those received a nice check from the government!
Raising taxes on 'the rich' is simply a way for Democrats to BUY the votes of the less-privileged, who of course outnumber 'the rich' by a large margin. It all trickles down eventually, which is why higher taxes result in higher unemployment - making 'the rich' business owner pay more means he will pass that cost onto his consumers, and what he can't pass on directly will have to come off of the bottom line - expenses. #1 expense? Employees.
The economy will turn around on its own; the less government interference, the better.
What is Political Correctness?
Political correctness... To shut down discussion and dissent, and to stifle debate, without having to actually discuss the points made, or the merits thereof.
To attempt to point out the odious nature of political correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech: These are the community's safeguards against the imposition of tyranny. Indeed, their absence is tyranny. The declared rationale of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended, by compelling everyone to avoid using words or behavior that may upset: Homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat or the ugly - by way of a few examples.
This reveals not only its absurdity but also its inspiration: The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation; thus, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject(s) have become revered by the new generation. Political correctness is merely the resentment of spoiled children directed against their parent's values, and hence the reason political correctness is so often used by the political Left in America - they are the nation's children.
A democracy depends on the widest possible dissemination of facts, and the freest possible discussion of them. Crying 'racism' when none is either leveled or implied merely takes the focus from the issue at hand, and re-directs it at the speaker.
Political correctness is narrowing the range of acceptable opinions, down to those held by a small group that enforces it. It is an attempt, often successful, to coerce the majority to accept the opinions of the enforcing group by suppressing any contrary opinion - and making independent thought unacceptable. The enforcing group may be afraid of the the consequences of open discussion, or of making the facts known. It generally has a practical motivation: It wants something of value (money, jobs, special privileges) to which it has a weak claim. So it attempts to enforce its claim by ruling any disagreement outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. This is unnecessary when the claim is self-evidently strong, but may be the only means of getting the claim accepted when it is weak.
To attempt to point out the odious nature of political correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech: These are the community's safeguards against the imposition of tyranny. Indeed, their absence is tyranny. The declared rationale of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended, by compelling everyone to avoid using words or behavior that may upset: Homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat or the ugly - by way of a few examples.
This reveals not only its absurdity but also its inspiration: The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation; thus, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject(s) have become revered by the new generation. Political correctness is merely the resentment of spoiled children directed against their parent's values, and hence the reason political correctness is so often used by the political Left in America - they are the nation's children.
A democracy depends on the widest possible dissemination of facts, and the freest possible discussion of them. Crying 'racism' when none is either leveled or implied merely takes the focus from the issue at hand, and re-directs it at the speaker.
Political correctness is narrowing the range of acceptable opinions, down to those held by a small group that enforces it. It is an attempt, often successful, to coerce the majority to accept the opinions of the enforcing group by suppressing any contrary opinion - and making independent thought unacceptable. The enforcing group may be afraid of the the consequences of open discussion, or of making the facts known. It generally has a practical motivation: It wants something of value (money, jobs, special privileges) to which it has a weak claim. So it attempts to enforce its claim by ruling any disagreement outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. This is unnecessary when the claim is self-evidently strong, but may be the only means of getting the claim accepted when it is weak.
Sanctuary Cities
Up until last June, San Francisco’s Juvenile Probation Department had been transporting illegal alien juvenile drug dealers to their home countries to avoid their being arrested and deported by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.
Isn't that called "hindering prosecution"? I'm no lawyer, but heck, I believe that's against the law. Isn't it? OK, that one doesn't 'exactly' fit? How about "harboring fugitives"?
I would not discontinue ALL federal funding to these so-called Sanctuary Cities, but most. I don't want to cut off the nose to spite the face. I want to punish people guilty of crimes, and NOT punish people who have done nothing wrong. The system whereby the federal government takes money from states to then return to states is, in itself, stupid and flawed; but until such time as that idiotic process ends, I will not advocate punishing innocent Americans, through action or inaction, by withholding funds for things like disaster relief.
I would, however, gladly arrest the mayors of such Sanctuary cities as San Francisco, CA and New Haven, CT among others. Sorry, guys, but you don't get to pick-and-choose which laws you'll follow and which ones you won't -- no more than the rest of America does.
For those who are unaware of this idiotic practice on the part of the federal government: This is why many of us long for a return to the rule of the Constitution as final arbiter of federal power. There's a really interesting bill in Oklahoma, proposed by House Rep. Charles Key (Joint House Resolution 1089) which reasserts Oklahoma’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, according to the resolution’s own language, is “serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates.” The bill states:
“The State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”
Oklahoma became a hotbed of federal vs. state authority clashes when a federal judge blocked a portion of Oklahoma’s tough immigration laws, ruling that plaintiffs would likely establish that the state mandates preempted federal immigration laws. Oklahoma’s immigration statute, known as the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007, originated as House Bill 1804 (co-authored, incidentally, by Key). It has been characterized by USA Today as “arguably the nation’s toughest state law targeting illegal immigration.”
The statute prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving tax-supported services, and makes it a state crime to transport or harbor illegal immigrants... it further mandates that businesses take measures to verify the work-eligibility of both employees and independent contractors.
On June 4th, U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron issued an injunction against enforcing the aforementioned mandates, which were schedule to go into force on July.
“We’ve just had a federal judge say that our immigration law’s employer provisions are unconstitutional, claiming it as federal government territory,” said Key in response. “That goes right to the issue of (Resolution 1089). The federal government doesn’t have the right to have sole domain over that issue or many of the issues it has spilled over into."
Pretty weird, eh?
Isn't that called "hindering prosecution"? I'm no lawyer, but heck, I believe that's against the law. Isn't it? OK, that one doesn't 'exactly' fit? How about "harboring fugitives"?
I would not discontinue ALL federal funding to these so-called Sanctuary Cities, but most. I don't want to cut off the nose to spite the face. I want to punish people guilty of crimes, and NOT punish people who have done nothing wrong. The system whereby the federal government takes money from states to then return to states is, in itself, stupid and flawed; but until such time as that idiotic process ends, I will not advocate punishing innocent Americans, through action or inaction, by withholding funds for things like disaster relief.
I would, however, gladly arrest the mayors of such Sanctuary cities as San Francisco, CA and New Haven, CT among others. Sorry, guys, but you don't get to pick-and-choose which laws you'll follow and which ones you won't -- no more than the rest of America does.
For those who are unaware of this idiotic practice on the part of the federal government: This is why many of us long for a return to the rule of the Constitution as final arbiter of federal power. There's a really interesting bill in Oklahoma, proposed by House Rep. Charles Key (Joint House Resolution 1089) which reasserts Oklahoma’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, according to the resolution’s own language, is “serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates.” The bill states:
“The State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”
Oklahoma became a hotbed of federal vs. state authority clashes when a federal judge blocked a portion of Oklahoma’s tough immigration laws, ruling that plaintiffs would likely establish that the state mandates preempted federal immigration laws. Oklahoma’s immigration statute, known as the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007, originated as House Bill 1804 (co-authored, incidentally, by Key). It has been characterized by USA Today as “arguably the nation’s toughest state law targeting illegal immigration.”
The statute prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving tax-supported services, and makes it a state crime to transport or harbor illegal immigrants... it further mandates that businesses take measures to verify the work-eligibility of both employees and independent contractors.
On June 4th, U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron issued an injunction against enforcing the aforementioned mandates, which were schedule to go into force on July.
“We’ve just had a federal judge say that our immigration law’s employer provisions are unconstitutional, claiming it as federal government territory,” said Key in response. “That goes right to the issue of (Resolution 1089). The federal government doesn’t have the right to have sole domain over that issue or many of the issues it has spilled over into."
Pretty weird, eh?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The American Idea of Liberty
I was asked once:
"How and why did American ideas on liberty change over time?"
In my opinion the decline of liberty - marked by the rise in the power of the federal government - began with the Civil War. Lincoln's power grab for the federal government still haunts us today, as his successors in the White House have expanded the power of the federal government to a degree never imagined by the founders.
It seems that each generation finds new ways to expand the power of government, which exist in inverse proportion to the 'amount' of liberty afforded the citizenry. What was created as a Union of sovereign states loosely connected by a small federal 'manager' has been flipped inside-out.
To expound upon my initial point:
On May 27, 1861, the army of the Union -- a nation formed by consecutive secessions, first from Great Britain in 1776, and then from itself in 1788 -- invaded the State of Virginia, which had recently seceded from the Union, in an effort to negate that secession by violent force.
The historical result of the effort begun that day is well-known and indisputable: After four years of warfare which killed 620,000 people, the United States negated the secession of the Confederate States of America, and forcibly re-enrolled them into the Union... despite the fact that, because such secession was not expressly forbidden in the Constitution, it was by default LEGAL.
The Civil War caused and allowed a tremendous expansion of the size and power of the federal government. It gave us several firsts: Federal conscription law, progressive income tax, enormous standing army... along with higher tariffs.
James McPherson writes: "This astonishing blitz of laws . . . did more to reshape the relation of the government to the economy than any comparable effort except perhaps the first hundred days of the New Deal. This Civil War Legislation . . . created the blueprint for modern America."
In the context of a legal analysis of state secession, it was the Union's invasion of Virginia that is significant, and not the Confederacy's firing on Fort Sumter a month earlier. The Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter to expel what it believed were trespassers on South Carolina soil and territorial waters. By no means can the seizure of the fort be construed as a threat to the security of the states remaining in the Union, the closest of which was 500 miles away. If South Carolina illegally seceded from the Union, then both the Union's initial refusal to surrender Fort Sumter and its subsequent invasion were lawful and constitutional. Conversely, if South Carolina had the right to secede from the Union, then indeed the Union soldiers in the Fort were trespassers and also a potential military threat to South Carolina. Thus, assuming the right of secession existed, the Union had no right to retaliate or initiate war against the Confederacy. Its subsequent invasion of Virginia then marks the beginning of its illegal war on the Confederacy.
"How and why did American ideas on liberty change over time?"
In my opinion the decline of liberty - marked by the rise in the power of the federal government - began with the Civil War. Lincoln's power grab for the federal government still haunts us today, as his successors in the White House have expanded the power of the federal government to a degree never imagined by the founders.
It seems that each generation finds new ways to expand the power of government, which exist in inverse proportion to the 'amount' of liberty afforded the citizenry. What was created as a Union of sovereign states loosely connected by a small federal 'manager' has been flipped inside-out.
To expound upon my initial point:
On May 27, 1861, the army of the Union -- a nation formed by consecutive secessions, first from Great Britain in 1776, and then from itself in 1788 -- invaded the State of Virginia, which had recently seceded from the Union, in an effort to negate that secession by violent force.
The historical result of the effort begun that day is well-known and indisputable: After four years of warfare which killed 620,000 people, the United States negated the secession of the Confederate States of America, and forcibly re-enrolled them into the Union... despite the fact that, because such secession was not expressly forbidden in the Constitution, it was by default LEGAL.
The Civil War caused and allowed a tremendous expansion of the size and power of the federal government. It gave us several firsts: Federal conscription law, progressive income tax, enormous standing army... along with higher tariffs.
James McPherson writes: "This astonishing blitz of laws . . . did more to reshape the relation of the government to the economy than any comparable effort except perhaps the first hundred days of the New Deal. This Civil War Legislation . . . created the blueprint for modern America."
In the context of a legal analysis of state secession, it was the Union's invasion of Virginia that is significant, and not the Confederacy's firing on Fort Sumter a month earlier. The Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter to expel what it believed were trespassers on South Carolina soil and territorial waters. By no means can the seizure of the fort be construed as a threat to the security of the states remaining in the Union, the closest of which was 500 miles away. If South Carolina illegally seceded from the Union, then both the Union's initial refusal to surrender Fort Sumter and its subsequent invasion were lawful and constitutional. Conversely, if South Carolina had the right to secede from the Union, then indeed the Union soldiers in the Fort were trespassers and also a potential military threat to South Carolina. Thus, assuming the right of secession existed, the Union had no right to retaliate or initiate war against the Confederacy. Its subsequent invasion of Virginia then marks the beginning of its illegal war on the Confederacy.
Prayer and School and Morality
It seems to me that prayer (and religion) within the fabric of American society produced the most powerful nation on Earth. Only in the last three decades, since the rise of the drugs/free-love movement, has this come into question -- and I defy anyone to tell me that this nation's moral fiber is stronger for it.
For nearly two centuries people would recoil in utter shock if a woman uttered profanity; now we see it on prime-time television.
For nearly two centuries, it was understood that this country was founded upon those tenets introduced by religion, while never endorsing any religion above any other (though slight deference was always -- and still is -- paid to Christian denominations; hence our federal holiday of Christmas, for example).
By and large, it was believed for centuries that children who were taught religion in some form would grow up to be moral adults. We ALL know of the exceptions to this rule, but up until the 1960s this country was predicated on that very idea, and very successfully so.
Read quotes from almost any of the Founding Fathers, from almost any president, up until that time (and a very few after, like Reagan); read the school texts, the newspaper articles. It was a simpler time, a happier time, and a far more moral time.
Our coins reflect a belief in the Almighty; our government bodies always began sessions with a prayer; the Ten Commandments used to be taught to every schoolchild, and posted in every courtroom.
Now, all of that said: Religion has no place in government. But religion does provide the moral basis for determining one's actions. If you hear someone is a Christian, for example, you can be reasonably sure (whether you admit it or not) that the person is honest and trustworthy, even if you don't share their beliefs.
In my view, that's why so many voters want someone with a long tradition of being religious: Their religion provides a roadmap for determining their future actions. Not 100%, no, but when a person has been raised without religion, you sense they are also without conviction... without morals, principles, or ethics. And I believe we saw that in the last administration.
So why not allow prayer in school?? Why is it so offensive? Whom is it hurting? What's wrong with a 'moment of silence' if you disagree with the word 'prayer'?
Why does a vocal minority get to decide some of the most basic, important questions facing America and her future?
For nearly two centuries people would recoil in utter shock if a woman uttered profanity; now we see it on prime-time television.
For nearly two centuries, it was understood that this country was founded upon those tenets introduced by religion, while never endorsing any religion above any other (though slight deference was always -- and still is -- paid to Christian denominations; hence our federal holiday of Christmas, for example).
By and large, it was believed for centuries that children who were taught religion in some form would grow up to be moral adults. We ALL know of the exceptions to this rule, but up until the 1960s this country was predicated on that very idea, and very successfully so.
Read quotes from almost any of the Founding Fathers, from almost any president, up until that time (and a very few after, like Reagan); read the school texts, the newspaper articles. It was a simpler time, a happier time, and a far more moral time.
Our coins reflect a belief in the Almighty; our government bodies always began sessions with a prayer; the Ten Commandments used to be taught to every schoolchild, and posted in every courtroom.
Now, all of that said: Religion has no place in government. But religion does provide the moral basis for determining one's actions. If you hear someone is a Christian, for example, you can be reasonably sure (whether you admit it or not) that the person is honest and trustworthy, even if you don't share their beliefs.
In my view, that's why so many voters want someone with a long tradition of being religious: Their religion provides a roadmap for determining their future actions. Not 100%, no, but when a person has been raised without religion, you sense they are also without conviction... without morals, principles, or ethics. And I believe we saw that in the last administration.
So why not allow prayer in school?? Why is it so offensive? Whom is it hurting? What's wrong with a 'moment of silence' if you disagree with the word 'prayer'?
Why does a vocal minority get to decide some of the most basic, important questions facing America and her future?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Top Strategic Goals for the Government
In no particular order, these are the top goals to which I think the US government should aspire:
1) Protect the citizenry from attacks by other nation-states and terrorists.
2) Promote free trade by removing tariffs.
3) Secure the borders by:
3a) Offering a general amnesty to anyone here illegally who has not otherwise committed a crime during their stay - the rest get deported;
3b) Declaring a 10-year closed-border policy, to be reviewed and adjusted as-needed, and not inclusive of those refugees suffering religious or ethnic persectution in their home country.
4) Lower ALL taxes (this really ought to read "Simplify the system of taxation by implementing a flat tax", but that's a conversation for another time).
5) Invest in energy independence by:
5a) Allowing oil companies to drill for oil in the ANWR and off the coasts;
5b) Promoting the construction of new oil refineries by offering tax breaks to ANY company who will build and maintain a refinery;
5c) Offering tax rebates for every person and company who purchases hybrid vehicles;
5d) Removing the ethanol requirements from all fuels (as this stupid requirement increases the cost of gasoline, for example, by ensuring that the gasoline with ethanol cannot be transported through pipelines);
5e) Building nuclear power plants.
6) Rescind all federal laws related to narcotics, and:
6a) Immediately pardon and release from prison all inmates serving sentences ONLY for non-violent drug-related offenses - after each inmate first devotes one-half of their remaining sentence on public works projects (to be determined by each state based on their needs), such as: Repairing roads and bridges, cleaning up streets, and so on.
7) Impose term limits on every elected federal office of no more than TWO terms for every elected official serving in every elected office (if it's good enough for the office of the President, it's good enough for a Senator and Representative - this is America, we're not supposed to have a ruling class.. see the 22nd Amendment).
8) Dissolve federal bureaucracies such as the Department of Education (since the 1950s - when the federal government got involved - the quality of education has gone down, and the cost has gone up), Health & Human Services, Housing & Urban Development, and others.. unless it can be pointed out in the Constitution, it ought to be left to the States.
1) Protect the citizenry from attacks by other nation-states and terrorists.
2) Promote free trade by removing tariffs.
3) Secure the borders by:
3a) Offering a general amnesty to anyone here illegally who has not otherwise committed a crime during their stay - the rest get deported;
3b) Declaring a 10-year closed-border policy, to be reviewed and adjusted as-needed, and not inclusive of those refugees suffering religious or ethnic persectution in their home country.
4) Lower ALL taxes (this really ought to read "Simplify the system of taxation by implementing a flat tax", but that's a conversation for another time).
5) Invest in energy independence by:
5a) Allowing oil companies to drill for oil in the ANWR and off the coasts;
5b) Promoting the construction of new oil refineries by offering tax breaks to ANY company who will build and maintain a refinery;
5c) Offering tax rebates for every person and company who purchases hybrid vehicles;
5d) Removing the ethanol requirements from all fuels (as this stupid requirement increases the cost of gasoline, for example, by ensuring that the gasoline with ethanol cannot be transported through pipelines);
5e) Building nuclear power plants.
6) Rescind all federal laws related to narcotics, and:
6a) Immediately pardon and release from prison all inmates serving sentences ONLY for non-violent drug-related offenses - after each inmate first devotes one-half of their remaining sentence on public works projects (to be determined by each state based on their needs), such as: Repairing roads and bridges, cleaning up streets, and so on.
7) Impose term limits on every elected federal office of no more than TWO terms for every elected official serving in every elected office (if it's good enough for the office of the President, it's good enough for a Senator and Representative - this is America, we're not supposed to have a ruling class.. see the 22nd Amendment).
8) Dissolve federal bureaucracies such as the Department of Education (since the 1950s - when the federal government got involved - the quality of education has gone down, and the cost has gone up), Health & Human Services, Housing & Urban Development, and others.. unless it can be pointed out in the Constitution, it ought to be left to the States.
Too Much Political Correctness
Any political correctness is too much. It was intended to stifle free speech, not promote harmony; and crosses cultural, religious, and even intellectual bounds. It began with some perceived right 'not to be offended' -- though I can locate no such right in the Constitution. Thus:
People who are concerned about the many problems illegal immigration brings, and want secure borders, are considered racist - because somehow the concerns about the one are translated into a bias against Latinos.
Those who question the current global warming hysteria, and “refuse to join the fight,” have been likened to Hitler and others. Those who question the veracity of global warming have also been likened to Holocaust Deniers.
The people who fear the encroaching Islamic jihad are called Islamophobic. Those who speak about or discuss the negative and frightening aspects of Islam are accused of religious intolerance, or xenophobia, and are accused of hating all Muslims and all of Arab descent.
To think a certain way, and to publicize those thoughts (when not censured due to political correctness); and the fear that it might incite violence, “hurt someone’s feelings” or put someone in a bad light (even if justified), has become a crime. Such nonsense is being bolstered by the judicial system, with the effect that rational dialogue on a number of issues is being quashed.
There is a real danger in censuring thought, and the verbal or written expression of it. We are quickly moving into an Orwellian society. What many in the United States and other Western nations don’t seem to understand yet is that when some ideas are censured, others will surely follow. This excludes those who are waging jihad against us, because they clearly understand that. It is their purpose to quash anything that may be perceived as derogatory.
What has already happened in Europe, Australia and Canada (all of which used to have the freedom to express one’s thoughts and ideas) is happening here in the United States: To think a certain way, and to express those thoughts, are fast becoming crimes – or dangerous. Making a statement of fact, if it wounds someone’s sensibilities, can be cause to be fired, fined, and perhaps even jailed. In some cases, people sometimes actually fear for their lives due to community response.
Take, for example, what happened to a teacher several years ago when, during a public forum, he explained that at his school, it was the male black teenage boys who were causing the bulk of the problems. The audience was aghast, and he was promptly accused of racism. He lost his job, and the media had a field day with him. He was ultimately vindicated, but the whole event made one thing clear – even if it was the truth, substantiated by facts, making such a statement could be dangerous and have severe consequences.
It wasn’t politically correct to state, or even imply, that one group was causing problems over another, even if it was true. Rather than being a statement of fact, which it was, it was seen as racist. The same thing has happened as regards illegal immigration. Rather than recognizing that people are concerned about illegal immigration, which coincidentally happens to be primarily from Mexico, it becomes an indictment of all Latinos.
Public opinion isn’t always right. What is right, however, is to uphold and defend our Constitutionally-protected First Amendment right of Free Speech - the expression of our thoughts. Our country was founded on controversy. We broke from the subservience of European thought and edicts when we became a free nation. If we don’t fight for this right on every front, for the right to express our thoughts, we will lose it. It will slip away, unnoticed by many until it’s too late – and the expressions of our thoughts, our words, and our every deed, will be governed by whoever is in power.
People who are concerned about the many problems illegal immigration brings, and want secure borders, are considered racist - because somehow the concerns about the one are translated into a bias against Latinos.
Those who question the current global warming hysteria, and “refuse to join the fight,” have been likened to Hitler and others. Those who question the veracity of global warming have also been likened to Holocaust Deniers.
The people who fear the encroaching Islamic jihad are called Islamophobic. Those who speak about or discuss the negative and frightening aspects of Islam are accused of religious intolerance, or xenophobia, and are accused of hating all Muslims and all of Arab descent.
To think a certain way, and to publicize those thoughts (when not censured due to political correctness); and the fear that it might incite violence, “hurt someone’s feelings” or put someone in a bad light (even if justified), has become a crime. Such nonsense is being bolstered by the judicial system, with the effect that rational dialogue on a number of issues is being quashed.
There is a real danger in censuring thought, and the verbal or written expression of it. We are quickly moving into an Orwellian society. What many in the United States and other Western nations don’t seem to understand yet is that when some ideas are censured, others will surely follow. This excludes those who are waging jihad against us, because they clearly understand that. It is their purpose to quash anything that may be perceived as derogatory.
What has already happened in Europe, Australia and Canada (all of which used to have the freedom to express one’s thoughts and ideas) is happening here in the United States: To think a certain way, and to express those thoughts, are fast becoming crimes – or dangerous. Making a statement of fact, if it wounds someone’s sensibilities, can be cause to be fired, fined, and perhaps even jailed. In some cases, people sometimes actually fear for their lives due to community response.
Take, for example, what happened to a teacher several years ago when, during a public forum, he explained that at his school, it was the male black teenage boys who were causing the bulk of the problems. The audience was aghast, and he was promptly accused of racism. He lost his job, and the media had a field day with him. He was ultimately vindicated, but the whole event made one thing clear – even if it was the truth, substantiated by facts, making such a statement could be dangerous and have severe consequences.
It wasn’t politically correct to state, or even imply, that one group was causing problems over another, even if it was true. Rather than being a statement of fact, which it was, it was seen as racist. The same thing has happened as regards illegal immigration. Rather than recognizing that people are concerned about illegal immigration, which coincidentally happens to be primarily from Mexico, it becomes an indictment of all Latinos.
Public opinion isn’t always right. What is right, however, is to uphold and defend our Constitutionally-protected First Amendment right of Free Speech - the expression of our thoughts. Our country was founded on controversy. We broke from the subservience of European thought and edicts when we became a free nation. If we don’t fight for this right on every front, for the right to express our thoughts, we will lose it. It will slip away, unnoticed by many until it’s too late – and the expressions of our thoughts, our words, and our every deed, will be governed by whoever is in power.
What is Conservative? What is Liberal?
At the heart of the conservative (right-wing) vs liberal (left-wing) debate is a very crucial concept, which many people simply refuse to accept: A society can either be free or equal, but it cannot be both. This is counter-intuitive to most people in liberal democracies, who want above all else to live in a perfectly free and perfectly equal country. Such a paradise, however, has never existed on Earth and never will.
While it is true that certain forms of freedom and equality are connected, such as equality under law and freedom of opportunity, freedom and equality are more frequently at odds. And yet, for most people in the West, the ideas of liberty and equality are inseparable; so much so that they are frequently confused with one another and even used as synonyms. But elementary common sense suggests that where freedom is to be promoted, inequality must result and where equality is to be established, freedoms must be curtailed.
As John C. Calhoun, the seventh vice president of the United States wrote:
"Now, as individuals differ greatly from each other, in intelligence, sagacity, energy, perseverance, skill, habits of industry and economy, physical power, position and opportunity,—the necessary effect of leaving all free to exert themselves to better their condition, must be a corresponding inequality between those who may possess these qualities and advantages in a high degree, and those who may be deficient in them. The only means by which this result can be prevented are, either to impose such restrictions on the exertions of those who may possess them in a high degree, as will place them on a level with those who do not; or to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions. But to impose such restrictions on them would be destructive of liberty,—while, to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions, would be to destroy the desire of bettering their condition."
In other words, if everyone is perfectly free, the gifted will rise to the top and the less fortunate will sink to the bottom; hence, everyone is unequal. Only if the gifted are impeded from rising too far - and the less fortunate are elevated on their shoulders - can perfect equality be established; hence, the strong are hardly perfectly free.
The difference, then, between the conservative ideology and the liberal ideology, is that the conservative seeks to maximize freedom, while the liberal seeks to maximize equality.
While it is true that certain forms of freedom and equality are connected, such as equality under law and freedom of opportunity, freedom and equality are more frequently at odds. And yet, for most people in the West, the ideas of liberty and equality are inseparable; so much so that they are frequently confused with one another and even used as synonyms. But elementary common sense suggests that where freedom is to be promoted, inequality must result and where equality is to be established, freedoms must be curtailed.
As John C. Calhoun, the seventh vice president of the United States wrote:
"Now, as individuals differ greatly from each other, in intelligence, sagacity, energy, perseverance, skill, habits of industry and economy, physical power, position and opportunity,—the necessary effect of leaving all free to exert themselves to better their condition, must be a corresponding inequality between those who may possess these qualities and advantages in a high degree, and those who may be deficient in them. The only means by which this result can be prevented are, either to impose such restrictions on the exertions of those who may possess them in a high degree, as will place them on a level with those who do not; or to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions. But to impose such restrictions on them would be destructive of liberty,—while, to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions, would be to destroy the desire of bettering their condition."
In other words, if everyone is perfectly free, the gifted will rise to the top and the less fortunate will sink to the bottom; hence, everyone is unequal. Only if the gifted are impeded from rising too far - and the less fortunate are elevated on their shoulders - can perfect equality be established; hence, the strong are hardly perfectly free.
The difference, then, between the conservative ideology and the liberal ideology, is that the conservative seeks to maximize freedom, while the liberal seeks to maximize equality.
Everyone's Entitled to Their Opinion.. As Long As They Agree With Mine
As with all children, Liberals live by the very simple rule:
If I do it, it's OK.
If you do it, it's wrong.
This is particularly evident when 'speech' is the topic of discussion, but you can find excellent examples outside that arena, too - such as the feminist/NOW movement's hatred of Governor Sarah Palin, despite her ascension and successes. Purportedly the feminist/NOW movement was all about equality between the sexes, and empowering women; what they really meant, apparently, was equality and empowerment only for those specific women that agreed with their entire political platform.
Ditto speech. The John Edwards affair is an excellent example of muted reporting and criticism, by both the mainstream media and his 'contemporaries'. The Monica Lewinski affair is another great example - where was NOW when an intern was being sexually harassed...? She was a young woman in a clearly inferior position to a powerful man; this is the sort of case that NOW takes to court, and helps prosecute - but not when it's against someone with whom they agree politically. Then they throw this woman under the bus, because at the end of the day:
Liberals are all about themselves, and the moment; and they have few, if any, principles upon which to stand. Likely this is a result of their having thrown religion out the door in the 1960s, and having no moral compass, or center. Rather than do what's right, they do what's expedient - for themselves, and anyone who agrees with them. Disagree with them (see also: Joe Lieberman) and you're toast. They will say and do whatever they have to do to destroy you.
If I do it, it's OK.
If you do it, it's wrong.
This is particularly evident when 'speech' is the topic of discussion, but you can find excellent examples outside that arena, too - such as the feminist/NOW movement's hatred of Governor Sarah Palin, despite her ascension and successes. Purportedly the feminist/NOW movement was all about equality between the sexes, and empowering women; what they really meant, apparently, was equality and empowerment only for those specific women that agreed with their entire political platform.
Ditto speech. The John Edwards affair is an excellent example of muted reporting and criticism, by both the mainstream media and his 'contemporaries'. The Monica Lewinski affair is another great example - where was NOW when an intern was being sexually harassed...? She was a young woman in a clearly inferior position to a powerful man; this is the sort of case that NOW takes to court, and helps prosecute - but not when it's against someone with whom they agree politically. Then they throw this woman under the bus, because at the end of the day:
Liberals are all about themselves, and the moment; and they have few, if any, principles upon which to stand. Likely this is a result of their having thrown religion out the door in the 1960s, and having no moral compass, or center. Rather than do what's right, they do what's expedient - for themselves, and anyone who agrees with them. Disagree with them (see also: Joe Lieberman) and you're toast. They will say and do whatever they have to do to destroy you.
Social Security and Morality
Dr. Walter Williams asserted that withholding money for Social Security from Americans' paychecks is an immoral compulsion by a government on a free people.
When the SSDI - Social Security Disability Insurance - fund was created, I do believe that the politicians had the citizens' best interests at heart. I do not believe that they could have fathomed what would happen to the funds being collected and held in trust. They were naive, and foolish, but not evil.
Of course, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and we have all seen what's become of this nightmare known as Social Security. Right now, 12% of my paycheck is taken from me to pay for the Social Security benefits being given to someone ELSE, today. By definition this is income redistribution - theft. What's worse is that the government, by giving MY 12% to my father (for example), is going to have to take that money from my children to give to me. But because the value of the dollar, combined with inflation, changes over time, my children will actually have to pay MORE than I do for my benefits.
It's a never-ending cycle.
And it's most assuredly not moral.
I have NO problem paying taxes for those things that government is supposed to provide, according to the Constitution (speaking obviously about the Federal government here; states and localities are not being discussed).
Stealing money is immoral, regardless of the reason(s) for doing so. The ends do not justify the means, and particularly not when our PAID SERVANTS - politicians - are the ones stealing from us. In the real world this is called 'embezzlement', among other crimes, punishable by jail time.
I think the only way to fix the system at this point is to offer people the chance to opt out of Social Security, effective immediately. Were I in charge, I would say to all Americans under 45:
"You're still young enough to save for your own retirement... so if you want to opt out of paying any future monies to Social Security - beginning with your next paycheck - you may do so. However, any monies you have paid to this point in time belong to the government, and you will not receive any Social Security benefits in your old age. Furthermore, this is a decision you cannot undo. You need not decide today - you can decide anytime. But once you opt out, you're done."
And to make up the shortfall in current revenue - payments being made using today's Social Security collections being paid out to today's retirees - I would sell off land 'owned' by the Federal government, of which there should properly be none, anyway (save Washington, DC).
When the SSDI - Social Security Disability Insurance - fund was created, I do believe that the politicians had the citizens' best interests at heart. I do not believe that they could have fathomed what would happen to the funds being collected and held in trust. They were naive, and foolish, but not evil.
Of course, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and we have all seen what's become of this nightmare known as Social Security. Right now, 12% of my paycheck is taken from me to pay for the Social Security benefits being given to someone ELSE, today. By definition this is income redistribution - theft. What's worse is that the government, by giving MY 12% to my father (for example), is going to have to take that money from my children to give to me. But because the value of the dollar, combined with inflation, changes over time, my children will actually have to pay MORE than I do for my benefits.
It's a never-ending cycle.
And it's most assuredly not moral.
I have NO problem paying taxes for those things that government is supposed to provide, according to the Constitution (speaking obviously about the Federal government here; states and localities are not being discussed).
Stealing money is immoral, regardless of the reason(s) for doing so. The ends do not justify the means, and particularly not when our PAID SERVANTS - politicians - are the ones stealing from us. In the real world this is called 'embezzlement', among other crimes, punishable by jail time.
I think the only way to fix the system at this point is to offer people the chance to opt out of Social Security, effective immediately. Were I in charge, I would say to all Americans under 45:
"You're still young enough to save for your own retirement... so if you want to opt out of paying any future monies to Social Security - beginning with your next paycheck - you may do so. However, any monies you have paid to this point in time belong to the government, and you will not receive any Social Security benefits in your old age. Furthermore, this is a decision you cannot undo. You need not decide today - you can decide anytime. But once you opt out, you're done."
And to make up the shortfall in current revenue - payments being made using today's Social Security collections being paid out to today's retirees - I would sell off land 'owned' by the Federal government, of which there should properly be none, anyway (save Washington, DC).
Rights and Privileges
Rights are defined by Black’s Law Dictionary: "...'something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle." So, a right is something you can do without asking for permission. Rights carry with them certain responsibilities inherent within them; for example, the right to bear arms does not abrogate one from the responsibility of allowing no harm to come to innocent people through indiscriminate use of those arms.
The opposite of a right, therefore, is something you cannot do without asking for permission - a "privilege". Black’s Law Dictionary defines this as: "A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others."
There are many, many examples of this, beginning with driving upon the public roads; but the purpose of this question is to cover Rights vs Privileges in a macro form rather than at a granular, micro level.
Some people think that there are rights for any action or activity with which they personally 'agree', such as (but not limited to): Same-sex marriage, health care, welfare (be it corporate or personal), abortion, and so on.
Rights and privileges are opposites. Privileges are granted - conditional - and hence can be revoked. Privileges can be tightly regulated and, with little justification, taken away. Rights present greater obstacles to confiscation. Over time, government at all levels has slowly eroded rights into privileges, thus ensuring governmental control over the actions or activities under discussion. Morphing a right into a privilege for the purpose of regulating the action or activity is necessary, since imposing regulation on a right has been defined as illegal:
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of [this] exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.
Rights are primarily (but not exclusively) predicated upon ownership of property, which is why we Americans have VERY few actual rights remaining to us. If you think you have the right to dig for oil on property that you 'own' - try that sometime, without permits and licenses and permission. I think the local Sheriff will take you aside for a chat. That means that you are not sovereign over your land; you do not, in actuality, 'own' it - and hence do NOT have the right to act as you wish upon it, because it is not your property. A privilege says that you are NOT allowed to act as you wish against the property of another, and that is, in essence, what the Sheriff will be explaining... that the truth is simple: The government own the property, proven thus by the requirement to apply for permits and licenses for the privilege of drilling for oil. And because these permits and licenses are written forms of permission for you to act in a certain manner, they may be denied or revoked - and their provisions enforced, as the Sheriff will no doubt explain.
The opposite of a right, therefore, is something you cannot do without asking for permission - a "privilege". Black’s Law Dictionary defines this as: "A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others."
There are many, many examples of this, beginning with driving upon the public roads; but the purpose of this question is to cover Rights vs Privileges in a macro form rather than at a granular, micro level.
Some people think that there are rights for any action or activity with which they personally 'agree', such as (but not limited to): Same-sex marriage, health care, welfare (be it corporate or personal), abortion, and so on.
Rights and privileges are opposites. Privileges are granted - conditional - and hence can be revoked. Privileges can be tightly regulated and, with little justification, taken away. Rights present greater obstacles to confiscation. Over time, government at all levels has slowly eroded rights into privileges, thus ensuring governmental control over the actions or activities under discussion. Morphing a right into a privilege for the purpose of regulating the action or activity is necessary, since imposing regulation on a right has been defined as illegal:
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of [this] exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.
Rights are primarily (but not exclusively) predicated upon ownership of property, which is why we Americans have VERY few actual rights remaining to us. If you think you have the right to dig for oil on property that you 'own' - try that sometime, without permits and licenses and permission. I think the local Sheriff will take you aside for a chat. That means that you are not sovereign over your land; you do not, in actuality, 'own' it - and hence do NOT have the right to act as you wish upon it, because it is not your property. A privilege says that you are NOT allowed to act as you wish against the property of another, and that is, in essence, what the Sheriff will be explaining... that the truth is simple: The government own the property, proven thus by the requirement to apply for permits and licenses for the privilege of drilling for oil. And because these permits and licenses are written forms of permission for you to act in a certain manner, they may be denied or revoked - and their provisions enforced, as the Sheriff will no doubt explain.
Forcing Others to Your View
The Left sees no problem with forcing the country to adopt same-sex marriage via judicial fiat, but does think that the country will be destroyed if Roe vs. Wade is overturned at some future point. I don't understand why, exactly. I'm not equating those two issues, but the underlying philosophy: What I want is RIGHT, and what you want is WRONG. The middle ground is anathema to zealots of this sort; you have never heard someone suggest that we could, for example, trade -- we'll recognize same-sex marriage if you help outlaw abortion (with certain exceptions, of course, but that's not the issue).
When did the Left decide that "compromise" means "do what I want" and that's all...? When did the Left decide that the majority of the country's views were not meaningful? And please don't argue that their views represent the majority; those states which were allowed to vote on, for example, same-sex marriage, have overwhelmingly decided AGAINST it, including California -- where liberal judges have now decided that, despite 61% of the citizens voting against allowing same-sex marriage, these four justices know better what's good for Californians, and threw their votes into the trash.
I see that the Left is simply horrified at the idea that Roe vs. Wade might be overturned, and will stop at nothing -- not character assassination, name-calling, false accusations -- to see that does not come to fruition. Why?
Have you ever noticed that the Left advocates either the removal of liberties, or the re-interpretation of the Constitution in order to make what they want sound palatable; while the Right seems to advocate either the expansion of liberty or a more-strict interpretation of the Constitution?
Why is it permissible to force others into your views, while denying them the right to even discuss theirs, let alone allow the country to adopt them, peacably and through democratic means?
In fairness, the Constitutional amendment proposed to ensure male-female marriages was a defense against the same-sex marriage 'zealots', and not a pro-active proposal; similarly Roe vs. Wade already says that abortion is legal, and at least some on the Right want to return the issue to the States, because it's not an issue with which the federal government ought to be involved at all.
It's a reaction to a Leftist movement or policy, and not an action initiated out of this air.
When did the Left decide that "compromise" means "do what I want" and that's all...? When did the Left decide that the majority of the country's views were not meaningful? And please don't argue that their views represent the majority; those states which were allowed to vote on, for example, same-sex marriage, have overwhelmingly decided AGAINST it, including California -- where liberal judges have now decided that, despite 61% of the citizens voting against allowing same-sex marriage, these four justices know better what's good for Californians, and threw their votes into the trash.
I see that the Left is simply horrified at the idea that Roe vs. Wade might be overturned, and will stop at nothing -- not character assassination, name-calling, false accusations -- to see that does not come to fruition. Why?
Have you ever noticed that the Left advocates either the removal of liberties, or the re-interpretation of the Constitution in order to make what they want sound palatable; while the Right seems to advocate either the expansion of liberty or a more-strict interpretation of the Constitution?
Why is it permissible to force others into your views, while denying them the right to even discuss theirs, let alone allow the country to adopt them, peacably and through democratic means?
In fairness, the Constitutional amendment proposed to ensure male-female marriages was a defense against the same-sex marriage 'zealots', and not a pro-active proposal; similarly Roe vs. Wade already says that abortion is legal, and at least some on the Right want to return the issue to the States, because it's not an issue with which the federal government ought to be involved at all.
It's a reaction to a Leftist movement or policy, and not an action initiated out of this air.
Moral Equivalence
In noting the great political divide across the American landscape, it seems that the largest chasm between the Left and the Right boils down simply to: Moral Equivalence. For example, the Left says that the Right are hypocrites because they support the death penalty, while condemning abortion - thus equating the two issues. The Right argues that the issues are not equal; that the innocent life is not, and cannot be, equal to the guilty life. Whether you agree or disagree with the point is irrelevant to my posting - what's relevant is the drawing of equivalency between the two acts, where there truly is none.
Honest people can disagree over whether life begins at conception, or whether a murderer's life should be taken by the state. Honest people should be able to disagree, shake hands, and have a beer together. I know - I'm dreaming.
There are, literally, thousands of examples of this, and as a person on the Right I know firsthand how distasteful it is to be 'lumped in' and equated with perpetrators of actual evil. "BusHitler" is certainly a famous moniker among the moral equivalence crowd, as though imprisoning enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay is the moral equivalent of Auschwitz and Treblinka. How can anyone read that sentence and nod in agreement? Well, some do - many right here on LI - and I believe that's the great divide between us.
Ask someone on the Left for an example of 'evil' and you'll get, in varying tones, answers like:
"Bush!"
"Conservatives."
"Low taxes on the rich!"
"How we're destroying Mother Earth!"
I think that Moral Equivalence represents the largest divide between the two philosophical/ideological 'sides', Left and Right, in America.
Honest people can disagree over whether life begins at conception, or whether a murderer's life should be taken by the state. Honest people should be able to disagree, shake hands, and have a beer together. I know - I'm dreaming.
There are, literally, thousands of examples of this, and as a person on the Right I know firsthand how distasteful it is to be 'lumped in' and equated with perpetrators of actual evil. "BusHitler" is certainly a famous moniker among the moral equivalence crowd, as though imprisoning enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay is the moral equivalent of Auschwitz and Treblinka. How can anyone read that sentence and nod in agreement? Well, some do - many right here on LI - and I believe that's the great divide between us.
Ask someone on the Left for an example of 'evil' and you'll get, in varying tones, answers like:
"Bush!"
"Conservatives."
"Low taxes on the rich!"
"How we're destroying Mother Earth!"
I think that Moral Equivalence represents the largest divide between the two philosophical/ideological 'sides', Left and Right, in America.
Racism and Political Correctness
I nearly tossed my cookies this morning upon reading this short column, written by Lewis Diuguid in the Kansas City Star yesterday (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2493):
Now, this writer - in reading some of his other columns - is 'all about' race. He's a black man, which matters not at all to me, but tells you a bit about where he's coming from as regards his opinion. My problem is with this absurd, insane notion that everything anyone says in any negative way about Barack Obama must be linked to the speaker's inherent racism.
Huh????
Another line from the same writer in a different column:
Is this deliberate provocation - either of blacks, to rouse their anger; or of whites, to get them to 'prove' that they're not racist by voting for Obama?
OR
Is this writer - and the others like him - being honest, feeling that everyone who is against, or simply disagrees with, Obama must be a racist?
I suppose a third option would be simply that this is political correctness gone absolutely over the edge - not just this writer's commentary, but all of the similar commentary we've all seen and heard during the last 18 months.
"The 'socialist' label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential
running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has
long and very ugly historical roots. "J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from
1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent
their lives fighting for equality. Those freedom fighters included the Rev.
Martin Luther King Jr., who led the Civil Rights Movement; W.E.B. Du Bois, who
in 1909 helped found the NAACP which is still the nation's oldest and largest
civil rights organization; Paul Robeson, a famous singer, actor and political
activist who in the 1930s became involved in national and international
movements for better labor relations, peace and racial justice; and A. Philip
Randolph, who founded and was the longtime head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping
Car Porters and a leading advocate for civil rights for African Americans.
"McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code
word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who
could not be trusted during the communism scare.
"Shame on McCain and Palin."
Now, this writer - in reading some of his other columns - is 'all about' race. He's a black man, which matters not at all to me, but tells you a bit about where he's coming from as regards his opinion. My problem is with this absurd, insane notion that everything anyone says in any negative way about Barack Obama must be linked to the speaker's inherent racism.
Huh????
Another line from the same writer in a different column:
"I support Barack Obama and his plans for America, but I also know this
country’s burning fires of racism. The discrimination blacks face isn’t as
bad as it once was. But the hatred is strong enough that the majority is
unlikely to elect an African-American leader."
Is this deliberate provocation - either of blacks, to rouse their anger; or of whites, to get them to 'prove' that they're not racist by voting for Obama?
OR
Is this writer - and the others like him - being honest, feeling that everyone who is against, or simply disagrees with, Obama must be a racist?
I suppose a third option would be simply that this is political correctness gone absolutely over the edge - not just this writer's commentary, but all of the similar commentary we've all seen and heard during the last 18 months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe Today!
Posts
All Comments