Offended? It's a free country!

September 12th, 2012

Why are the President's representatives in Cairo apologizing for Freedom of Speech and not simply being outraged at the attack on the territory of the United States in Egypt?  For those who do not understand what I am talking about, a nation's Embassy is considered that nation's territory according to international law and this understanding is a basis for modern diplomacy and making a film criticizing Mohammed is an act of speech, protected by our First Amendment.  Clearer?  Perhaps you have not heard the statement made by our Embassy in Egypt in the wake of the "protest" on the grounds of the American embassy in Egypt?  "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions..."

Apparently, still more representatives of the President have now disavowed this, what I would call, apology for allowing free speech in our country, but frankly, I think the White House recognized the statement was unpopular after the fact, however the people working for the President in Cairo were just being candid about their true feelings and, I say by extension, those of the President.  The left, after all, are the instigators of the concept of "hate speech", which I have always condemned.  That is, I condemn the labeling of certain speech as hate speech, not the content of somebody's speech.  The antidote to "bad" speech is "good" speech and NOT suppression.  The political left are fond of labeling speech as hate and people who disagree with them as haters, but apparently burning your flag is just about "expression" and "protest", very un-hateful stuff actually.

I say, you want to burn an American flag in protest, buy one or sew one and burn it in your own country.  I can live with that "hate speech", but go onto our territory and burn our flag?  Different story there.  Hillary Clinton followed up with this statement: "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."  This is still not good enough for me.

If I were speaking for our country, I would say that, "in America, our citizens are guaranteed the right to engage in speech that may be disagreed with.  Our government is not allowed to limit the rights of the citizens, because the citizens run the government and not vice-versa.  This may be different than the ways of your country, but that is the way our country works.  Moreover, acts of violence are never justified by speech that one might disagree with.  The use of force must be reserved for defense against the use of force against a person or a country.  All those who would approve of violence as a tool for political protest are no friends of the United States and any country that can not or will not protect the sovereignty of an American Embassy will have American diplomats withdrawn and all forms of foreign aid withdrawn as well.  We have always protected the sovereignty of foreign diplomats and embassies in the United States and must receive equal treatment from any nation wishing to have diplomatic relations with us.  If any country's government is unstable to such a degree that our embassy's sovereignty can not be protected, we will wait to send a diplomatic mission there until it is stable."

Obviously, the events in Libya are reprehensible to an even greater degree.  Violence to our embassy personnel go beyond flag burning.  Why has the President not called for closing our embassy in that country until the Libyan government has a handle on their own security?  My answer to that is that President Obama, not unlike President Bush, wants to have our nose in everyone else's business.  For some reason, many people on the left called George Bush a war criminal, but Barack Obama gets a pass.  Isolationism?  No.  Non-interventionism.  Let sovereign nations settle their own affairs and meanwhile here in America we show the world a shining example of free enterprise and peaceful-coexistence.  We need to stop "making war" to create "peace".  I know.  I know.  Humans just can not keep their noses out of other people's business.  OK.  I'll shut up.

Latest "muff to exaggeration"

September 8th, 2012

Well, there have been plenty of lines uttered by Romney and Obama, Democrats and Republicans, that have been recycled in campaign propaganda by opponents, but the latest is this DNC video with the "we all belong to the Government" quote.  I call these things exaggerated muffs.  The line is muffed, because it is uttered ambiguously and can be made to sound a little different as a snippet, but opponents generally then exaggerate an alternate possible interpretation for political "advantage".  Although the offended party usually claims the remark is "out of context", my opinion is that even in context, most of these statements can be found fault with and that ought to be the strategy, rather than trying to purposely misconstrue them to win points.  This actually undermines their arguments with intellectually honest people.  Perhaps they only appeal to the easily-led...and that is the target audience and desired constituency.

Anyway, the latest goof is "We don't belong to the Government!"  It is easy for me to see that the "context" shows that what may have more correctly stated the intention of the comment is that there is only one "group' to which we all belong, to wit the Citizens group, or the People, and of course we are supposed to have a government of the People, by the People, and for the People and the 10th Amendment to the Consitution reserves all powers not granted to the Federal government by that document to the States and to the People, but government is a manifestation of this group to which we all belong.  Fair enough, but I do think the particular wording does seem to suggest that the state, the government, the collective of the People IS felt to be more important than the individual in the minds of Democrats, liberals,  and progressives.  This IS at the root of collectivism, whether they can stomach that or not and that is the root of socialism and the fact is that Democrats, in the main, stand for socialism, but I think they would say that they just want a little bit of socialism.  They do not want the work camps and such, but they think the "group" is far more important than the "individual" and the amount of socialism they want is paltry and could not be destructive.  I think, in fact, that a little bit of socialism is like being a little bit pregnant, but I will let that pass.

While Democrats would argue that what Republicans are for is authoritarianism, collectivism as an opposite to authoritarianism is just not so.  In fact, authoritarianism is REQUIRED for collectivism to happen.    The true irony is that Republicans want authoritarianism as well.  They also prize the collective over the individual, they simply think the nature of the collective will is for "Judeo-Christian" values, while Democrats are simply pagans and not the majority.  Democrats claim their beliefs in non-judgmental-ness (except when judging people who disagree with their judgements) are the majority and those old-world Puritans in the Republican party should stand aside.  This, frankly, is the fatal flaw of collectivism as we are, all of us, never in great agreement.  Which, I believe makes the case for libertarianism, the regard for the rights of the individual, as it is the only system whereby the pagan and Puritan may co-exist, but only, alas, if they give up their dreams of collective domination and can be satisfied with self-domination or, as I prefer, self-dominion.

R Convention

September 5th, 2012

Admittedly, I turned off the Republican Convention.  Who wants to hear those same old broken promises and Condoleeza Rice with her war-mongering?  I tried to watch as entertainment.  Even MSNBC did not make me laugh.  There was no "there" there.  I cannot imagine the Democrats being any better.  Phony promise here, real promise that is frightening there...what's to watch?  Now, if Gary Johnson could get into the debates and make Barack Obama defend his wars (Afganistan, drugs, business in general), that could be interesting...and a cold day here in Hell.  We are only allowed two points of view.  The "powers that be" have concluded that any more choices is just too confusing and messy.  I guess that is why I believe the people should remember that they put "the powers that be" in place and they still can replace them, but it will take time and sustained effort and one election cycle doth not reform make.  Attention deficit, anyone?

No to Obama and Romney? Vote Gary Johnson

August 27th, 2012

I have decided I cannot vote in good conscience for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney and have decided to cast my vote for Gary Johnson.  Those who have read my writings or heard  me in person know that I am an ardent supporter of Dr. Ron Paul.  I would say that Gary Johnson is not Ron Paul, but far and away a candidate closer to my views than either Obama or Romney.  But, let us say that while you favor neither Barack nor Mitt, you do not favor Paul or Johnson either.  I implore you to vote for the Libertarian party candidate Johnson anyway and let me tell you why.

If you have become convinced as I have that voting for the lesser of two evils simply perpetuates the broken system we have and you want to protest with your vote, the only viable way to send a message to the two wholly-owned parties, i.e. Democrats and Republicans, can only be sent by significant numbers voting for neither party and the number must be concentrated in order to be "seen".  In other words, there must be a single candidate which receives a significant number of votes.  The only candidate besides President Obama and former Governor Romney who can garner votes in all fifty states is the Libertarian party candidate.  Say what you will about the Libertarian party, one thing they have managed is ballot access in all fifty states either as a party or listed as Independent for many cycles now, no small feat in the face of Democrat/Republican election laws designed to keep other parties out of the electoral process.  In the current cycle, the Libertarians have qualified in 38 states and have their status pending in the other 12 and will likely be listed on all ballots in all the states.

If every voter who refuses to endorse Obama and Romney were to pool their votes with others to send a message to the public that we need not keep accepting the Democrat and Republican alternatives, the public may be bolstered in thinking they are not alone in their dissatisfaction and more likely to choose alternatives to the Ds and Rs in future elections, if not better Democrat and Republican candidates.  The truth is that one of these candidates (Obama or Romney) will be the next President and all that can be gained is a better future election campaign.  In order to reject the "lesser of two evils" mantra, we must vote this time for the future election cycles and our posterity.

We will hear and have heard that "this is the most important election in our lifetime" and choosing the lesser of the two evils this particular time is particularly important, but frankly "they" always say that.  In truth, an additional President Obama or a new President Romney will not destroy the Earth.  We will all be back in four years to endure this exercise again and all we can try to accomplish this time is better alternatives in the future.  So, in that respect, this may be the most important election, but only if we vote for the future and stop being worried only about our own present and foregoing consideration of our posterity's future prospects.  We cannot keep putting off getting better alternatives in our Presidential elections by voting AGAINST candidates instead of voting FOR a candidate.  It is high time we vote FOR something and I say that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for better future candidates and a protest of the limited options provided by Republicans and Democrats.

In Nevada for all state offices, the ballot contains the option of "None of these Candidates", however since Democrats and Republicans write election law, if "None" receives the most votes (it has), it is a non-event.  "None" cannot win the election and there is no new election with new candidates (that might make some sense), so it really is a wasted vote.  In the case I am suggesting, Gary Johnson could conceivably win, so those votes could actually scare the current crop of politicians into doing something right.  Take a chance this Novemeber.  Vote Gary Johnson.

The lesser of two extremists

August 13th, 2012

Following the announcement of Paul Ryan as the presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee, I was involved in a conversation with Facebook acquaintances (people I know "offline" are the only ones I call friends) regarding the news. Republicans said it was great, and Democrats said it was great, although for obviously different reasons. I took issue with a couple of Democrats' reasons for Ryan's...shall we say "unsuitability"? This was my wrap-up to the thread:

As a final note, let me say that I continue to believe (as I have for about a year now) that the President will be re-relected, not because he is the better choice, but because more extremists on his side will appear to vote than the extremists who will line up to vote for Mitt Romney. Extremists on the Left continue to fight for a world that says, "F- the conservative people!", and the extremists on the Right continue to say, "F- the liberal people!" This is the extremist mind-set. Everyone MUST be like WE are, the biggest group gets to tell everyone else to go jump in the lake. And, don't get me started on "independents", as their only independence is in what their extremist positions are. They take some positions from the Left and some from the Right and call themselves "balanced". These people are simply political sluts who will go whichever way their whimsy takes them, no principle involved, thank you very much.

The "evils" in "lesser of two evils" is extremism. I am not here to apologize for the Right, it just irks me when I hear "the pot calling the kettle black" (don't worry, it's just a figure of speech) from the Left. Especially galling is the charge of racism when critizing President Obama. "They only hate him because he's black" (or African-American, if you insist, or mulatto, if you prefer) is a constant refrain from the Left. Were you all asleep during the Clinton era? I know it was said he was the first black President (I think Barack Obama might differ with that), but let's face it--he was "white" (hair and all) and he faced the same sorts of criticism and vitriol FOR HIS POLICIES. Is there no racist person living in the world today? Obviously there are racists, but charges of racism in critizing the President are simply attempts to stifle dissent using the political-correctness baseball bat. To be generally specific, the Left wants everything you have and the Right doesn't want you to have anything. Neither gives a rat for the existence of others, only those of their own ilk. To their minds, WE MUST ALL BE THE SAME. Where does the "free" part come in?

The way I see it, if folks on the Left want every woman to be able to have an abortion immediately following conception, let them gather their own funds to pay and their own doctors to perform it. If folks on the Right are determined to teach Iran "a lesson", let them get together their own funds and their own boots on the ground and do it. If, as both believe, THEY are the majority, THEY should have no problem doing it. Unfortunately, neither is a majority, so THEY feel THEY MUST FORCE EVERYONE else to help them accomplish their goals. While it is true that Republicans more often trumpet the concept of freedom and liberty and self-determination, they turn right around and tell you what you cannot do because "white Christian men" would dissapprove. When the Democrats invoke freedom and liberty and self-determination, they insist these things cannot be had because somebody, pick a group, is at a disadvantage from history and therefore those things must be ceded in order to achieve them (a paradox if I ever heard one). The President is on the campaign trail pandering to every sizable interest group on the Left and promising to deliver and these folks will go to the polls in droves, voting for their own selfish interest, with not a care in the world for those other than themselves and their own "kind". Don't worry, those on the Right will flock to vote for Romney in order to quell the popular revolution against prudery and holy war too, I just think there will be more selfish folks wanting free stuff voting than there will be self-righteous war mongers.

I don't know if Democrats on this thread know any actual Republicans, but I do, and as such I will represent to you that spending is so out of control that any Republican of the past who might have been "scared" by him as has been said, even that Republican is fine with Ryan as a choice. Those with a lot more invested in reductions in Federal Government are delighted by the pick and would probably prefer Ryan as the candidate to Romney. As for "independents", they blow like the wind. It depends on what they had for breakfast that day, as they are principle-less. Consequently, Ryan or no, the President has always had the advantage in this race, because Left extremists more and more outnumber Right extremists. Sadly, unless you are a Left extremist, you have no chance of the government you might want, i.e. one that governs least, but ironically the extremists on the Left will be unhappy anyway, because there will still be others besides themselves who are allowed to exist. Ah, such problems!

Me, I'm for everybody, from the hillbilly to the metrosexual, being allowed to exist, I just don't think I should be forced to participate. Unfortunately, I belong to the smallest (and therefore least powerful) interest group. That does not bode well for me (and my ilk) in a "democracy" where winner takes all and the minority be damned, e.g. 51% can tell 49% to take a long walk on a short pier. :) Hope you all enjoy the election! I only hope the debates are somewhat entertaining, because that is all I get out of this exercise...