quote:

A saintly life was the equivalent of a jackass life now. Where now people can get instant viral fame by doing some boneheaded stunt in front of the video camera, back then, pious deeds and eventual martyrdom made people superstars.

If I had to guess, in the modern political climate, what's coming is that the Mr. and Ms. Smiths of the world, who roll up their sleeves and wade into big government and fight for the American people, are going to be the heroes of this generation. Their legends and power will grow. It's all a question of whether they'll have the character to wield that power for the freedom of their countrymen, or if they'll be corrupted by it.

I prefer Latin jokes...even if I can't understand them. I think a lot of this stuff reflects the dumbing-down of our society. Now, don't get me wrong. I understand youthful exuberance is a separate thing. I'm not talking about that. But I really do think we've gotten to the point in this culture that dumb is in. I was doing a little channel surfing last night and it struck me (again) just how vacuously stupid 90% of television is. This does not reflect well on us. I don't know if any culture can last when it venerates stupidity.

Back in Francis' day in Italy (and no doubt elsewhere), war, poverty, disease, and injustice were rampant and somewhat arbitrary. You never knew what shit would happen, but it would happen, and often. And when those who were the supposed conduits of god were also often very dodgy people, it's not hard at all to believe that people were cynical. "Eat, drink and be merry" is what people did when they could. No friggin' wonder they grew so many grapes. Drinking wine was the thing to do. In Italy apparently about every third day or so was one holiday or another. An excuse to party. But during the day, mostly. At night there was a curfew in Assisi. It was generally too dangerous to go outdoors at night. People (if they had the money) lived not so much in houses as in mini fortresses.

In this context of rampant poverty, injustice, and shit-happens came a man who said god loved you, there was hope, and who DIDN'T ask you to call now for your $49.99 personally monogrammed bible that would be sure to save you from hellfire. Again, it should be stressed that Francis wasn't an overt rebel. He was as obedient as obedient could be to the existing hierarchy...after he got Innocent III's permission to do his schtick. And he originally got a very open-ended mandate from the Pope to pretty much go as the spirit moved him, with a few provisos. But the Pope was convinced of Francis' sincerity and that he wasn't a nutjob. Back then, you could be labeled a heretic for doing exactly what Francis was doing which was living according to the New Testament. But the overall context from the Church's perspective is that they needed to maintain their franchise. If god was available to people directly, or to independent teachers, that would put them out of business.

But every once in a while a truly remarkable person comes along who is charismatic and yet is of such substance and sincerity that they don't self-destruct. Obama, for instance, is self-destructing. He's not the real deal. He's an inherent liar. And although there's certainly no way to prove that what Francis believed regarding Christianity is true, it's obvious that he sincerely believed it and tried to live it. If today's socialist liberals really believed in spreading the wealth, they would have already given most of their income to charity. Metaphysics aside, I think Francis brings to the table the idea that people don't have to be wolves. They don't have to be liars. They don't have to be thieves. And his brand of personal responsibility was extremely onerous. They say Francis went around half the time in just his civvies because he kept giving his cloak or cowl away to people who needed clothing more than he did. I don't see Obama doing anything to help wealth creation. All he knows how to do is punish those who work hard and who provide opportunity and jobs for others.

Wherever you go in life, there will likely be an aristocracy of one type or another trying to horde power and doing it under the guise of divine right, do-gooderism, or something else. And debunking is always good and necessary, and however one feels about the ultimate truth of religion (to Hitchens it's all and ever a lie), what Francis did was simply take the principles of charity, compassion, service, integrity, and piety and put them into practice. A similar challenge is for a politicians to walk the same walk. We need the Franciscan equivalent of American patriots who will reduce spending, not spread noxious things such as class warfare and victimization, and cut the size and scope of government. We need these types and not the foul, drunken, whoring clergy of politicians that we have now.

quote:

I think a lot of this stuff reflects the dumbing-down of our society.

I think it also reflects more of the housecatting of our society. We ARE secure, we deal with far fewer daily life and death struggles. Making us complacent, degenerate, and bored.

There's a subtle psychology to jackassing. Step back and take a look at it. It's doing seemingly ridiculous DANGEROUS stunts. Danger. Almost as if... er, that quality was LACKING in the lives of those guys, and they went trying to seek it. That it's humorous rather than simply daredevil is very postmodern. It's a rebellion against apathy and rigidity of belief. So in some ways the jackass dudes are pioneers.

But they're not being adored for intelligence. Their fame comes from the apparent lack of it. To me that really BEGS the question why? Is it that intelligence in this left-dominated world as seen as synonymous with SAFETY? SECURITY? There might be something to that.

These dudes almost seem to be performing for the benefit of some parent who would be standing there telling them to be careful. It's a thumb in the eye to that.

quote:

I think it also reflects more of the housecatting of our society. We ARE secure, we deal with far fewer daily life and death struggles. Making us complacent, degenerate, and bored.

I'll be sure to include that in the definition of dumbing-down. I think that's it too. Don't get me wrong. I don't want life and death struggles. I'm happy having the toughest decision of the day be paper or plastic. But even then, is it necessary that we forget that there are bears in the woods? Must we forget that our society isn't the natural order of things and is based on some somewhat arbitrary principles and practices? We can become soft and used to relative luxury, but must we become intellectually indolent as well? Apparently some must.

quote:

These dudes almost seem to be performing for the benefit of some parent who would be standing there telling them to be careful. It's a thumb in the eye to that.

That could be it. But it also reminds me of something Mark Steyn or VDH said. I don't remember the exact quote but the gist of what he said was that people will act out in small ways and pretend to themselves that they are free while munching down and conforming to the socialist state regarding the larger and more substantial areas that effect their lives. They'll fire a skyrocket out of their assess but will go along mindlessly and without any opposition to someone else deciding what they can eat, what kind of car they can drive, how much of their hard-earned money must go to taxes, etc.

Here's a woman after my own heart. She can take any current event and bring it to Obama. I'm all grins:

Swimming with Killer Whales
by Jeannie DeAngelis

quote:

Pictures of Dawn Brancheau balancing triumphantly on Shamu's snout are reminiscent of Obama supporters in "joyful harmony" with the new president following the last election. In the Native American Chinook language, Tilikum, the name of the whale responsible for the SeaWorld trainer's death, means "friend," and what better friend to America than harbinger of hope and change Barack Obama?

Like Brancheau stroking Tilly's nose, a sycophantic electorate massaged Obama's ego. One year later, Democrats constrained by faltering poll numbers appear "agitated." Why? Because America stopped feeding and rubbing Barry's political proboscis, and now the star of the show's belligerent, temperamental comments are manifesting more and more frequently. It seems that something like Tilly's "aggressive nature" is surfacing in a testy Obama swimming to and fro in less-than-friendly political waters.

Before Dawn Brancheau died, there were ominous signs that SeaWorld ignored. Reports claim that prior to the midday Dine with Shamu show, "The monster orca was not responding to direction" and was uncooperative, yet the scheduled show went on. Similarly caught up in theatrics, the American public paid admission, disregarded history, and ignored Obama's radical past. Now, spectators are forced to admit that political losses are both terrible and difficult to witness.

Orcas in the wild are known for aggressive play, so proper protocol must always be followed to ensure safety. Yet on Election Day, Americans threw caution to the wind. Voters "lying on a shelf " in the Democrats' shallow pool placed their head in close proximity to a biased machine whose history can only be described as politically predacious.

Sign her up. Just don't tell Markle.

Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism?
by Dennis Prager

quote:

Given the amount the human suffering Communists have caused - 70 million killed in China, 20-30 million in the former Soviet Union, and almost one-third of all Cambodians; the decimation of Tibetan and Chinese culture; totalitarian enslavement of North Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Russians; a generation deprived of human rights in Cuba; and much more -- why is "Communist" so much less a term of revulsion than "Nazi?"

There are Mao Restaurants in major cities in the Western world. Can one imagine Hitler Restaurants? Che Guevara T-shirts are ubiquitous, yet there are no Heinrich Himmler T-shirts.

This question is of vital significance. First, without moral clarity, humanity has little chance of avoiding a dark future. Second, the reasons for this moral imbalance tell us a great deal about ourselves today.

Prager goes on to give a list of pretty good reasons why Nazis are deservedly the bad guys while Communists are often given a complete pass (if not outright admired, as Mao is by some high up in the Obama administration). He’s far too kind, though, because I think one of the glaring reasons people like Communism is because of the totalitarian impulse and love for power combined with the gullible affinity for utopia. With the Nazis (who had nearly the exact same socialist motives as the Communists) labeled the bad guys, this gives the self-deluding and power-hungry left the cover they need to suppose that there is a way of life far better than a democratic free market. These are bad guys. Whether they are gullible and stupid bad guys is beside the point. It is often precisely because of ignorance and gullibility that vast amounts of evil plague the world. Those who get warm-fuzzies over Communism are bad people. (Note that there is a small-“c” form of communism that is a voluntary form such as in monasteries and small communes. And many of these are plagued by the same problems as grand state-enforced large-“C” Communism. But such small-c communism is arguably not evil and probably quite beneficial to some.)

Stuart Schwartz captures the evil of the left. He reminds me a bit of Brother Steyn: Obama’s Government without Love

Probably the attraction for people who vote for these fiends is that (like David Brooks) they get to think of themselves as part of the elite. And there are surely others who are just well-meaning compassionate rubes who have had beaten into their skulls that “socialism equals compassion” and “capitalism equals greed.” Others are just rotten people with no concept of America, limited government, and the rights and duties of the individual.

An interesting article and analogy: ACORN and the Ku Klux Klan
by Michael Zak

Here's a fairly short but good article regarding probably THE way to go regarding health care: Hoosiers and Health Saving Accounts.

quote:

What seems free will always be overconsumed, compared to the choices a normal consumer would make. Hence our plan's immense savings.

The Indiana experience confirms what common sense already tells us: A system built on "cost-plus" reimbursement (i.e., the more a physician does, the more he or she gets paid) coupled with "free" to the purchaser consumption, is a machine perfectly designed to overconsume and overspend. It will never be controlled by top-down balloon-squeezing by insurance companies or the government. There will be no meaningful cost control until we are all cost controllers in our own right.

'I'm the President': Tiger Woods In The White House
By Jeffrey Lord

quote:

"I felt I was entitled. I had worked hard. Money and fame made me believe I was entitled. I was wrong and foolish. I don't get to live by different rules. The same boundaries that apply to everyone apply to me." -- Tiger Woods

"I'm the President." -- Barack Obama
Three words. Volumes of information.

They are, of course, equals. Constitutional equals, as specifically provided by Article I (which creates the legislative branch) and Article II (which creates the executive branch) of the Constitution. The Article III crowd of constitutional equals, the federal judiciary, were correctly not at the table for the recent televised health care summit at the Blair House between the legislative and executive branches.

Yet unmistakably, there was one person at this event who clearly considered himself superior to the others. When Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell noted that Democrats had used twice the time of Republicans as the televised summit proceeded, Obama responded thusly: "There was an imbalance in the opening statements, because I'm the President. And I didn't count my time in terms of dividing it evenly."

Translation?

Let's do a Tiger Woods translation. Being President means the rules do not apply. Presidents are entitled. They get to live by different rules. The same boundaries that apply to everyone else in this room do not apply to me. Why? Because "I'm the President."

Here's a Ronald Reagan story.

Several times during his presidency, Reagan found himself in the hospital for various ailments. A gunshot wound to the chest plus a couple surgeries. On one of these occasions he was discovered on his hands and knees in his hospital bathroom, wiping up some water. Aghast, the person who discovered the President of the United States so employed received this explanation from Reagan. He had knocked a glass of water on the floor. Quite aware that he was the president, he was concerned that someone -- most probably a nurse -- would get in trouble for allowing such a thing to occur to "the President." Instead of summoning someone to clean up the mess he himself had made -- and thus potentially getting that someone else in trouble -- he had grabbed a towel and dropped to his hands and knees to mop up the water himself.

The difference between the Reagan story and the Obama reaction to Senator McConnell's noting the use of time by Constitutional equals is illustrative of exactly the problem that drives Americans crazy.

In short, as with Tiger Woods and his woman problem, Barack Obama and his liberal allies have a superiority problem. Liberals/progressives really do see themselves as "entitled" to make decisions for everyone else. They really do believe, as did Tiger, that the rules do not apply to them. Why? Because they are addicted to the idea they are smarter than everyone else.

quote:

This crowd belongs…nay, is passionately devoted, to what could appropriately be called a cult of cultural and intellectual superiority. Who cares if Obama is running the Democrats and the country into the ground? He's just so damn smart!

quote:

And then there was that "unpalatable Nixon." This is a particularly if unintentionally revealing look at liberal race consciousness. Nixon, of course, was your standard Republican civil rights supporter of the day. The "uncommon mind" that was Adlai Stevenson proposed to make his running mate, Alabama Senator John Sparkman, vice president instead. Sparkman, a segregationist, would later be a signer of the racist "Southern Manifesto" supporting segregation, and condemning Brown v. Board of Education, while Nixon was busy supporting the Civil Rights bill of 1957. It took an "uncommon mind" indeed to put someone of Sparkman's ilk on a national ticket. Nixon's real sin, what made him so "unpalatable" in 1952, was that he had proved liberal hero Alger Hiss to have been, in fact, a communist spy in the U.S. government. A decided no-no when Hiss was an Eastern Establishment darling, the right schools and all that, don't you know old boy? Nixon went to Whittier College, Hiss to Johns Hopkins and Harvard Law. Enough said.

In the almost five decades since Hofstadter's book was published, this belief in the cultural and intellectual superiority of liberalism (or progressivism or left-wingism) easily meets another dictionary definition: cult. Which is to say, a "particular system of religious worship." The religion in question here being the worship of the intellect.

And who, exactly, does not possess intellect? Just who are these not very bright people who are outside the faith?

That would be anybody who does not agree with liberalism/progressivism. By definition, these people are dumb. Plain stupid. They are philistines. They may be Senators and Congressmen at the table in Blair House. They may be Tea Party types. Talk radio hosts. Sarah Palin. (Hofstadter even dismissed William F. Buckley, Jr. as "an enemy of professors." Horrors!) Most probably, these not very bright people also include, well -- you.

Here's the Hofstadter view of the world as presented in modern times.

•  Bill Maher, of HBO fame:: "They're (Americans) not bright enough to really understand the issues. But like an animal, they can sort of sense strength or weakness. They can smell it on you."

•  Joe Klein, of Time magazine: "It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you're a nation of dodos."

•  Jonathan Chait from the New Republic: "President Obama is so much smarter and a better communicator than members of Congress in either party…." (Hat tip to James Taranto and John Podhoretz).

In other words, whether you are Barack Obama or Bill Maher or Joe Klein -- or fill in the blank with names like Al Gore, John Kerry or just about anyone at the New York Times and the mainstream media like Chait or Klein or Maher -- you believe as Tiger Woods did. Contrary to the headlines, Tiger's real addiction was not to sex or women, it was to the cocaine of superiority, which in turn induces a sense of entitlement. To women, in Tiger's case, to political or media power in the case of the rest.

quote:

Or, once elected to public office -- say again that first word public -- to simply assert your superiority at a conference table of constitutional equals by saying, in the style Tiger Woods employed with a Chinese menu of bimbos, porn stars and waitresses, "I'm the President."

To which the appropriate answer, as Tiger Woods, at least, has learned the hard way is: so what? If in fact Obama were as smart as Chait insists, then the South Side of Chicago would be, if not Silicon Valley, at least not the same troubled neighborhood Obama found it on arrival. Instead, as the Nation tells us ( no rightwing scribblers they) Chicago's South Side post-Obama's smarts as a community organizer was the same as it was before the young smarty stepped a foot into the neighborhood. So how smart is that? And shouldn't this be, as if lots of Americans weren't already learning, a sign that the President has in fact no idea what he's talking about outside a few plays from Saul Alinsky?

A really good article from MarklesWorstNightmare.com:

quote:

Inasmuch as Obamacare has a snowball's chance in hell of passing (but did you see how much snow they got in hell last week?), everyone is wondering what President Obama is up to by calling Republicans to a televised Reykjavik summit this week to discuss socializing health care.

At least they served beer at the last White House summit this stupid and pointless.

If the president is serious about passing nationalized health care, he ought to be meeting with the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Republicans can't stop the Democrats from socializing health care: They are a tiny minority party in both the House and the Senate. (Note to America: You might want to keep this in mind next time you go to the polls.)

As the Democratic base has been hysterically pointing out, both the House and the Senate have already passed national health care bills. Either body could vote for the other's bill, and -- presto! -- Obama would have a national health care bill, replete with death panels, abortion coverage and lots and lots of new government commissions!

Sadly, as the president's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has noted, the Democratic base is "@#$%^ retarded."

The reason massive Democratic majorities in Congress aren't enough to pass socialist health care is AMERICANS DON'T WANT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!

In fact, you might say that the nation is in a boiling cauldron of rage against it. Consequently, a lot of Democrats are suddenly having second thoughts about vast new government commissions regulating every aspect of Americans' medical care.

Obama isn't stupid -- he's not seriously trying to get a health care bill passed. The whole purpose of this public "summit" with the minority party is to muddy up the Republicans before the November elections. You know, the elections Democrats are going to lose because of this whole health care thing.

Right now, Americans are hopping mad, swinging a stick and hoping to hit anyone who so much as thinks about nationalizing health care.

If they could, Americans would cut the power to the Capitol, throw everyone out and try to deport them. (Whereas I say: Anyone in Washington, D.C., who can produce an original copy of a valid U.S. birth certificate should be allowed to stay.)

But the Democrats think it's a good strategy to call the Republicans "The Party of No." When it comes to Obamacare, Americans don't want a party of "No," they want a party of "Hell, No!" or, as Rahm Emanuel might say, "*&^%$#@ No!"

It's as if the patient has a minor fever and the Democrats (as doctor in this example) want to cut off his arms and legs. The Republicans want to give the patient two aspirin. "Compromise" means the Republicans agree to amputate only one arm and one leg.

Complaining that Republicans are "obstructionists" is not a damaging charge when most Americans are dying to obstruct the Democrats with a 2-by-4. While you're at it, Democrats, why not call the GOP the "Party of Brave Patriots"?

A viral email I thought was good enough to pass on:

YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF..."

1 You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.

3. You have more wives than teeth.

4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon "unclean."

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

6.. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.

7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.

8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four.

10. You've always had a crush on your neighbor's goat.

One in a while I run across what I think is a truly brilliant piece of political analysis. I think this is one of them. And it's Markle-friendly because it takes some well-deserved shots at Karl "the anti-Christ" Rove:

Texas-Sized Lesson: The New Tone Era is Over
by C. Edmund Wright

That is great... I love how "reach across" sounded kinda like "reach around" which is what it is. One big giant reach-around, without the happy ending.

The blinders that elites have about the great unwashed American people is the crap to watch. Politicians and handlers like Rove make this mistake time and again. Because they make money based on the fact that they can read the chimps, make them respond. Why is it we don't have campaign and other advisors who tell candidates things like, hey, why not um, tell the truth... and be yourself? And while you're at it, ignore the polls.

That would be like political suicide. But we'd get better politicians. But nah-ah, for some reason these guys aren't happy unless they're putting one over on us. They love to see if they can outsmart us, and bypass our bullshit detectors.

As Beck would say, this is the trust crisis. As Rico would say, it's the integrity deficit. How radical would it be if a candidate said, you know what? I refuse to HAVE handlers, advisors, and stylists. What you see is what you get. I'm the candidate, I speak my mind, I tell the truth, and if I get a $400 haircut, it's because I myself walked into the barbershop and asked for one.

Reach across. Reach around. Perfect. That’s it. That coincides with a clever bit I just read from John Derbyshire.

quote:

Which leaves us with Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, and Mike Huckabee. Sarah broke my heart when she endorsed John McCain in his Arizona race — yet another dismaying sign that she’d quickly go native in D.C.

My love affair has not ended, but it is on notice. And if you read a bit further, Derby nails Huck a good one. Huckabee would be a horrible choice for president.

quote:

But nah-ah, for some reason these guys aren't happy unless they're putting one over on us. They love to see if they can outsmart us, and bypass our bullshit detectors.

There’s no doubt that people become just depersonalized statistics by ANY brand of politician (especially the consultants) and are thought of more as a faceless demographic, something that you can manipulate like Pavlov’s dog. This works to some extent. You can push the hot-button issues. But if you look at any one person on the fine-grained level, you’ll always be surprised. Brother Brad, for instance – as conservative as the day is long – could give a crap about the issues of flag burning, gay marriage, and making sure that virtue is defined as never ruffling the feathers of the easily-offended. A close look at a thalo will tell another story. We’re all a mix of stuff and it’s changing all the time.

But it’s also probably true that we’re much more tribal-like than any of us would want to admit. The job of the politicians, or the political consultant, is to get us to identify with his tribe with him (or her) as the leader. In a tribe, cohesion is valued over differences of opinion. “Big tents” are hailed (love Beck’s quip that we’re a republic, not a circus) and disagreements are sometimes derided as being “divisive.” Scuh-rewww that.

But a certain amount of unity around First Principles is a good and necessary thing. The fight for those who care about such things (those who are not sheep, and those not sedated by Federal hand-outs) is articulating those First Principles and separating them from all the false pretenders such as those fascist wannabes who think free this or free that is a “right.”

And certainly, like you said, a little less manufactured image and a little more real from politicians would be nice. I think people are desiring that a little more these days. And if so, watch how many politicians (and their consultants) will run, not walk, in order to try to manufacture that “real.” Basically that’s what the obligatory “beer with the blue collar boys in the bar” photo op is all about. The political class will not likely ever truly change as a species. They forever will be manipulators and marketers. But if we get enough good ones, and if we keep up the pressure on them to turn the bullshit down, we might just get by.

Quin Hillyer gets all of this one:

Not the American Way

quote:

There is something way off balance in the character of Barack Obama. Something in the realm of zealotry, with a touch of megalomania, and perhaps an authoritarian impulse too. He combines  Alinskyite tactics and outlook with an air of self-assumed moral superiority in a way that fails to respect the usual, small 'r' republican limits on American presidents. All presidents, of course, think at some level that they know best about policy choices. But almost none of them (Woodrow Wilson perhaps excepted) were so willing to disdain, in pursuit of such radical policy upheavals, such intense and overwhelming public opinion as has been evident in the current health takeover attempt.

Grandiose plans are one thing. Most presidents fall prey to them. It's another thing entirely, though, to refuse to accept the ordinary republican restraints on implementing grandiosities without public support, and furthermore to do so by A) bending existing rules; B) directly violating multiple personal pledges; C) ignoring constitutional limits; D) directly lying; and E) demanding that other politicians sacrifice their own political careers.

A little humility would be nice. So would a sense that he answers to the public rather than to some self-proclaimed (and self-determined) imperative of history and/or call of destiny. What Obama seems to fail to understand is that his own, overblown self-assurance and self-mythologizing is actually hampering his own goals. One need not stretch too far to observe that one of the factors adding to public opposition to Obamacare is a growing public disquietude about the lack of responsiveness, the authoritarian certitude, and the zealous near-fanaticism of the government that would run the new health-rationing system -- all character traits as embodied by the president himself.

quote:

Passage of this health overhaul/takeover under these circumstances would be frightening. The harm it would do the political system would be almost as great as the harm it would cause the health system. The American republic was designed to give a minority a way to slow down major changes buoyed by popular passions. It was not designed to give a minority the power to implement major changes against popular passions.

The Obamites are doing the latter. They are turning American checks and balances on their heads. They are using temporary parliamentary advantages for a permanent power grab. The Obamites are dictating to Americans rather than representing them. Revolutionizing, not just evolving. Ruling, not serving.

Huckabee's a reach-arounder. And far too Christian for my tastes. I like his mild-mannered crap to a point, because he does seem to be solidly conservative... but he's got the whole "it's not what you say, but how you say it" nonsense. Reminds me of well-meaning moderators on forum boards. Again, it's an elitist thing. Under all that nicey-nice decorum shit, is a fundamental belief that they know better than trolls and provocateurs, and they don't.

It'll end up always being about calm decorum and respect, rather than honest discourse. Which is the same as saying there'll always be PC tyranny shading the discourse, which is the same thing as saying the discourse is going to be pointless.

You know who has discourse right? Us. Imagine running congress on a thalo.net free speech model. Where ideas are more important than decorum, and where you can say cunt every day, and political correctness be damned.

It separates the men from the boys. If you say cunt, and then the entire discourse shifts to your word choice, then you know without a shadow of a doubt that what everyone is there to talk about, is the word cunt. I say let 'em. Eventually, it'll get out of everyone's system. Cunt cunt cunt... then when there's crickets instead of offense, you can have more discourse.

What we've discovered, is that the more you make it about trying to squelch somebody for something you are offended by, the more YOU reduce the effectiveness of discourse. If you want effective discourse, all you have to do is worry more about what YOU are saying, and less about trying to control somebody else. The cream (in our case the best ideas) will rise to the top whether you get all lit up about decorum or not.

Did I tell you that I was on Apple Delusions for a second a week or so ago, talking about the release of new Mac Pros? Somebody started a topic about it. All the elite forum guys pounced, threatening to lock the thread... I chimed in that there was probably no better indicator of an imminent hardware release. Boom. I still got it.

Derb's point was that Huckabee was not very conservative. Surely on some things he is, but I think Huck's weakness is just as you said. The PC tyranny shades the discourse making it pointless (or at least emasculated). When you're like Huck (and I agree with your assessment) that "it's not what you say, but how you say it" then you've just automatically ceded half the points to your opposition because they will pitch a fit, feign distress, and act like martyrs to the cause for daring to bluntly question their premises. And the Huck style is about getting the warm-fuzzies, about giving Ted Kennedy a reach around, about "consensus," "bipartisanship" (I wish they'd put cement shoes on that word and throw it into the Hudson), and all that. So if your goal is to avoid conflict, the opposition has already eaten half your lunch.

Huck suffers from the REALLY dumb decision a few years back to release that piece of human sewage from prison who then killed four local police officers recently. You could see how his version of "compassion" neuters him to the hard choices and automatically disqualifies him from Commander in Chief. Period. It's not enough in this life to bathe oneself in feel-good do-gooderism. It's just not enough. That's when you can see that it's all about them. It's about their egos, their desire to feel like a good-guy. Well, good guys sometimes have to make some decisions that might not give them the warm-fuzzies. But that's the burden of truly being a good guy. It's more than just being led around by "Oh what a good boy am I" superficial emotions.

quote:

Again, it's an elitist thing. Under all that nicey-nice decorum shit, is a fundamental belief that they know better than trolls and provocateurs, and they don't.

Oh, hell yes. I'll definitely agree with that elitist call. The more you know, the more you know you don't know. And I would have to be a particularly silly person to think that even a troll didn't have something to bring to the table. Besides, who is a troll? Was Joe "You Lie!" Wilson a troll? Good god, I had a very profound disagreement about that with my conservative brethren. But now Joe Wilson is being vindicated. He was right. Obama lied. Even a Supreme Court justice did the same thing recently, although it was a little tamer. I'm kind to kids, animals, the elderly, and store clerks. (They get shit from the general public all day long and don't need any of mine.) But politicians and other adults can't exempt themselves from a little hard talk and blunt truths. Too often "decorum" is not to keep feelings from being hurt. It's to keep truths from coming out.

What a bunch of cunts at Apple Delusions. Those are creepy people. Always have been.

Have you noticed all the "See....we're not just like the Democrats" coming from the Republican Party now that they're NOT just rolling over and stroking Ted Kennedy? And it's slightly obnoxious and galling to have people such as Rush keep going on about this. Well, of course, now that there is serious outrage by the public against big spending and various other onerous Big Government issues, the sniveling Republicans and their apologists are now saying "We were there all along." But, no, you were not there all along. The current condescending schtick coming from Rush and some others is that all of us (especially Glenn Beck) who were dumping on the Republicans were just dead wrong. But where was the small-taxes, small-government Republican Party two years ago? Four years ago? Six years ago? They weren't there.

It's good to have the Republicans not acting for once like the descendants of FDR. Keep it up. But spare us the crocodile tears about how misunderstood you supposedly are.

Keep in mind the Democratic-Socialist's took control of Congress in 2006. The real spending surge takes place after they took control.

Bush focused his efforts on Iraq and Afghanistan. He had to as the Democratic-Socialist were doing every thing they could to sabotage Iraq and Afghanistan.

What happened to the Republican party was they abandoned Bush after 2006. There was no one left to defend Bush in Congress after the 2006 mid-term elections. Bush was left to work with what he had the corrupt Democratic-Socialist leaders in control of congress.

If you look at the economic numbers up to 2006 employment was running at full capacity. Tax revenues to the Federal government were growing year on year. Once the Democratic-Socialists took control of congress they have driven the country to were we are now. Senate Terrorist Majority leader Reid actually made the statement today extolling the good news that only 36,000 people lost jobs in February.

Liberty...2010.

I can’t make this required reading. But I can make it extra credit. Read this, and you will know who we are fighting in broad terms: the administrative state. It is an object manufactured by the delusion that some people are born all-wise and are beyond corruption, and that they know best. The administrative state is, of course, useful to authoritarians of all stripes, including Marxists and socialists. But it is a creeping assault on American-style liberty no matter who is in control. One of the disingenuous rationales for this creeping administrative state is that supposedly society is just becoming too complex so therefore we need unelected bureaucrats and experts to make many of the decisions. A critic such as me would point out that this creeping administrative state is doing little more that duplicating – and eventually rubbing out – the normal functions that are carried out on the state and local level, and should be. Who said that the Federal government had to do everything?

In many respects, it no longer matters as much which party is in control of government. The government (much like it is in many parts of Europe) is more and more in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. The state marches on and freedom shrinks. In many cases, it’s not high taxes that are our worst problem. It’s the myriad Federal agencies quite literally making up the rules as they go along as they act as legislators, executives, and the judiciary as they think the moment requires. Such unaccountable "administration" that is supposedly beyond mere politics, and thus ultimately supposedly trustworthy, is the rot eating away at one of the most profound aspects of our Constitution: the separation of powers which is the very basis of the rule of law, limited government, and thus our freedoms. Knowing the rules ahead of time is basic to the rule of law. Having the legislative, executive, and judicial powers in separate hands, instead of one, makes it much harder for tyrants of any type to operate. The delusion of administrators, bureaucrats and politicians is that they act only with the best of intentions. History shows otherwise. Power that is not absolute, is distributed, and operates within a system in which the rules are known ahead of time are dangers only to tyrants and the self-deluded. The arbitrariness and unpredictability of the administrative state, perhaps even more than high taxes, is what needs to be rolled back immediately.

Tyranny’s basic definition is arbitrary government. We have that to a great extent now. And you have no idea just what kind of power this new kind of state would have if they get total control of health care. Basically Congress will delegate its authority to various boards, commissions, and deathpanels. There will be no set of rules beforehand that these boards, commissions, and deathpanels have to follow. They’ll just make things up (like they do in other agencies such as the FTC) as they go along. They’re the experts, after all. They know what’s best for us. And how nice that we will not have elected any of them, if we even come to know their names at all.

The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government

by Ronald J Pestritto, Ph.D.

We should take that stinkin' FDR offa the DIME, lol.