"Orange Juice! Politics For The Rest Of Us." - 12 new articles
“Smile, you’re on Candid Camera”Our daughter just called from northern CA to advise me that the Marin County city of Tiburon, located just over the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco, has decided to photograph every vehicle entering this quaint little tourist town. Tiburon, with a population of 8,700, has only two access roads. Apparently the justification for this action is related to an effort to reduce crime. We are about to open Pandora’s box. Any city in the country will look at the outcome of this pending extreme city council action where the privacy of the motorists is being violated under the guise of public safety. I can picture it now. You are driving on public streets that we maintain. We therefore reserve the right to take your photo and license plate data even if you are an innocent visitor or resident. Tiburon today, Santa Ana & Anaheim tomorrow. Following is part of today’s Sac Bee coverage: By MICHELLE LOCKE “As long as you don’t arrive in a stolen vehicle or go on a crime spree while you’re here, your anonymity will be preserved,” said Town Manager Peggy Curran. “We don’t care who you are and we don’t know who you are.” Cameras are already watching Americans as they drive, bank and shop, and police around the country routinely use cameras to enforce speeding and traffic violations and spot stolen cars. Melissa Ngo, a privacy rights attorney and consultant who publishes privacylives.com, said she is not aware of a situation where a town is keeping a record of all visitors. “The point is we live in a land where people are considered innocent until proven guilty,” Ngo said. “Not a land where it’s supposed to be - prove that you’re not doing anything wrong by letting us watch you do everything.” Walking his dogs along Tiburon’s stunning waterfront on a recent sunny morning, Bill McDougal, who lives in nearby Sausalito, was not enthusiastic about the license plate plan. “It’s one more step to Big Brother,” he said. But Brooke Togmazzini, owner of a wine tasting room near the waterfront, said that while she initially had qualms about the system, she has become convinced there are enough safeguards in place to make it nothing more than a useful investigative tool. Curran believes the proposal, expected to go before the Town Council for final approval within a few months, has been misunderstood. If they go forward, officials intend to set clear limitations on how the license plate database can be used. For instance, they said the system will not be used for traffic enforcement, and the data will not be public record - no trying to find out if a spouse has been wandering. The way the system would work is still cameras set up at town entry points will take a photograph of license plates - but not drivers. License plate numbers collected would be erased within 30 to 60 days and would not be viewed unless there is a crime to solve. Officers would search for plates of vehicles in town at the time of the crime that are connected to someone with a criminal history. Any hits would be used as leads. “There’d be just none of the real-time monitoring that people worry about or that we’re somehow wanting to be unfriendly or discourage visitors in any way,” Curran said. Civil liberties groups have concerns about the data being collected on Americans. A 2007 study by California affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union of 131 jurisdictions found that 37 cities in the state had some type of video surveillance program and 18 cities had significant surveillance of public streets and plazas. Lee Tien, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, appreciates Tiburon officials’ efforts to limit the use of the license plate database. But he is still not sold on the idea. “The logic is always, well, wait a minute. If you keep pushing this, then that means we should track everyone just because some people might be bad guys. That’s not the way I think America is supposed to be.” To read the entire Sac Bee story go to the following link: http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/2038420.html
RFID chips for every AmericanAs we await the outcome of the presidents “full court” press on Universal Health care I let my fingers do the walking and ended up at a web site that we need to monitor closely. Let me preface my commentary by saying I am not promoting any stock offerings in any of my posts nor do I own any VeriChip stock. Below my opening comments is a July 6th, 2009 Press Release from VeriChip Corp. Think about the justification, or should I say “spin,” for the government implanting RFID chips into every American as part of our health history tracking as most of us will all be covered in the same health care system. Well, not exactly all of us. You see, members of Congress will still enjoy their own coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) while the rest of us are forced to take their Universal Health care plan. The FDA approved VeriChip RFID chips for human implantation’s back in 2004. If this socialized medicine plan is approved by Congress and signed into law by president Obama, we might see White House health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle mandating these RFID chips being implanted in every American in 2010. Let’s not overlook the fact that Ms. DeParle is but one of three dozen “czars” in the Obama administration who are not subject to any Congressional oversight yet whose boss carries a big stick called “I won” We will ease into selling this concept by using arguments that there may be people in this country who don’t speak the English language who come into hospital emergency rooms for treatment. We need to have access to any of their medical history so as to avoid mistakes in providing correct treatment and drugs. Don’t be surprised. Hospitals will install these RFID tracking chips in babies faster than they are in the arms of the new born’s mother. What other personal data will be placed on the chip? As the inventor and only FDA-cleared implantable RFID microchip, VeriChip uses its medical device for its intended purpose of identifying high-risk patients and their medical records DELRAY BEACH, FL – July 6, 2009 – VeriChip Corporation ("VeriChip" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CHIP), a provider of radio frequency identification (RFID) systems for healthcare and patient-related needs, announced today it supports Pennsylvania's House of Representatives' recent passage of a bill banning the forced implantation of microchips in humans. VeriChip's VeriMed™ Health Link patient identification system, which utilizes an implantable RFID microchip in combination with a handheld RFID scanner and a secure patient database, provides immediate access to important identification and health information for patients who arrive at an emergency department unable to communicate. The VeriMed Health Link system was cleared by the FDA in 2004 as a Class II medical device and is the first and only implantable microchip cleared by the FDA for patient identification. Commenting on the legislation, Scott R. Silverman, Chairman of VeriChip, said, "For years, we, as a Company, have enforced a strict privacy policy that starts with the voluntary use of our VeriMed Health Link patient identification system, which includes our implantable microchip, the VeriChip. The primary application of our VeriMed Health Link patient identification system and the VeriChip microchip is to identify high-risk patients and their medical records in an emergency or clinical situation." Continued Silverman, "In general, we are supportive of legislation that prohibits forced implants. VeriChip, like any other medical device, should be an election by the patient or his or her physician, loved one or guardian. As long as legislators understand the primary application of VeriChip and the benefits it can provide, we support – in fact we started – the voluntary nature of implantable RFID."On Monday, July 6, 2009, VeriChip will issue an additional release explaining in detail the evolution of its VeriMed Health Link patient identification system, and its current and future applications. About VeriChip Gilbert note. As I am not promoting this firm’s products I have deleted their contact information from the Press Release
History Repeats Self: Fullerton Observer Soliciting For City Hall Again
“Gordon’s Folly” Is About Grandstanding, Not Graffiti
(Thomas Gordon, likely Ward 6 city council candidate) Does the city of Santa Ana have a graffiti problem? I think that we are all aware that the answer to that question is a resounding “yes”. Graffiti in my mind is a senseless and a despicable form of vandalism that I would like to see go away. I share the frustration of folks like Thomas Gordon when it comes to the plague graffiti has become on our city. I, like him, wish there were a solution to eradicate it from our lives. My next question is, are putting more laws on the books the answer to solving this problem? My answer to that would be a resounding “no”. We already have laws against graffiti on the books and have for many years and yet the problem continues to get worse. Heck we have the death penalty in California and murders are still committed each day, so are more graffiti laws going to solve this? The problem with the “Gordon” approach is that it is long on punishment and absent of any means of prevention. When you look at the folks pushing this proposal it should not come as a shock that they have taken the approach they have on this. Many of them have been involved in escapades in the past that have led the city into legal problems that have cost the taxpayers plenty. Their attacks on vendor trucks and the unconstitutional closing of streets have landed our city in legal hot water before and where the city lost in court and we lost money. Their new “cause” is graffiti. While it may gain popular support amongst the masses, the question is will it hold up in court? Can you punish someone criminally if they did not commit a crime? If this new ordinance passes will it open up the city to more financial liability and cost the taxpayers more money? Will the ordinance end up costing us more then it saves? You see I don’t believe this whole issue is really about graffiti for the “leaders” of this movement. While sure many involved are doing this for altruistic reasons and because they really do care about our community, I am quite suspect of others. In fact I am quite certain this is nothing more than political grandstanding. Thomas Gordon, the man at the forefront, is planning to run for the Ward 6 seat on the Santa Ana City Council and he wants to use the issue to catapult him to the forefront. He has not taken into consideration the legal ramifications of the so-called ordinance and just believes that it should be implemented, simple as that. Well our elected officials, law enforcement officials and legal experts at the city know it isn’t as simple as that. However if they don’t roll over and pass “Gordon’s Folly” he and his merry band of cohorts will scream and carry on claiming that the city council won’t do anything about graffiti. They are trying to pigeon hole them into supporting this measure. I for one hope that our elected officials show some constraint and don’t take the bait. Be prudent and do the right thing, don’t just appease those looking to make political hay. If we are going to seriously tackle the issue of graffiti we need to look at prevention, not just punishment. During these trying economic times can the city really afford more costly lawsuits that will surely result from “Gordon’s Folly” and is it worth it just so Gordon can grandstand to help his futile attempt at the Ward 6 seat?
What if Tom Daly pulls out of the 4th District Supervisorial race?
Will termed out Supervisor Chris Norby run for the Fullerton City Council if Tom Daly stays put? Orange County is abuzz today with rumors that O.C. Clerk-Recorder Tom Daly is freaking out about all the competition he is facing for the 4th Supervisorial District. I am hearing that he is going to withdraw and stay put in the Clerk-Recorder’s office. But can Daly beat former Deputy Clerk-Recorder Hugh Nguyen? I am not so sure about that now. I think Hugh could take him! Daly is immensely unpopular in his own office, he has zero accomplishments to point to, and he faces a disadvantage as a Democrat in a Republican county. What about Chris Norby, the termed out Supervisor in the 4th District? A blogger over at the Friends for Fullerton’s Future blog postulated in a post today that Norby could end up running for the Fullerton City Council. I think he would win going away - but he would still need a paying job. Hopefully his friends will find him one. He would be a great addition to a Libertarian think thank. But he needs to jettison John Lewis and his other red-faced pals. If Daly stays put and Norby runs for the Fullerton City Council, you have to figure that Fullerton City Councilman Shawn Nelson will sail into Norby’s Supervisorial seat. John Lewis will finally lose his grip on that seat!
The Big, Stinky, Steamy Pile ThreadThis thread is for those who crave posting uncensored, unbridled hostile personal attacks and profanity. All fans of this genre are invited, too! This is the place for you. Have at it.
Red County publisher Chip Hanlon likely now regrets attacking Steven Greenhut, Ron Paul and Libertarians…
Ben Franklin once said that you should never get into an argument with a man who buys ink by the barrel. Nonetheless, Red County publisher Chip Hanlon did exactly that when he attacked not only the O.C. Register’s Steven Greenhut, but also popular Congressman Ron Paul. Hanlon did not like a post that Greenhut wrote about U.S. militarization, but Greenhut was right. Hanlon went on to say that the U.S. military should be “representing U.S. interests overseas.” What does Hanlon do to pay the bills? He is a global investments trader. Aha! Hanlon wants to use the U.S. military to protect his own selfish interests. Now that is typical of the Red County Republicans! Today, Greenhut explained his point of view regarding all of this to the Register’s 300,000 Sunday newspaper readers. I wrote in an earlier post that Hanlon and his red-faced pals had started a war that they could not win. Today Greenhut won it in shock and awe fashion. And wait until the Paul followers here about Chip trashing their guy… Here are a few excerpts from his stirring rebuttal to the now very red-faced Chip Hanlon: Quite simply, as the vanquished GOP struggles to find its voice and reach out to voters, some party activists and right-wing leaders have decided that the real problem isn’t just President Barack Obama, but the small-”l” libertarians who still remain within their midst. Local activists, writing in an establishment GOP Web site, accused me of “jumping the shark” – i.e., of no longer being relevant – because of my July 4 column that poked fun at U.S. military adventurism and the possibly illegal policies of U.S. spy agencies. But it’s not about me, really. The article, written by GOP/Red County honcho Chip Hanlon, uses my column as an example of the supposed extremism and America-hating found within the libertarian movement and takes pot shots at former GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul.
Hanlon goes for the easy straw man: “They argue – with the benefit of hindsight – that we should never have gotten involved in World War II, that Abraham Lincoln is one of history’s worst war criminals … . Their ‘philosophy’ is really pretty simple: Libertarians hate government, period, and the government they hate the most is their own. … When their full belief system is known, however, support of Libertarians like Paul cannot be defended. But folks like Paul are learning, becoming better at hiding their extremist views.” The GOP establishmentarians mocked the (mostly calm) libertarians who commented on such mischaracterizations. One of the Republicans actually blamed libertarians for the GOP’s defeat, as if we’re the ones who had spent the last eight years abusing presidential and congressional powers. Like totalitarians, they invited us to renounce our “extremism,” make a public apology and join their cause to limit government, which is akin to a drunk calling on members of Alcoholics Anonymous to join him at the bar if they really want to fight alcoholism. The GOP can’t claim to fight for smaller government. The Bush administration set spending records, doubled the national debt, vastly expanded Medicare entitlements and waged a costly Iraqi adventure that has caused tragic losses of life. Some of us are tired of believing empty GOP promises, and prefer to look at the dismal record. Some GOP folks claim to be critics of the Bush-era GOP excesses, but I was at the GOP convention and watched them cheer John McCain and even Karl Rove. Since the election, the same GOP that has sung hosannas to the empty vessel of Sarah Palin has gone out of its way to depict supporters of Paul as cultlike camp followers. Unlike Palin’s acolytes, we don’t like Paul because he’s good-looking or tells folksy stories or goes moose hunting or has really cool glasses. We simply like most of the age-old ideas he espouses, as he’s one of the few national figures who still espouses them. It’s about the ideas, not the personality. Yet we’re the crazy people here? Let’s face the obvious. Republicans in Orange County and elsewhere want us to get the hell away from their movement and to stay away. I left the GOP last year for the Libertarian Party and highly recommend it. Sure, the LP is ineffective and a bit odd, of course, but it’s better than being stuck in an unhappy marriage with a mean-spirited, abusive and angry loser of a spouse. Maybe the Red County reaction is proof of the long-awaited and much-needed end of the old Reagan coalition, which was comprised of small-government types, social conservatives and military hawks. The GOP is still home for social conservatives and military expansionists, but there’s nothing left of value for believers in liberty. And I am so sick of all the Reagan idolatry by that side. I like Reagan, but he did, in fact, expand government. His legacy shouldn’t be off-limits to criticism. Who are these people to dictate the political mainstream? The Red County bloggers accuse libertarians of being extremists, and used guilt-by-association tactics to smear libertarians, yet when I pointed out that one prominent writer at the blog, and someone who has joined in the “libertarians are extremists” commenting, has ties to a form of fundamentalist Christianity that wants our society run by Old Testament law, they got all huffy. He says he no longer is a Christian Reconstructionist, which is fair enough. But they miss my point: If I’m held accountable for every view by every libertarian, then they should at least be accountable for views they have expressed in the past and currently publish on their site. I spent some time on Red County following this dust-up and found one occasional columnist arguing, “Domestically, we should rewrite our sedition law, the Smith Act, to the original 1940 standards in order to resist the attempt to establish Islamic law in America. We should follow Russia’s lead in not allowing further building of mosques or Islamic schools in America until Saudi Arabia reciprocates. … Our response to an Islamic challenge could well result in vastly expanded Christian political dominance in America. … If secular America fails to step up and recognize the incompatibility of the Islamic ideology, Christian America certainly will.” Does re-establishing 1940s-era sedition laws and abridging religious freedom sound mainstream to you? Red County also features a diary that called for handcuffing, prosecuting and sentencing to “hard time” corporate executives who hire illegal immigrants – yet another moderate, mainstream position! Who are these people to dictate the political mainstream? The Red County bloggers accuse libertarians of being extremists, and used guilt-by-association tactics to smear libertarians, yet when I pointed out that one prominent writer at the blog, and someone who has joined in the “libertarians are extremists” commenting, has ties to a form of fundamentalist Christianity that wants our society run by Old Testament law, they got all huffy. He says he no longer is a Christian Reconstructionist, which is fair enough. But they miss my point: If I’m held accountable for every view by every libertarian, then they should at least be accountable for views they have expressed in the past and currently publish on their site. I spent some time on Red County following this dust-up and found one occasional columnist arguing, “Domestically, we should rewrite our sedition law, the Smith Act, to the original 1940 standards in order to resist the attempt to establish Islamic law in America. We should follow Russia’s lead in not allowing further building of mosques or Islamic schools in America until Saudi Arabia reciprocates. … Our response to an Islamic challenge could well result in vastly expanded Christian political dominance in America. … If secular America fails to step up and recognize the incompatibility of the Islamic ideology, Christian America certainly will.” Does re-establishing 1940s-era sedition laws and abridging religious freedom sound mainstream to you? Red County also features a diary that called for handcuffing, prosecuting and sentencing to “hard time” corporate executives who hire illegal immigrants – yet another moderate, mainstream position! Click here to read all of Greenhut’s post. What about Ron Paul? Politco.com recently featured him in a post about how Republicans are accepting his domestic policy ideas. Here are a few excerpts from that post: It's a unique time for Paul. With the economy in the tank, the same cable news shows that spurned him during the election now keep asking him on to talk monetary policy. Republican House members are finally voting with him on spending measures. Asked if he feels more embraced by the Republican Party establishment, Paul shrugs and says, “half and half." “I think there’s respect. But they don’t call me in and say, 'What we need to find out from you is how you reach the young people.'” As for soon-to-be departing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Paul dismisses her supporters as “more establishment, conventional Country-Club type of Republicans." “I wonder whether she’s energizing the 15-20 year olds,” Paul muses. “That would be a question I would have. Because she doesn’t talk about the Federal Reserve and some of these issues. She doesn’t talk too much about personal liberties, civil liberties, getting rid of drug laws, attacking the war on drugs, punishing people who torture.” Worse still, he adds, Palinites are partisans: "If Obama was the only one who was guilty, they would be on his case all the time, but there is a lot of partisanship and I am probably less partisan and therefore she is going to appeal to partisan Republicans better." As Paul sees it, such partisanship is the rough equivalent of an old Onion headline, "”Our local area sports team is superior to your local area sports team,” Or as he puts it, "I think when it comes to foreign policy and monetary policy on big spending and watching out for the big corporations, Republicans are Democrats." And then he reverses again crediting Obama for restoring, however unintentionally, Republican principles. "Republicans now are conservatives again" since the election, he says. "They are more consistent in voting against all these spending [measures]. And I kid them, I say, 'are you guys voting with me now or am I voting with you?' "Of course, they would always complain when I voted against Republican spending." The Campaign for Liberty, the grass-roots organization that grew out of Paul’s presidential campaign, has raised over $3 million since last June, attracting some 200,000 members. "It just sort of baffles me,” says Paul, shrinking, as he tends to do, when the notion of his star quality is raised. And as of last week, 271 members of the House – about one-third of them Democrats – have signed onto HR-1207; a measure Paul introduced last February to audit the Federal Reserve.
Yucking it up @ Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church(Photo satire, courtesy of “The Secret Diary of Rick Warren”) This month, Time Magazine has published an article about Rick Warren’s megachurch’s Saturday night Improv-style comedy shows for Christians. In addition to saving souls, Rick Warren is hoping that his church will become a “hub for the arts” like the churches of old, according to his particular brand of history. LINK From the article, ~~~Snip~~~
Well, two bucks will get you into see the show and you even get dessert according to the events calendar.
Don’t Trust Government Control
Santa Ana City Council to discuss proposed anti-graffiti ordinance on Monday
Will Santa Ana Graffiti fighter Thomas Gordon get his way on Monday? Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll. “A proposed law drawn up by community members to combat this city’s chronic graffiti problem will get an initial hearing before the City Council on Monday,” according to the O.C. Register. The meeting is open to the public and begins at 6 p.m. in the Police Department’s community room, 60 Civic Center Plaza. I can understand the anger towards graffiti - but we already have laws on the books and guess what? The taggers don’t care. And the cops don’t arrest them and the city doesn’t prosecute them. Why does anyone think that a batch of new laws will make a damn bit of difference? Instead of addressing the underlying rot in our city, the Usual Suspects advancing the new anti-graffiti ordinance want to put a band aid on the problems and pretend that will help. It won’t. How many new parks have we opened in the last five to ten years? How many new libraries have we opened? How many new affordable housing units have we built in Santa Ana? Poverty leads to hopelessness. Hopelessness leads to despair. Despair leads to crime. Passing more laws to punish kids who don’t have career paths and who don’t see a future worth living for won’t help. I have said this before and it bears repeating - how about setting up free art classes in the Artists Village and inviting taggers to take these classes? How many Andy Warhols will we miss out on as they spiral downwards in lives of crime for a lack of opportunity? Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido has tried for over twenty years to gentrify his way out of this mess. Hey Pulido - new tennis courts and a publicly financed Artists Village won’t help - not when you exclude the very people who need the most help. Pretending these problems don’t exist is not a solution!
Hypocritical Republicans flip flop on “UPS Brown Bailout” after getting paid $2 million
“The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group's support in a bitter legislative dispute, then the group's chairman flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay,” according to Politico.com. What a bunch of whores! This is the group run by Grover Norquist. By backing UPS they are taking the union side of this equation. UPS is trying to use the government to screw their competitor, Fed Ex. This is a brown bailout! Do conservative Republicans stand for anything anymore? Fed Ex already has a union deal. The UPS Brown Bailout would force them to negotiate separate union pacts everywhere they do business. There is no good reason to do that to Fed Ex! “For the $2 million plus, ACU offered a range of services that included: "Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU's Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACU's board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)" Doesn’t that remind you of Matt “Jerbal” Cunningham using his Red County blog to pimp for candidates who have him on their payroll? In the most recent example of this U.S. Rep. John Campbell made Jerbal his paid twit. Jerbal was hired to post on Twitter for Campbell. And, as Steven Greenhut has pointed out, Red County has become an advertisement for Campbell. Jerbal also wrote an op-ed in the O.C. Register this week slamming a plastic bag tax. I still don’t know if he got paid to write that by the Plastic Bag Association, but you have to wonder… Republicans = Greedy Unethical Hypocritical Losers!
What it is to be Anti-Americanhypocrisy hy·poc·ri·sy (hĭ-pŏk’rĭ-sē) This word gets used incorrectly far too frequently. Hypocrisy is a charge that can be levelled only when the individual has been caught saying one thing and doing another - without apology. “You should never tell a lie” is a pretty common ideal. No one likes a liar. Many people would hold that, as an ideal, you shouldnt lie. But when the moment comes that the truth will hurt someone else more than a lie, aren’t you inclined to do it? And dont you still hold the ideal that one should never tell a lie? Then you cannot be called a hypocrite. You are INCONSISTENT. If you hold that everyone in your family should go to church on Sunday, but after dropping your kids off you sneak off to the Sports Bar, are you a hypocrite? Suppose your neighbor knows your rule and runs into you? If you are unapologetic, and you only tell your kids that so they’ll go, you’re a hypocrite. If you feel bad and dont do it again, you are INCONSISTENT.
In fact, hypocrisy is intensely personal. You have to know the inner mind of the person, that they say one thing and will do another and do not think what they said was the ideal, to use the term, in the first definition. And you have to know the mind of the person and witness the event in the second definition. The price of hypocrisy is insincerity to oneself. If one is to accept the use of hypocrite as the left today defines it, everyone is a hypocrite. The only one who espoused any ideal - at all - without being a hypocrite was Jesus when he walked the earth. And the modern leftist feels very secure in using this term with abandon, because they have no individual ideals to falter on. They only have “good intentions”. From a psychoanalysis point of view, the use of the term hypocrisy by the left in this way actually turns the definition on its head. Self honesty, for instance, is one of the virtues that are most important in helping people to act morally. If there is self honesty, then it is INSCONSISTENCY, as opposed to hypocritically supposing that good intentions are sufficient. The title of this article is “What it is to be Anti American”. Herein, I will render that definition. Anti-American DOES NOT HAVE TO MEAN AGAINST AMERICA. Definitionally, the word means: “opposed … to the United States of America, its people, its principles, or its policies.” I will use the term as referring to its principles. That leads to opposing its policies and its people, in general. Then we must define the first word in that definition. Opposed: “to set against in some relation, esp. as to demonstrate a comparison or contrast: to oppose advantages to disadvantages.” So when I say Anti-American, FROM NOW ON, what I mean is: you are to the United States of America as disadvanatage is to advantage. In essence, the opposite, or as the case may be, the antithesis. As an individual, you can live in the greatest, freeest, most racially harmonious, most giving, most concerned with stomping out injustice in the rest of the world, most inspired to believe in individual ideals and the fundamental pursuit of those ideals in search of a better world, society, and not accept any of those facts about your country and not pursue any individual ideals, and still love your country because of all that it gives you. Howls of indignation and protest are starting to form. Just stay with me. You may not be able to argue with me when I am done. If you are on the Left, lets be honest here. I cant think of a person on the left who can be called a hypocrite, except possibly the gray listing of conservatives in Hollywood, and there are exceptions. But given the previous definition, that also means that there isnt a single instance of leftist individual idealism. Oh, you have ideals. Dont get me wrong. I could talk about the “hypocrisy” (using your definition) of: 1. Gay Marriage If you pursue gay marriage in the name of equality, you are a hypocrite. 2. Taxes If you pursue higher taxes in the name of equality, you are a hypocrite. 3. Iraq Leftists have a problem with the fact that 29,000,000 now live in a newborn democracy, in that it took American action to do it. They talk about intentions, and cost, and judgement, and meanwhile, 29,000,000 have the right to vote without the burden of a minority fascist state watching over them. I’m beginning to miss what that felt like… And in the meantime, they will haul the military out for meals on wheels in Haiti and bomb Serbians trying to repel invaders, and act as if the UN remains a beacon of truth and justice. Or, better yet, they oppose the war because we “didnt go into North Korea, the Sudan, the Congo, East Timor and Tibet.” That is an exhibition of the falseness of their position. If you oppose the war in Iraq but think the United States has good to do in the world, you are a hypocrite. 4. Slavery The country was founded in part to expand liberty and eliminate the scourge of slavery. What existed was accomodated otherwise there would have been no complete country. Moreover, it was Americas actions that eliminated slavery in its forms around the world - from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli. If you advocate the existence of America and maintain that America owes some apology for slavery, you are a hypocrite. And the list goes on… But these are COLLECTIVE IDEALS. SOCIAL IDEALS, if you will. They are not individual ideals. They are not ideals YOU YOURSELF have to live up to. It is an ideal for society. And if society doesnt reach it, well, its just not there yet. There are just a few more people we have to bring on board, we have to get on the same page, we have to re-educate, we have to convince, before it works right. Cause it wont work right if everyone isnt involved! Authors note: THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF FAILURE. And here is where the original American vision comes into conflict with your modern Leftist. Its because those personal, individual ideals were the key to making everyone work. They were the key to cooperation, to safety, security and prosperity. Not rules and regulations and, if they dont work, well, we’ll just make some more! So the ideals of prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude dont dissipate because we dont reach them. E Pluribus Unum, Liberty and In God We Trust continue to be our guiding visions. Those who do not share them and think that anyone who does is a hypocrite - because, as I said, everyone will fall short except the lord - then they are the opposite of what made America great. They scream hypocrisy not because of the speaker of the ideal but the ideal themselves. They are your Anti American. But its more than that. In fact, I believe it is that, if I am speaking to a Leftist, you lack the strength or the will to hold these ideals. And if you do, you lack the same to profess them. That would hold you up to the same specious charge, since you will, eventually, be INCONSISTENT. So you would rather hold no ideals up to the individual, but to the state. And pursue your utopian fantasies ad nauseum.
|
Click here to safely unsubscribe now from "Orange Juice! Politics For The Rest Of Us." or change your subscription or subscribe
Unsubscribe from all current and future newsletters powered by FeedBlitz
| Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 |
0 коммент.
Post a Comment