Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

words words words

Wednesday, March 4th, 2009

Let’s talk about Conservatives and Liberals, and let’s talk about those words and what they mean. Take a step back from politics and look at the roots of the words we’re dealing with, then dive back at what those words ought to mean to not sound contradictory. It is then that we can discuss the spectrum of attitudes that we hold and map it to any sort of coordinate grid.

The fact that right now conservatives and liberals are at opposing sides of the political spectrum is a little silly, and a great misnomer. The antithesis of a conservative is a progressive, and one of liberal is a statist. They address different things – one pair contests the shape of society, while the other contests the government involvement.

The word conservative comes from conserve. Conservatism’s main credo is that major changes in society should be enacted as slowly as possible, and those systems which have worked should continue to exist, since new methods are unproven, and society is expensive to experiment with. Their opposite, the progressive, wishes to apply the fruit on man’s thoughts, the latest hot shot theories and fads as quickly as possible, attempting a lot, and hoping some of it sticks for the better.

The word liberal comes from the same family as liberty and liberated. It refers to the government’s attitude towards its people. They are, in fact, liberated from the government – not bound to it by regulations and obligations. Statists prefer the involvement of the state to micromanage society for the better.

On this axis a Lenin would be a Progressive Statist, along with Hitler, FDR, and Obama. Of course their exact degrees would be different. A true libertarian would be a Progressive Liberal. Your democrat is a progressive statist, and your average conservative is a conservative liberal.

As a Republican I opt for a Conservative Liberal approach – I believe in government non-involvement, and that includes its non involvement in progressivism too, to a certain extent. And I believe in caution in the face of new ideas.

We can then apply this sort of thinking to specific issues.

Facts

Sunday, November 2nd, 2008

Facts of life as I heard from my liberal friends

1) Once again we have an incredible percentage of the country’s wealth in a tiny fraction of the population (the rich). The middle class cries.
2) Those rich are all of them conservative, since that is their party obviously, and hate those progressive do-gooders, and hate Obama’s tax plan for increasing their taxes.

So then, why does Obama have so much more campaign money than McCain?

suit vs spot

Sunday, October 26th, 2008

What’s the difference between Sarah Palin getting $150,000 worth of clothing and Barack Obama spending $250 million on ads?

To me – nothing. Except the outfits are easier on the eyes than those political ads.

Yet another reason my vote isn’t going to Obama

Thursday, October 23rd, 2008

I’m just going to quote this from The Pittsburgh Channel

PITTSBURGH — A 20-year-old woman who was robbed at an ATM in Bloomfield was also maimed by her attacker, police said.
Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Diane Richard tells Channel 4 Action News that the victim was robbed at knifepoint on Wednesday night outside of a Citizens Bank near Liberty Avenue and Pearl Street just before 9 p.m.
Richard said the robber took $60 from the woman, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim’s car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter “B” into her face, Richard said.

With friends like that, I don’t think he even NEEDS my vote. But I am glad people are excited about politics.

Update!

Seems like the story is wrong. Looks like my reasons for not voting Obama are going to be confined to… his policy stances.

And to the woman who did this to herself: what is wrong with you and how in the world did you think this would help?

Free Speech

Saturday, July 5th, 2008

In reference to this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?ref=todayspaper

On the surface, it seems like banning hateful speech might be a good idea. After all, angry words are hurtful, and don’t we all say that changing things has to be done in a constructive manner anyway?
The problem with limiting our first amendment right to free speech (and free speech that is less than polite) is because you never know who is doing the defining of what is hate. The entire point of the first amendment is to be able to freely disagree. When disagreements close in on delicate subjects (religion, race, class, etc) they can easily be misread as “hate speech.” Cases of unfounded criticism and belittlement should be responded with strong retorts that break the offending arguments and win back the hearts and minds of the readers. They should not be banned by a government censorship committee.

From an NYT article:

“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”

Enforcing (sorry, protecting) mutual respect is all well and good when you are the party being respected. But when you have genuine concerns, and find yourself silenced for voicing them, in the name of respect, the merits of 1st amendments strick interpretation are vivid.
America ends up being a country where you have to not only succeed by your own merits, but also stand up for yourself with your own wits. Of course, using some examples the article brings up, a march by the nazi party through a town of holocaust survivors seems terrible, but as long as no property was damaged nor persons attacked, it cannot be deemed illegal. Why not? Not because it’s a good thing that nazis march through Skokie, but because to take voice away from one group sets precedent to take it away from others, including you, if you ever find yourself on the wrong side of the political landscape of the time.

More from NYT:

“Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech,” Mr. Gratl said in a telephone interview. “We don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat.”

And hurrah for that!