Monday, October 31, 2005

Libertarian or Liberal

I am not sure if it is due to the nearness of spelling or simply an underlying ignorance of the issues, but I have come across more than just a few of my fellow Americans who are somewhat confused as to the difference between a ‘Libertarian’ and a ‘Liberal’. If you are one of these, let me assure you that there is, in fact, quite some difference. And I, being the compassionate humanitarian that I am, will in this lecture attempt to educate the unenlightened among you.
So class sharpen your pencils, get out your notebooks, and put your thinking caps on. Let us begin...
1) Libertarians do not trust government, but neither do Liberals. So what is the difference here, you ask? Well, it is in the reaction to this distrust. The Libertarian does not trust government so he wants less of it. The Liberal does not trust government, but demands more.
2) Libertarians see the instituting of more and more laws as an affront to the law abiding. Liberals feel every new law will surely cause wrongdoers to change their evil ways.
3) Libertarians understand life is difficult, always has been, and accept it thus. Liberals feel any discomfort is reason for another Federal program.
4) Libertarians believe a man’s change of condition and circumstance must come from the inside. Liberals feel it should be coerced by some external force.
5) Libertarians buy into the idea of independence. Liberals sell dependence.
6) Libertarians believe in sacrifice. Liberals demand imposition.
7) Libertarians believe in personal responsibility. Liberals believe in shared responsibility.
8) Libertarians believe all men are equal. Liberals feel white men are evil.
9) Libertarians believe all men are equal. Liberals feel some men are less so.
10) Libertarians believe freedom is worth fighting for. Liberals, rather, feel appeasement is.
11) Libertarians believe each man spends his own money most wisely. Liberals feel some stranger in Washington has the best interest of their hard earned money at heart.
12) Libertarians believe The U.S. Constitution is a sacred document. Liberals feel the same about the EU Constitution. Although definitely not about the Iraqi Constitution.
13) Libertarians believe a man answers only to himself. Liberals feel he answers to each of his comrades.
14) Libertarians believe hard work creates wealth. Liberals feel the need to forcefully take and redistribute that very same wealth.
15) Libertarians believe capitalism creates wealth. Liberals feel capitalism creates injustice.
16) Libertarians believe you can have their guns when you pry them from their cold dead hands. Liberals feel it is time to establish a Federal Department of Corpse Disarming.
17) Libertarians believe taxes are their own money. Liberals feel taxes are the government’s money.
18) Libertarians believe big corporations are institutions of employment. Liberals feel all corporations are evil.
19) Libertarians believe safety is a personal responsibility. Liberals feel safety should be dictated.
20) Libertarians believe government should work for the governed. Liberals feel the governed should work for the government.
21) Libertarians believe the Legislature enacts law. Senator Dick Durbin feels it is a Jurist’s duty.
Well class, that’s it for today. And don’t forget your homework assignments...chapters 1 through 3, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Some Thoughts on Character

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”-Martin Luther King, Jr.
With all the race bating and all the marketing of dependency coming out the mouths of the so called leaders of the Million More March, I was reminded of these words. Of these words that stir the American soul. These words that ring of justice. Of right.
What is race, but melanin? What is color, but pigment?
So yes, it is the character of a man that names him great. Or deems him contemptible.
Character which earns him respect. Or christens him with dishonor.
So what exactly is character? What are its qualities? From whence does it arise?
As you may have surmised, I have some thoughts on this issue.
The man of character is self reliant. He wears his independence as a badge for he understands that it is from independence that true freedom arises. And understands as well, from dependence, tyranny. He asks not more that he is equal to give in return. Yet he expects and demands men be greater than themselves.
The man of character understands sacrifice. Understands there is a price to be paid for success. Understands he is, in the end, responsible. For his family, his life, his thoughts, his circumstance.
The man of character has honed self control. He avoids excess in thought, word, and action. He acts today, but plans long term.
The man of character is a creature of respect. He gives it until it is no longer earned. He treats man and Earth as he treats himself. His kindness is borne from his respect.
The man of character is honest. He speaks from knowledge only. Emotion is preserved for his family and friends, it has no place in his words and opinions. He speaks and lives only in truth. Not as he wants it, but just as it is. He is a realist. He accepts and appreciates reality.
The man of character is thankful. He understands the root of envy. Understands the root of hate. He is thankful for his life and circumstance, thus he is impregnable.
The man of character accepts control of his life. If it is not as he wishes, it is his obligation to change it. He understands he is, in the end, responsible. Not another, not government, but himself. He sees that life begins anew each moment and his future circumstance can be altered by the force of his will.
The man of character strives to be better. He is unceasingly curious. Eternally self-correcting. He is open, but skeptical. Confidant, yet humble.
In the end, character is an internal arrow pointing in the direction of right. It is not inborn, but rather won through constant inner struggle. Although internal, it can be recognized easily enough when encountered. We have nearly all met men we have instantly regarded as great. Men who have sparked us to aim for something higher. Not men of one color or another, but men of character.
I will end with these words from Abraham Lincoln that speak on the judgement of character,
"Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.”

Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Kerry's Union Democracy

John F. SKerry is at it again. There is an old saying that goes something like, ‘It is better to say nothing and be thought ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.’ Might want to think about those words, Senator Kerry.

Senator Kerry is speaking out against a California ballot initiative on union dues backed by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Kerry says the measure could end up depriving working people of having a say in politics.

What could the long faced senator from Massachusetts be ‘speaking out against’, you ask?
Proposition 75 would require public employee unions to seek written permission from members before using dues for political purposes.

Or as puts it...
Proposition 75 would force [italics mine]public employee unions, such as those representing teachers, firefighters and prison guards, to seek written permission from members before using dues for political purposes.

Hmm, so Mr. Kerry is against union members having a choice as to whether their own money, taken as dues, is to be spent on political issues or not? You actually think a worker should cede his right to choose to some fat cat union CEO, John? Seems pretty un-Democratic to me, Senator Kerry. Oh, but alas, I am mistaken...
"This represents part of an ongoing effort by the Republican Party to create an unfair playing field, to change the balance of democracy in America," Kerry said.
"They are willing to try to take away the democratic rights of working Americans."

Alright, you have said enough you blathering idiot. Let's hear from someone who is actually affected by business as usual union politics...
"My money goes one way, and I go the other,'' complained Lillian Perry, a sixth- and seventh-grade social studies teacher from Fontana (San Bernardino County) who said she was a Republican and is concerned that her union, the California Teachers Association, supports too many Democratic candidates and causes.

What of this 'working Americans' 'democratic rights', senator? Could it be that Democracy is only for those in the Democratic party, Mr. Heinz? Ah, but don't answer that, you might have to open your mouth.

Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes

Friday, October 14, 2005

My Tax Plan

To say I was disappointed with the cowardly, business-as-usual outcome of the recent ‘Federal Tax Reform Panel’ would be somewhat of an understatement. With the revolutionary Fair Tax Plan floating about, the members of the commission had a great opportunity to press for a tax system based on the freedom of choice we Americans ostensibly say that we so long for. But alas, this was not to be the case. Instead, they opted for the status quo. It probably need not be said, but the stance of this commission simply sickens me. And it bolsters my already simmering suspicion of all things Big Government.
But I am, if anything, resilient. So I have decided to get back up, brush myself off, and align myself with the ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’ crowd.
It is obvious that the power brokers and tax pimps in Washington will never be open to a tax system designed to reward the producers and punish the leeches. So, as of this writing, I have officially jumped on board the ‘let’s tax the rich’ crew.
In this light, I have come up with a tax system any intellectually honest moonbat would have no choice but adore. It is a system based on taxing those benevolent, evil creatures the Left loves to smear with the dreaded tag of ‘the rich’. ‘We have that now,’ you say? I beg to differ. What we have now, in our present ‘income tax’, is a system that mistakenly and naively taxes only one’s income. I have a better plan. A plan that actually will hit those loathsome rich where they live, literally. We should no longer simply tax ‘income’, we should instead tax all accrued ‘wealth’. Yes, you read it right, all ‘wealth’.
If we really wish a progressive tax burden on those who can truly afford it, we must tax those American’s who truly hold the most ‘wealth’. If a man makes one hundred thousand dollars a year and blows it all on crack, is this man rich? Is this man wealthy? No, of course he is not. But a politician or actor, let’s say, who claims a pittance of taxable income, yet has an accrued wealth in the tens of millions; is this man rich? Is this man wealthy? Yes, surely he is. And is this not the very individual who, in a Progressive society, should bare the brunt of our Federal tax burden? Well, yes of course it is.
So here’s my plan...
Every possession owned by an individual is tallied as part of that individuals accrued wealth. These include, but are not limited to, cash, bank accounts, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, vehicles, residential and commercial property, personal property, intellectual property, and all other tangible assets. A total ‘personal wealth’ is then established and the citizen is taxed accordingly.
And here is how. We begin with a 2% tax on the first $100,000. Then for every $100,000 of accrued wealth held by an individual, his/her tax rate is raised another 2%. With a final cap of taxation on the wealthiest individual of 75%. Any higher just wouldn’t be right, would it?
So let us look a little closer, an American with a combined wealth of $100,000 or less will only pay 2% in federal taxes. Not bad. But then an evil fat cat CEO with accrued wealth of $2,000,000 will pay 40% on that wealth per year, or $800,000 each and every tax cycle.
Talk about evening the playing field. In a mere three years Mr. Enron will be in the red and living under a bridge in New Orleans. C’mon now Lefties, you gotta love that.
It’s in your genes, Libs, you just gotta fancy a tax on the truly wealthy, right? And I’m sure all your pseudo-socialists friends, living off their trust funds, who have never earned a pay check in their lives, and thus not ever paid a dime in income taxes, will love it as well. As will those actors, musicians, and talking heads who so often harp on how we average Americans need to be more socially compassionate. I am sure John Kerry and his glamourous bride, Teresa, will praise my plan’s Progressive foundation. As will all the Kennedys, the Gores, and all that ‘old’ money. Even Jesse Jackson would have to be on board with my ‘hit The Man where it huts’ tax program.
And to my Right-wing pals, wouldn’t it be nice to finally hit those annoying old money career politicians, idiot Hollywood gas bags, and race/envy baiting tax whores where it pains them the their pocketbooks?
All that said, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if my idea can gain any momentum. That is, if all the comrades and hypocrites with the real wealth will ever actually get on board. But let’s just say, I’m not ‘withholding’ my breath.

Friday, October 07, 2005

Means to an End

Bill Bennet is a decent man. An honest, decent man. Any person who would actually take the time to listen to his radio show could not, in all honesty, deny this.
However, there are those for whom ‘honesty’ is merely a combination of letters and not (thank you , Bill) a ‘virtue’. Those who believe truth matters little when objectives are considered. Those who believe that the ends always justify the means.
This is the exact idea Mr. Bennet was arguing against, when he stated on his morning show, “I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."
But his argument was ignored by the MSM, as was the context of his statement. They saw a chance to attack a Conservative and since ‘Conservative’ equals evil in their eyes, they pounced on it.
One could argue that possibly the media outlets who ran with the most base and dishonest of the personal attacks, did so without all the information. Information like the actual words Mr. Bennet used. Or information involving his personal thoughts and feelings on abortion in the first place. But this would be a rather shaky argument. At best, it shows a lack of any journalistic integrity by the authors of these stories as they did not even put in the minimum amount of investigative initiative that this, or any story for that matter, requires. And at worst, it shows a massive liberal slant looming in the hearts of those involved in the acquiring and distributing of what today passes as news.
It is a sad state in which our media now finds itself. Lusting so strongly for a utopian, Progressive America that truth, responsibility, and integrity are tossed to the wayside. The very ‘virtues’ that had delivered the trust of the American people to the news media in the first place are now being simply dismissed. Dismissed in lieu of a desire to implement a Liberal agenda. Should it surprise any of us then, that to the media in this case and many others, the ends surely justify the means.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Tonight on (A)nything (B)ut (C)onservative


Don’t miss what the critics are calling ‘the best new drama’ on television.
The show James Goa’uld of The New York Times calls, “ with an in your face red-state Christian zealots attitude” and NPR’s Dennis Cuss lauds as, “Finally, at long last, one of the big three networks has the balls to open the country’s eyes to some liberal ideas.”
It’s the program all America will be talking about.
Tonight on ABC 8:00 Eastern and 7:00 Central, there will be a female Chief Justice. Barbara Streisand stars in Commander and Chief Justice.
When a Republican president’s black female Libertarian candidate dies in a mysterious drowning accident in Massachusetts, he is forced to pick a stealth nominee as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Unknown to him and his fascist regime, she is a closet Liberal.
Don’t be the only one at the water cooler who didn’t see the premier Howie Crosenburger of The LA Times describes as, “The drama that screams to Karl Rove, ‘Keep your greasy hands off my uterus, you damn dirty ape!’” and that Roger Dilbert of The Chicago Sun-Times calls, “...the story of a menopausal super-legislator...with a fallopian attitude. Roe vs. Wade? I’d spend time in the gene pool with this nominee any day of the week!”
Barbara Streisand in her first television role plays Henrietta Spiers, a virtually unknown barrister with her eyes on Washington and a drive to get her country back.
“It’s time we as Supreme Court Justices step up and both make and enforce the laws necessary for the progress of our nation towards a Utopian future and away from the jack booted fascism of Conservatism. As Chief Justice I vow to feed and care for our ‘living constitution’ until we as comrades live in a country of Social Justice and collectivist equality.”
“Bab’s was born for this role!” raves Fred Dibble of The Boston Globe.
And Geena Davis, star of ABC’s newest hit show Commander in Chief states, “Now with a woman President and a woman Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, my ground breaking network is leading the way in estrogen driven dramas. By the way, my friend Cameron Diaz is looking for work...better watch your P’s and Q’s Dennis Hastert.”
So grab some popcorn, a copy of the Communist Manifesto, sit back, and enjoy ABC’s latest critic's favorite drama...Commander and Chief Justice!

Thank You, Walter Cronkite

I’ve often suspected this to be true. That they must be in touch with some powerful, deeper wisdom that my shallow common sense mired mind simply cannot grasp. But now I have the ultimate proof. No less an expert than Walter Cronkite has at long last opened my mind to the fundamental truth.
We're an ignorant nation right now. We're not really capable I do not think the majority of our people of making the decisions that have to be made at election time and particularly in the selection of their legislatures and their Congress and the presidency of course. I don't think we're bright enough to do the job that would preserve our democracy, our republic. I think we're in serious danger.

Yes, at last I have come to grips with reality. It seems I, along with ‘the majority of our people’, are simply too ignorant to be allowed to vote. On the positive side, that would eliminate me from any responsibility for the negative outcomes of my past voting record. Right, Walter?
And by pointing out my ignorance, Mr. Cronkite, you have opened my eyes to the fact that you and your fellow Liberal elites have always been my betters. You have forced me to reexamine those bits of God given wisdom that many of your Leftist friends are so deeply invested in and as you will see, I have learned a lot...
-Appeasement most always leads to peace. I checked the history books on this one and except for a few anomalies such as WWII, the fall of the Roman Empire, the West’s reaction to the Bolshevik/Communist revolution, Clinton’s dismissal of terrorist attacks, Israel’s attempts to mollify the Palestinians, and a few others, appeasement has almost always nearly virtually just about worked.
-Lack of choice in public education leads unarguably to excellence. OK, so our math and science scores continue to tumble, but now with books from our neighbors in Singapore, I’m sure our kids will be just fine. And the NEA is all about educating our children, right?
-Abortion raises the character of women. Beyond it’s positive psychological effects, abortion’s pro-woman connotation surely makes one a better person. Sure the Constitution guarantees ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’, but this so-called ‘life’ protection is most definitely overruled by the ‘penumbra of an emanation’ of a ‘right to privacy’.
-The underclass are not our equals. Well that explains the need for affirmative action. And funding of the myriad of social programs such as welfare, medicare, and all the other miscellaneous entitlements the poor and underprivileged just can’t live without.
-Raising taxes increases the cash in government coffers. So what if tax cuts increased the money flowing to Washington under JFK, Reagan, and now G.W.. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Or three times as the case may be.
-Poverty is solely an economic problem. To say a person’s life style influences their lot in life would be judgmental. How obvious could it be that a man who works hard, studies arduously, and avoids bad behavior deserves no more in his life than an unemployed drug addicted drop out. To expect more for one than the other would be unjust, wouldn’t it?
-Compassion is just one of the things Government does so well. Heck, I pay my taxes, why should I still have to make personal contributions when the federal government takes such great care of its citizenry? I should have compassion for my comrades, I just need to funnel it through Washington.
-Socialism ennobles the soul. Yes, when all men no matter what their merit are deemed equal, all men’s dignity and pride must surely then be equivalent. Hence all nobility finds a single level. Then we merely need to name that level as the penultimate. So I guess Socialism not only ennobles the soul, but leads to the gift that is euphemism.
-Testosterone is the root of all evil. It must be destroyed in all its various forms. The feminization of America means a stronger America. We must always fight against the male and for the female...ending at our borders, of course.
-Disciplining children kills individuality. We should always allow our children vast amounts of freedom to act out however, wherever they like. Any other way would surely destroy their true nature, personality, and understanding of self.
-Religious people are not to be trusted. Just as those who trust in absolutely nothing must always absolutely be trusted. And we are all aware that Christian fundamentalists are just as dangerous as Muslim fundamentalists.
-Enlightenment means moral relativism. There is no evil, just unfortunate circumstances. Well, except for Bush and his cronies and the giant corporations...they are evil.
-Utopia is plausible and Government can end all danger. All we need do when something goes awry or disaster befalls us is simply make another law or two. Look how well this has worked so far.
-The Living and/or Minimum Wage are good for the poor. Sure they increase unemployment and artificially raise prices, but for the poor who actually are able to keep their jobs and afford the inflationary prices, life is oh so much better.
These are just a few of the things I have learned thanks to you showing me the pure ignorance of my ways, Walter. I only hope there is some way I can repay you for opening my once Conservative eyes.
Ah, who am I kidding Wallie, you’re an ass and the only Leftie I would ever vote for is Randy Johnson, and that would be for The Baseball Hall of Fame.

Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes