Posts Tagged ‘liberalism’

Liberalism As Praised By Jezebel

April 21, 2014 Leave a comment

LiberalismToday’s post finds another short, aging, Jezebel post, which incestuously mentions a Jezebel commenter as its muse. With it, the website glorifies liberalism – that good, old, leftist orientation, as well as the ignorance and laughably clueless nature that so many have come to expect from Jezebel.

Liberalism and its issues

The woeful commenter would like to skip over the obvious fact that taxes are not money owned by the taxpayer. This leads me to wonder – if there any point at which money is “owned” by the person holding it? If so, then it is, indeed, their money. If not, then why are people who have been robbed, filing out police reports for theft of their property? Why is a crime to steal banks’ money in a hold-up? Why is accepting a bribe a crime? After all, if the politician does not own the money given to him, how can it be claimed that the money (owned by who-knows-who) is meant to promote the Congressman’s benevolence in a certain direction?
Tellingly, the commenter wishes seriously, that people would merely give up on their belief that earned money was “theirs”, instead of defending her point that the money is not theirs…

Further illustrating liberalism’s attempt to warp logic as well as the language, the commenter points out that people willingly pay power companies to keep the lights on, and that they willingly pay grocery stores to obtain food. Never mind that those are still both voluntary transactions, and that government taxation is backed by a threat of force for non-compliance – liberalism need not mention such meaningless details when there is a narrative to invent and promote. There is also the ability to shop for different power suppliers and grocery stores if one or another’s services does not meet a consumer’s desired level of service or return on their investment — but again, who needs such thoughtful details?


Why The Left Doesn’t Want Safe Schools

December 22, 2012 5 comments

Who would have a problem with police in schools?

The recent rampage in Newport, Connecticut has the entire country talking about gun rights, safety, and the protection of young, innocent schoolchildren. Fixing the woeful measures of school protection, is a commonly held belief, across politics of all stripes.  How best to protect those schoolchildren, however, has any number of suggestions, and just as many critics.

Many centrists and most Republicans support the placing of armed police, either active or retired, in schools.  The reasoning goes, as police, they have received plenty of training, both with firearms, and with person-to-person interactions. Met with a threat, police’s first instinct is surely not carelessly to open fire – that is the last option, when talking and negotiating have proven ineffective. Trained to use words first, and lethal force last, is how the police operate.

While thinking about that, and attempting to find problems and flaws with police in schools, I may have inadvertently found a reason why some progressives do not want cops in schools. Much progressive rhetoric relies on the belief that authority is inherently bad, and it should always be questioned, and sometimes engaged physically.

I think here lies the crux of their problem with police in schools. How on earth could police officers who provide safe learning environments be a bad thing? While there are some progressives who actually fear the inanimate object that is a firearm, seeing a mature, responsible authority figure at school with that firearm, would tear down tenets of the progressive orthodoxy.

Students would see and interact with a policeman everyday, learning that police are not the overbearing monsters that many on the left would have the public believe. Add to that the effect of a sidearm tucked safely away in a holster, and the child learns that the gun is not the randomly-firing, crazy-tool-with-a-mind of its own, either. Opposing police in schools also creates a problem with many progressives’ claim that only highly-trained, responsible, licensed people should be allowed to have firearms at all.

If you allow children to see this same responsibility daily, and the children also grow to respect the policemen as more than just an authority (as someone who has sworn to place his own life in between the children’s’ lives and any threat) and you would cause all sorts of short-circuiting with liberal narratives. The schoolchildren will experience cognitive dissonance between the media who love to show the most atrocious police stories possible, and the friendly school protector. The children will also be able to ask the policeman questions and learn from him.

Once that sort of erosion of progressive dogma starts – where would it end? The progressives, already outnumbered, might be forced to defend more of their often illogical and baseless claims, in futile attempt to remain relevant. Why it could be the end of the entire progressive false reality. To me, the positives far outweigh the imagined negatives, and the course is clear – show the children we care enough to protect them from both evil threats, and the misguided progressive claim that guns are inherently evil, and that people should not be able to protect themselves.

Are You Tired Of Standing For Something?

March 29, 2012 Leave a comment
Progressive Evolution

The "evolution" of the progressive

…then become a progressive Democrat. It is such a simple solution to the trying problems of our times. Imagine being able to revert to a near-childhood state of mind, and a juvenile sense of responsibility! Oh, if only we could – but, those mean old Republicans, with their responsibility, and reality…Darn those buzzkills!

Having a shrinking ability to determine reality from fantasy, the progressive movement has made the most of its past few years in positions of power in the United States government. From the time Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ran rough-shod over the country in the U.S. Congress, along with Barack Obama’s continuing “leadership”,  to the on-going fantastical, fanatical stories reported in the mainstream media, there has not been a story that they have not tried to spin wildly to their own benefits. Even when the progressive politicians have sought to relay a legitimate story, or seemingly valid concern, they seem to be guilty of sins of omission or finger pointing. I am honestly beginning to wonder if progressives either cannot deal with the truth, or if we have reached a point where they are now simply refusing to deal with the truth.

In just the last few years, we have seen a “surprise” healthcare bill. Liberals passed it through various tricks and legislative maneuvers. Giddy with the outcome, Nancy Pelosi, admitted she herself did not know exactly what the bill contained, and that we would find out soon enough. In short order, Americans everywhere tore through the legislation, and found the many problems and sketchy funding mechanisms employed within. The best things that have come from the entire mess are; the humongous amount of political capital wasted by Congressional Democrats and Obama, and how many seats that they lost in the 2010 election, and last, but certainly not least – the creation of a reinvigorated American political force – the Tea Party.

In just the last few months, we have seen a woman, paraded in front of cameras for a hearing in Washington, to gin up support for women’s healthcare. After faulting her Catholic University (Georgetown) for not covering her prophylactics, the mainstream media changed to try to claim she wanted other woman’s reproductive issues and medications covered (despite her repeated testimony referring to “birth control”). More details came out, and it was revealed that she was not the poor, struggling college student that she was billed as by the media, but was in fact, a 30 year old law student, with a long history of activism. Progressives looking for some sympathy, were forced to change their narratives.

In just the last few weeks, we have seen a young man, now in hiding, due to threats on his life, and another associated young man having lost his life. People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were quick to arrive on the scene, and point toward what they were positive were the problems with the case – racist, shoddy police work, and a sociopathic, racist killer. The first stories from the media were that the white man (George Zimmerman) killed the other young man (Trayvon Martin) simply because he was black. They would have us believe it was a simply cut-and-dried case of racism rearing its ugly head. Except, again, the media got it horribly wrong. The white man was actually a Hispanic, and he may have been defending himself – not seeking a certain target to murder, based solely on their race. To try and keep the manufactured narrative alive a little longer, we have seen in the past few days, the explanation that Trayvon may have lost his life because he wore a hoodie, and a Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson explained Trayvon was “executed for WWB in a GC”. Slowly but surely, progressives seeking to cash in on the tragedy are being forced again, to change their narratives.


Geraldo Rivera blames hoodies for the Trayvon tragedy

We have seen GOP legislators chased out of their offices by both their own party, as well as by an opposition, who smelled blood in the water, and thought they could make some political points from the mess – capturing a “soft” seat, or illustrating how terrible the other party is. Not having to follow a pesky code of conduct or code of honor, or not holding many ethical considerations, and barely meeting any legal requirements, must be a very freeing life for progressives. Having media that seeks to exonerate you, rather than hold you responsible for anything you have done, must be nice too.

The Commander In Chaff

August 21, 2011 Leave a comment

No, that is no typo – “chaff” seems like the perfect descriptor for this president.  It is the stuff that is discarded from seeds and grains, which blows which-ever way the winds take it.  It serves no real purpose, and seems only to complicate harvesting and increase harvest times and efforts.  His predilection for “leading from behind” (when he does take action) continues to rankle an America who is not used to cowering and stalling.  He has separated himself from Bill Clinton, by seeming to throw complete concern of poll numbers to the gutter (by the way, his job-approval, according to Gallup, is at an all-time low).  He and his subordinates like to remind us that “Congressional numbers are even lower”, as if that makes his own lackluster administration stand out.  His recent “listening tour” was turned into a disaster when a voter asked him why his vice-president, Joe Biden, smeared Tea Partiers, likening them to the types of people that brought down the Trade Towers.  For his part, Obama said the voter needed to listen to him, and then proceeded to tell him what he heard, never happened.

President Do-Nothing

"Ugh...I have a splitting headache"

It is amazing that the three bodies’ approval numbers are so low, but I remind you that the numbers reflect the wonderful “compromise” that they all delivered to the country via their raised debt ceiling deal.  The right complains their representatives gave too much, and the left says the right was playing politics.  While the sniping continues, the country goes on, trying to make sense of their paychecks or how they will make their next payroll with nothing but uncertainty from Washington.  The country begs for anything even remotely resembling certitude, and all they receive is lip-service and snark from the likes of Jay Carney.  The president’s election strategy seem to be wholly reliant upon tearing down anyone else running for the office of president, rather than running on any accomplishments of his own.  He can try to run on finally finding, and killing, Osama Bin Laden, but the American people seem to give credit where it is actually due (to Seal Team Six), rather than to the guy who merely gave the raid the thumbs up.  He could attempt to run on either a budget or his Healthcare, but the democrat-controlled Senate has not passed a budget in forever, and the healthcare fiasco is hugely unpopular.  With an anemic economy, he has nothing to run on there, either.  It is either tear-down others, or throw in the towel. Simple as that.

If the president is counting on support from his most staunch supporters from his first election, the young, college crowd, he may be barking up the wrong tree too.  How does he expect to garner support from the young college student crowd, when they are suddenly faced with thousands of dollars in student-loan debt, and a 9+% unemployment rate?  Does he expect the college graduates to shrug their shoulders, take a minimum wage job, and just think, “Well, maybe he is really serious about that ‘hope and change’ this time”?  That is unrealistic, and the energy and enthusiasm he ginned up last election, has been replaced with a sense of reality and cynicism.  The one thing that might capture the graduates’ attention, a jobs bill, has been promised, but will not be available to the public until it is unveiled sometime this fall.  His neglect of employment may prove the most politically fatal of his shortcomings – throughout the 20th century, there has not been a single president re-elected with such terrible unemployment numbers.

Reid/Pelosi juggernaut

Reid checking presidential approval numbers, Pelosi checking unemployment numbers.

One of the last major gripes people have with the president, is the fact he has seemed to served his entire term thus far, while on vacation.  Every week, we are told by the media that the president is, “Enjoying the greens at XXX Country Club” — or like this week, “He’s spending time on Martha’s Vineyard”.  To the normal American, struggling with bills and mortgages, they resent what they see as separation between the president and themselves.  Some call it elitism.  I do not know if that is actually the case, but I think there is clearly some sort of disconnect between he and the country that he is supposed to be leading.  According to CBS News, at this point in his presidency, the president has actually spent fewer days on vacation than both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.  (Bill Clinton spent the fewest days, with 28 – but we know why he loved staying in the Oval Office).  What does this mean?  To me, it simply means both Reagan and Bush actually got more done in less time than the current president – and they did it, in large part, without the benefit of a liberal and friendly Congress for two years.

Open Letter To The Left

June 28, 2011 10 comments

Dear “The Left”,

I open by admitting to never having embraced a single position you hold, and I highly doubt I ever will.  I like to think that I have the ability to use objectivity, logic, pragmatism, and common sense to arrive at a position that is agreeable to my mental and social compasses.  It is a solution I find frequently arrived to, with careful consideration, analysis, and weighing possible alternatives.  I also have the ability to appreciate when someone is arguing in their own best interest, and I think, like most people, I feel more open to conversation and discussion when this is the case.

With that being said, I find the left’s tendencies as of late to be disconcerting.  They seem to have happily abandoned any semblance of sensible reasoning and tossed vested interest to the wayside.  Where their stances used to just make no sense to me, or where you could plainly see that someone’s been done a payback or favor, it seems more and more like the left is simply bound and determined to undermine and cause destruction.  Frankly, your tendency to spend money that doesn’t exist, and refuse to stop whilst spending yet more gives me headaches.  The disgust and demonizing of George Bush going to war is puzzling, especially as you have little if anything to say about our current “kinetic military action” in Libya.  I find it mind-boggling to think that they’ve finally arrived at a place in their collective minds, where they would argue, even against their own self-interests, and against positions that they have claimed for decades.  All the sudden, it seems, the saying, “You have to go along to get along” is gone.

When a political group, such as the left, begins to whither and age, and lose members, there is no doubt that a couple of things must happen: the lost members/support must be made up, with increased support from remaining members, or the group must embrace new issues to draw in new personnel.  The left seems to have not given any thought or concern to which of these new issues they are embracing, even alienating some of the previous Democrats (think Blue-Dog or more classical Democrats).  As they’ve embraced the new and much more liberal issues, they may have gained new recruits on the far left, but I suspect have lost more former supporters from the the mid-left.  This hardly seems like a viable way to build support and a consensus party.

Even as they have adopted new issues, and as they have proven unpopular, they have remained steadfastly supportive of them.  The Obamacare bill, all 2,000+ pages of it, is a great example.  As snippets and bits of the bill became known (and perhaps the worst thing connected to the bill, Nancy Pelosi claimed, “…but, we have to pass the bill for you to find out what is in it…”) people grew quickly and strongly against it.  And yet, the democrats stuck to it, convinced it was something special.  Claiming a mandate by America (and neglecting the possibility that the voters were simply tired of GOP spending), they charged ahead.  And then November 2010 elections rolled around, and some of the same people, convinced that the bill was something Americans wanted, were shown the electoral door.

Lastly, and perhaps the most upsetting and disgusting tendency of the “new left”, is the personal nature of their attacks.  They think little of attacking and smearing their targets.  Online leftist “journalists” or snark-meisters, protected by the distance of their keyboard to their target, and the seeming anonymity of the Internet, think that anyone and anything is a target.  Even people who have not even joined a political race, see their children being targeted, disgustingly, by “humor” websites.  Media personalities are harassed at public events and have their spouse assaulted by drunken spectators.   Some personalities feel free to speak however they like, with as much venom and vitriol as they want (which is fine, I too am a strong believer in the 1st Amendment), but the problem is, the talking heads quickly back off those same statements, refusing to take any responsibility for their words.

So, I ask of you – is this what the left has become?  The former party of Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Clinton, having totally lost credibility, relegated to also-rans, giving up, and fighting dirty and like a petulant group of adolescents?  A party of disenfranchised misanthropes?  And before you think that, well, the conservative media picks on us too – save it.  We on the right have spent the entire Bush presidency putting up with the same sorts of juvenile displays.  And we still remember things like Robert Bork.  I cannot count once a Democrat’s special needs child tastelessly lampooned.  If this is perfectly fine with you, then I fear you have relegated your own party to ridicule and non-consideration.  I fear the left has long ago accepted its fate as a dwendling mishmash of angry, bitter special interest groups.

Americans everywhere who are tired of this garbage.

Civility in Public Discourse

Remember the "new tone and civility"? Yeah, me either.