For the Record...

For the Record...

For the Record...

For the Record...

Biblical Marriage Explained!

Two in one...

Two points in one video - The Conservative Bubble Grows *and* How Vacant and Amoral is the Libertarian Ideology?

Remember my "Republicans are Scum" post?

Well, MediaMatters did an excellent write up to Sean Hannity's continued Islamophobic attacks on Congressmen Keith Ellison, and Ellison's response that Hannity should be ashamed at being so immoral by saying so may things on the air that aren't true. Haniity, for his part, just amped up his attacks, but here's a list of 10 Examples of Sean Hannity saying things that aren't true.

If you don't want to read the whole post, here's the short list. If you [Conservatives] doubt any of these, don't bother arguing them here unless you first check out the citations and background evidence that MMFA presents. I grow weary of replying to such arguments with "read the fucking article."


10. Hannity Hyped RNC's Doctored Audio Of Supreme Court Arguments. [Media Matters, 3/30/12]

9. Hannity Distorted CBO Data To Attack Obama. [Media Matters, 2/2/12]

8. Hannity Falsely Claimed A White House Adviser "Advocated Compulsory Abortion." [Media Matters, 9/9/09]

7. Hannity Falsely Claimed Obama Called The Death Of Four Americans "Just A Bump In The Road."  [Media Matters, 9/25/12]

6. Hannity Spread False Report That Egypt Was Considering Necrophilia Bill.  [Media Matters, 4/30/12; Huffington Post, 4/26/12]

5. Hannity's Special On "Liberal Bias" Featured Wildly Distorted And Out-Of-Context Quotes.  [Media Matters, 4/24/11]

4. Hannity Cast Doubt On Scientific Consensus About Climate Change. [Media Matters, 12/4/09, 1/13/10, 8/27/10, 11/19/10, 6/24/11]

3. Hannity Fueled Myth That Obama Is A Muslim.  [Media Matters, 3/24/11, 3/21/12]

2. Hannity Fed The Birther Movement. [Media Matters, 3/28/11, 4/20/12]

1. Hannity Ignored Overwhelming Evidence To Repeatedly Claim Obama's Policies Have Not Helped Improve The Economy. [Media Matters, 1/13/10, 7/14/11, 2/2/12]


And remember... This is a man who's paid approximately $20,000,000 per year - enough to hire over 500 School Teacher, about 230 Engineers, or 80 Medical Doctors.

And as interesting as I'm sure it will be to see some anonymous Conservative poster try to debunk ANY of these as not being actual false hoods, I defy that same poster, or indeed any Conservative to give me a similar list for say, Rachael Maddow, or Keith Olberman, or Ed Shultz, or Chris O'Donnell, or MMFA for that matter!

(Remember when William tried that? He posted one example of MMFA ADMITTING they got something wrong, one example that was clearly a true statement, and one that was said (by some RW website) to contain misinformation, which turned out to be taken verbatim from the subject's own tax returns!)

I'm sure any Conservative could come up with a list of 10 examples of things that were said by one of these people that were LIBERAL, but I'll vote a strait Republican ticket in the 2014 mid-terms if they can come up with a list of 10 examples of things that were said by one of these people that were actually FALSE. Lots of luck!

What clever sounds like to a stupid person

See... Don't try to be clever.  Stick to what you're good at.  And appearing clever isn't it.  Unfortunately Conservatives are fairly easy to impress, as long as what they're been fed comes from a Conservative.

"Keep your Government hands off my medicare, indeed."

I've lost track of the number of times my parents, or one of my Conservative friends, have sent me one of the Right-Wing, anti-Obama, anti-Pelosi, or anti-Democrat emails that Snopes has already debunked. (Usually YEARS ago.) If you think what you're saying (or reading) is too good to be true, and no Liberal could ever possibly have an answer for it?

Keep quiet, and do some research first.

You missed something really obvious. You're wrong. And it will take someone like me about five seconds to figure that out.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2/27/13
Morning Weight: 208.8
Pounds Down: 6
Pounds to Go: 34
Days remaining: 204
Gym: Not tonight. (DW has Akido/Iado.)

Thinking Liberally...

I recently had a brief email conversation with my good friend and online mentor (who I've never met, LOL) Professor Bob Carroll, author of my Bible, The Skeptics Dictionary and the highly recommended Unnatural Acts: Critical Thinking, Skepticism, and Science Exposed!. In the course of the emails, he sent me a link:

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/04/09/the-thinking-liberal/

Now... I don't see any "political bias" when I look at the Freakanomics guys. I see them getting in plenty of hot water with both Liberals and Conservatives, and there is very little that "politically correct" about them, no matter how you slice it. Also, it should be mentioned that while I don't always agree with their conclusions, there is no denying that they'll give you something to think about, and a perspective that, regardless of your ideology, you likely hadn't considered before. And I like that sort of thing no matter where it's coming from.

But that post really made me laugh out loud.  Particularly the summary/brief that was posted about the paper (my favorite parts in bold.):

The authors test the hypothesis that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participants’ endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism. Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.

Yeah... Ain't that the truth!

Another book recommendation, from Professor Carroll, which I'll definitely be checking out myself:

The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality by Chris Mooney

Should be a fascinating read!

LOL

I'll make this easy...

Some people think they know more than the experts. More than people who have spent their lives studying something, collecting data, making observations, and drawing connections that are supported not only by their own evidence, but by that gathered by their peers as well. And who have spent their careers reconciling the differences between each others work, that we may collective reach a greater and more complete understanding of some phenomenon.  See... that's how science WORKS.   But some people don't think that the opinion of someone who's spent a career learning everything there is to know about something, and collaborating with others who do the same, is the slightest bit more
valuable than that of a talk-show host with a high-school diploma, or a bought-and-paid-for politician, or that most absurd of scientific references: the Bible, or the ideology that they have chosen to follow.

In general, these people call themselves "Conservatives."

Now I have always claimed to be a man of science - by both philosophy and by profession. I have also claimed that I never let ideology do my thinking for me.  If I identify with a certain group on a given issue (or on most issues) it is because their position matches the evidence. And because it matches my own. Which must first match the evidence, regardless of the ideological implications of this. So let's be clear, here: Liberals are not right because they agree with me. Nor am I because I agree with them. (When we DO actually agree, that is.)  And of infinitely more importance, Scientist and Academics are not right because they agree with Liberals, or because they agree with me. 

WE are right because we agree with THEM.

And you can take almost any Scientific and/or Economic issue and see this quite clearly, if you bother to actually LOOK and actually care about BEING RIGHT, rather than being Liberal or Conservative.  And, yes, to be fair, Liberals ARE guilty of pseudo-science too: witness the lawsuits brought against Dow Chemical over their perfectly harmless silicone breast implants, back in the late '80's, and early '90's, for example. But as Liberals have come to embrace science more and more over the past decade or two, Conservatives have reactively pulled away from it.  One recent Conservative commenter on this blog said it best, I think: "We're Conservative because we don't want to be Liberal." 

(And apparently they don't care a lick about being RIGHT, it seems.)

So anyway... I'm on Wikipedia today, just putzing around. Now I didn't used to consider Wikipedia to be a credible reference. I once told someone, "Don't quote me Wikipedia! ANYONE can edit Wikipedia! Shoot, even I'VE edited Wikipedia!" But I will say that in past year or two, I notice that they've gotten really good about requiring CITATIONS for the facual statements being made. (It's probably also helped that I've limited my own input to the one subject that I actually DO know more about than anyone else: Baseball. LOL) Anyhow, one particularly well-cited article that I read recently was the one on HOMOSEXUALITY.

Very interesting read.  Here are a few of the statements I found to be particular relevant to some of the more spirited discussions we've had recently...

Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors.

Supported by two citations!

While some religious organizations hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural or dysfunctional, research shows that homosexuality is an example of normal variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.

One citation.

Homosexual behavior is also widely observed in animals.

That statement was supported by no less than FIVE citations!

[Homosexual] relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential psychological respects.

One citation.

People with a homosexual orientation can express their sexuality in a variety of ways, and may or may not express it in their behaviors.

One citation.

The longstanding consensus of research and clinical literature demonstrates that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

One citation.

There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment.

One citation.

The American Psychological Association says that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

One citation.

No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society. The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by NARTH are not supported by the science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.

FIVE Citations spread throughout that paragraph.

Scientific research has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents...

Three Citations

[And] ...According to scientific literature reviews, there is no evidence to the contrary.

FIVE Citations

Here are some particularly important ones:

Stigma, prejudice, and discrimination stemming from negative societal attitudes toward homosexuality lead to a higher prevalence of mental health disorders among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals compared to their heterosexual peers.

One citation.

Evidence indicates that the liberalization of these attitudes over the past few decades is associated with a decrease in such mental health risks among younger LGBT people.

One citation.

Sexual orientation does not affect the likelihood that people will abuse children.

Three citations.

Claims that there is scientific evidence to support an association between being gay and being a pedophile are based on misuses of those terms and misrepresentation of the actual evidence.

One Citation.

Now... Admittedly, some of those citations are from the same source. But, all and all, this is a ~11,000 word article, in which I didn't find a single line in that doesn't fit perfectly well into my views on the matter, and it is supported by a total of 211 different sources.

TWO. HUNDRED. and ELEVEN. 

See... Being Liberal doesn't make me right.

Being RIGHT makes me right.

And they day the Conservatives decide to start being right, and the Liberals decide to abandon all reason, knowledge and wisdom? I'll happily identify as a Conservative. Until then? I don't require an ideology to do my thinking for me, nor will I labor under the delusion that I can do to do a little bit of five-minute crack research and think that somehow I know something that the world's collective, foremost experts don't.  I'm content to let those with the inclination to spend their lives researching and studying something to figure it out. Because if you're capable of recognizing who is and is not a credible source, and the data supports the position you are accepting?

Well, shoot... I'll always be right.

Cracked Nails it Again! (And: Behold your liberal media!)

Great article from Cracked about 6 B.S. Myths You Probably Believe About America's "Enemies".  Good read. I highly recommend it, as I do 99.9% of what they produce.  (They are to print media what John Stewart is to Broadcast Media.)  And really quickly, I'd like to point out some interesting trends in these myths.  I'm going to put the "Myth" next to the "Truth," in order in a moment. I'd like you to ask yourselves, just who it is that is creating and perpetuating these myths, and who benefits from them.  There's a couple where you can say "both sides do it," but, as usual, there's some false equivalency at play if you do...

1) MYTH: Iran Could Start a Crazy War at Any Minute!

TRUTH: Iran's military is a joke, their Nuclear program is basically nonexistent and their REAL leaders (the Guardian Council) hos no interest in doing so, despite whatever posturing that Monkey in a Suit that they have for a President says. (He has no real power.) And what's more... they recently hired a Mexican to kill a Saudi in America. I mean... If they wanted to kill a Saudi, wouldn't it have been a lot easier to send an Iranian to kill one in Saudi Arabia?! That pretty much proves that even when they WANT to, they basically have no fucking idea HOW to!


2) MYTH: China's Economy Is Going to Steamroll America's!

TRUTH: We're the customer. They need US a LOT more than we need them.
 
 
3) MYTH: America Relies on Its Enemies for Oil!

TRUTH: 36% of our oil is domestic, 22% comes from Canada and our third biggest supplier is Mexico.  As for the rest? See myth #2. Even Venezuela has no interest in cutting us off or threatening us. (We send them MONEY, after all!)
 
 
4) Al-Qaida Is Still a Huge Threat!

TRUTH: You had a 0.3% chance of dying in a terrorist attack if you were IN NEW YORK, on 9/11!  Big picture? They never really were.  And I'll give Bush credit for doing a few things right, because after 9/11 things only went downhill for them. (If only he didn't get this stupid obsession with Iraq, he'd could have killed Bin Laden himself, back in 2003.)  But yeah... When you have to resort to guys lighting their underpants on fire? You're no longer a threat.
 
 
5) North Korea's Military Is Dangerous and Insane!

TRUTH: See Iran.  Kim Jong Il might be crazy, but he isn't stupid.  He's got a pretty good gig going.  A decent little lifestyle for himself.  There's just NO WAY he fucks that all up by getting his ass handed to him in a War with the much richer, much more militarily capable South.
 
 
6) The World Hates America!

TRUTH: Most of the world has a better view of American than most Americans do, and hold us in higher esteem than we hold our own leaders. But let me come back to this in a moment.
 
 
So... what do I see as the trend here?
 
Well, (1 - Iran) is just xenophobic warmongering. The same bullshit that got us into Iraq. It's the mindless pro-Isreal lobby, and pro-Oil lobby, and pro-Christian lobby, etc... IOW? Real Liberals. Just kidding.  That's lies from the Right, by the Right and for the Right. Yet it's pretty much the consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)
 
(2 - China) is one that can go both ways. The Right have no love for Communism, and the Left? Well, hey: far be it for a self-admitted Working Class Warrior to ignore where all of out manufacturing jobs have gone!  But think about it for a moment... Who is it that is terrified of making any kind of tough trade sanctions against China? And who is it that BENEFITS from treating China like they're some kind of Leather-Clad Dominatrix to the us, the lowly Sub?  Who is that REALLY benefits from stoking the FEAR that ANY kind of tough negotiation with China will somehow RUIN us?  Ding! Ding! Ding! .That would be the OWNERSHIP CLASS! AKA: Our corporate overlords. AKA: The RIGHT! And yet, that's still pretty much a consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)

(3 - Oil) is another one that someone who's not really playing attention might try to pin on both sides.  We all know the Right's contribution - we're still fighting a damned war in Iraq over it!   But one MIGHT say that the Left uses this to bolster their environmental arguments.  Except that, no, we really DON'T.  OK, we might, to try and convince a Righty to eat some greens, by using what he already believes against him.  But in reality, Environmentalists don't NEED peripheral reasons to try and reduce our dependence on OIL, in general, regardless of where it comes form.  Saving the environment is reason enough for most of them!  So, again, Thank You, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and that no-good jackass who traded in all of his good reputation and credibility in support an illegal, immoral and completely unnecessary war: General Colin Fucking Powell.  Thank you all for this one. (And... Behold: You're Liberal Media!)

(4 - Al Quaeda) *sigh* See #3. We spend twice as much on defense as Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France COMBINED.  And what reason do they USUALLY feed us to justify this psychopathy?  (Oh, yeah... and behold: You're Liberal Media!)

(5 - North Korea) *sigh* see #'s 3 and 4. (And behold: You're Liberal Media!)


So far, the trend for who is perpetuating these myths, and benefiting from them, is pretty clear.  In his last comment, in my "Occupy Reality, Part 2" post, Classic Liberal said that "The American conservative elite has waged a relentless war on the notion that there is any such thing as an objective fact" and had gone on to say that their refusal to simply ACKNOWLEDGE reality (and their preference to try and shape or re-define it) is "a serious problem," one he's called "our most serious problem." And I'm inclined to agree with him. Our semantics may have differed, but my previous post, and my reason for posting this one are pretty much the same: It's not about Liberal-Conservative anymore, or even Progressive-Regressive.  Those issues are secondary to the far greater problem of Reality vs. Whatever World the Conservatives Think they Live in or Exists.  He is (as usual) SPOT ON.  The year is 1984. And for the foreseeable future? On the Right? It will continue to be.

Now... as for #6...

Cracked brings up a very salientpoint that, at first blush, seems like a very valid "both sides do it" argument:

The right wing will tell you that everyone from France to Iraq hates our freedom, or our democracy, or our ability to get chili cheese fries added to any meal. The left will tell you with a grim fatalism that the developing world hates us because we've been occupying their countries, damaging their culture and our reputation for years.

Now... Once we accept the reality that, in fact, most countries DON'T hate us, it might be easy to conclude that "both sides" us this for their own political agenda.  But I think this serves as a pretty shrewd example of how both sides think, and explains why I am perfectly happy to demonize the Right and proudly wear whatever label they want to pin on me, "Progressive," "Liberal," "Commie," whatever...

THEY use this myth to JUSTIFY doing horrible things. 


WE use to try and STOP US from doing horrible things! 

Think about that! Let that sink in for a moment. It just ain't the same! Once we accept that both sides are wrong in this case?  At worst? WE are still advocating for peace and diplomacy and a continuation of ALL THE GOOD that our country has done for the World!  And at BEST?  They end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy!  I mean, fine: Maybe the World DOESN'T hate us.  Great. But drop enough bombs? Invade enough countries for no good reason? Kill enough innocent civilians? Continue to act like the arrogant School-Yard Bully?  And eventually?

They will.

Now... Can ANYONE tell me why ANYONE who not an integral part of the Right-Wing Power or Money Structure would call themselves "Conservative?"

Oki?

Anyone?

Bueller? 

Bueller?

A little research goes a LOOONG way...

This goes for both Progressives and Regressives alike, the difference being that we're actually willing to DO a little research from time to time, rather than just blindly posting and linking to every email that hits our in-box. And, yes, I am aware that I have made some mistakes here as well. Again, the difference is that when someone points them out to me, I'm far more likely to say "Huh, yeah, good point!" or "Thanks for the tip" than I am to go off on on a tirade, asking why people are "defending the enemy" or some such thing.  IOW: It's is important to me to get it RIGHT. First and foremost, I want my arguments to be based in fact more than I care about whether or not they're Liberal.  So, seriously: If someone sees something here that's bullshit, by all means: CALL ME OUT ON IT!  (You don't usually get that offer from most Right Wing Bloggers!)

So... What's this all about? Well... a couple weeks back I came across a blog called The Economic Collapse. And by what I can only describe as blind luck the first two articles I came across blamed [the economic mess du jour] largely on Republicans and the Democrats that went along with them.  So I though 'whoa-hey! Another liberal blog!'  And I was all set to put it up for a Gold Star.  Yeah... Um... Good thing I dug a little deeper. LOL. The first tell-tale sign was all the ads for Silver, Gold and Platinum Coins and 'Emergency Food' across the top.  That's... a little bit too Glenn Beck-ish for me.  So I read further, and... Yeah... This one's a hall of SHAMER, big time. 

Hoo-boy... 

Article after article of intellectual dishonesty, writ large.  And don't get me wrong... Some of these? DO manage to make some good points!  But these are lost in a sea of blaming Liberals ("Socialists," actually) and distorting the claims just enough to take them beyond the realm of 'interesting examples' and right into the territory of the truly absurd.  And there is one such post that I want to use to show you just how low-down and intellectually dishonest they are.  This is from "Suffocated By Red Tape - 12 Ridiculous Regulations That Are Almost Too Bizarre To Believe."  I'd like to take this on, point by point, to show how they operate and display exactly what the author is NOT telling you.  Because... if you're making a "good point" there should be no reason to be intellectually dishonest about it!  If you're RIGHT, you shouldn't have to LIE.  Also, I'm going to *star* some of these. The ones that get *starred* I'll have a little more to say about at the end.  And remember: These are all (supposedly) the fault of LIBERALS, those damned Socialists!

#1 The state of Louisiana says that monks must be fully licensed as funeral directors and actually convert their monasteries into licensed funeral homes before they will be allowed to sell their handmade wooden caskets.

(*) This is a prime example of a BARRIER TO ENTRY.  I'll explain what that is at the bottom.  Is it bullshit? Usually, yes. Is it LIBERAL? Oh, hell no! But, more on that farther down.

#2 The city of Philadelphia now requires all bloggers to purchase a $300 business privilege license. The city even went after one poor woman who had earned only $11 from her blog over the past two years.

(*) This also falls under the 'barrier to entry' category, but there's some intellectually dishonesty thrown in for good measure.  See... take a good look at the story he linked to.  First of all, it's $50 per year or $300 for life. Second of all, it's not a tax on BLOGGERS, it's a licensing fee for BUSINESSES.  Is it excessive, when applied to bloggers?  Well... sure USUALLY.  But how much money do Arianna Huffington or Matt Drudge make from their blogs?  If you're GOOD AT IT, then it might not be so excessive.  And? If you don't want to pay? Just don't sell ads. No big deal there - especially if those ads only net you $11 a year! In Google's AdSense's terms, it would take you just over NINE YEARS to get paid AT ALL at that rate! So why even bother? (Disclosure: I should make my first hundred, and finally get paid, after 2 years of blogging, in about a month or so.)  Just take the ads down and your "Free Speech" is completely untouchable. (Remember: It's "free" speech, not "paid" speech!)  And, OK, fine... Do I think it's a dumb law? Or one that needs to be altered or amended? YES. Yes, I do. But if you're going to argue that - and I think it SHOULD be argued - WHY do you have to be dishonest about it?  The law is absurd enough on its own!  If you have to distort the reality even more to make your point, MAYBE YOU DON'T HAVE A POINT!

#3 In the state of Massachusetts, all children in daycare centers are mandated by state law to brush their teeth after lunch. In fact, the state even provides the fluoride toothpaste for the children.

Nanny-state bullshit? Perhaps.  (Although after recently going through crown-extension surgery, and getting three different holes drilled in the same tooth by a guy who I thought was being pretty chincy with the Novocaine?  Man: BRUSH YOUR TEETH, KIDS! Because that SUX!)  Here's the thing... If the STATE provides the toothpaste? And the kids (presumably) own toothbrushes?  HOW, exactly, is this "suffocating" the day-care businesses?  Seems to me that this is actually a GOOD program, that works JUST FINE, and it's the John Stossel Conservatives who are whining over nothing. And considering that Medicaid covers dental, it would seem this is a good cost-savings measure as well. But.. you know... never let facts get in the way of a good story, right?

#4 If you attempt to give a tour of our nation's capital without a license, you could be put in prison for 90 days.

All I can say is, one: (*). And two: The sentence is absurd, but the motivation behind ALL of the (*)'s entries is hardly a LIBERAL one.  (I'll get to that at the end.)

#5 A reader named Gene recently shared his regulatory horror story with us....

I'm not going to dignify "Gene's story" with a response, other than to say that "anecdotal evidence sure is convincing, isn't it?"  I can't verify ANY of these claims, nor do I know ANYTHING about "Gene" or his "Business." If there's any legitimacy to this, maybe they should have found an example from a verifiable source, no? Just sayin'. 

Also? (*)

#6 Federal agents recently raided an Amish farm at 5 A.M. in the morning because they were selling "unauthorized" raw milk.

Damn! I'm never even UP by 5 O'Clock in the morning! Although... I suppose that's what makes it a such a good time to have a raid!  OK, putting aside that the link provided is to the "World Nut Daily," I was able find this story elsewhere, so we can assume it's legit.  First of all: You can sell Raw Milk, if you slap a warning label on it. DID they? I don't know. It doesn't say. They say they don't sell to the public, but it's unclear if that's true or not.  (And the fed's had to find out SOME HOW, right?)  And while I'm all for letting people make their own choices - bad as those choices may be - I'm going to take on these "natural food" whack-jobs (many of whom are Liberal, yes, I know) right now and recommend that they look up a guy name Louis Pasteur, and learn a little bit more about what the world was like before he came along.  Raw milk, unregulated, is dangerous. Period. And arguing otherwise is the closest thing Liberals have to dogma. (Actually, I'll come right out and say it: Vegan, Organic, Gluten-Free, All-Natural, etc...? Is nothing more than Un-Scientific Liberal dogma. And it's every bit as full-of-shit as Conservative Dogma is.) But whatever. Maybe their milk wasn't germ infested. OK, fine. But what about everyone else's? Folks, these regulations are in place for a GOOD REASON: Public Health.  Do I have a problem with some aspects of the corporate dairy industry? You betcha: The use of Hormones, for example. But PASTEURIZATION is not one of my qualms. (And the "raw eggs" example is just stupid, because pretty much everyone COOKS their eggs before they eat them.) In any case, this is a perfect example of a regulation that a LIBERAL GROUP (crunchy vegan's, whole-food hippies) would be perfectly happy to strike down!  (But which this liberal would disagree with them on.) And that shows two things: (1) "Liberals" are an intellectually and philosophically diverse bunch, unlike the single-minded Conservatives. And (2) You can therefore hardly blame Liberals, in general, for this regulation no matter how you feel about it!  There's COMMON GROUND here between Libertarians and certain (somewhat extreme) Liberal Sub-Groups! (Although this is one time I'm thanking God that they haven't bothered to find it!)

Also? (*)

#7 In Lake Elmo, Minnesota farmers can be fined $1,000 and put in jail for 90 days for selling pumpkins or Christmas trees that are grown outside city limits.

(*). Just... (*). 

(That's a *star*, BTW, not an asshole! The asshole is they guy who wrote this drivel!)

#8 A U.S. District Court judge slapped a 5oo dollar fine on Massachusetts fisherman Robert J. Eldridge for untangling a giant whale from his nets and setting it free. So what was his crime? Well, according to the court, Eldridge was supposed to call state authorities and wait for them do it.

This the one that REALLY pissed me off.  $500 fine, just for being a good guy, huh? No good deed goes unpunished, huh?  Well, buried deep down in this more honest story about what happened is a little detail that the Right-wing blogger left out: Far from freeing the netted whale properly, he found that he was unable to do this and merely cut his lines, letting the whale swim away still tangled in the nets!  Hmmm... It seems to me that if the guy couldn't do the job PROPERLY, maybe, just maybe, he should have, oh... I don't know... called state authorities and waited for them do it!  Also not mentioned? The fact that the fine was reduced from $100,000 (holy crap!) down to $500. So, again, far from this being a case of the State Bureaucracy running amok, it is actually an example of the use of discretion to make sure the laws don't get applied inappropriately. Can we have a debate about the necessity of these laws? Sure we can.  Can we have a debate about the appropriateness of the penalties? Absolutely. But WHY can't we at least have an intellectually honest one?!

#9 In the state of Texas, it doesn't matter how much formal interior design education you have - only individuals with government licenses may refer to themselves as "interior designers" or use the term "interior design" to describe their work.

Another classic case of (*).

#10 Deeply hidden in the 2,409-page health reform bill passed by Congress was a new regulation that will require U.S. businesses to file millions more 1099s each year. In fact, it is estimated that the average small business will now have to file 200 additional 1099s every single year. Talk about a nightmare of red tape! But don't try to avoid this rule - it is being reported that the IRS has hired approximately 2,000 new auditors to audit as many of these 1099s as possible.

Part of me would love to say, "See? The stimulus worked! Thousands of new jobs!"  But, I'm afraid that some asshat from another other blog might come by and read what I have to say, and I'd hate for them to use that [throw-away joke] as an example of "how Liberal's think." (But watch someone do it anyway!) And another part of me would be perfectly have to concede this one single point and agree that it's bullshit.  And yet another part of me wants to say "boo-frickin-hoo..." A little bit of paperwork, "oh my farquing guard!" 

But we're right back to classic intellectual dishonestly, writ large.  A few points, from that very same story they linked, that were left out? (1) This this really all started in provisions under the 2008 GEORGE BUSH budget. (That damned liberal!)  and (2) There's a floor that leaves out the smaller retailers.  As usual, this is another classic case of them exaggerating the effects of something that BUSH did, and then blaming it on "liberals."  And fine... maybe Obama contributed to it further. Fine. But again: Why can't we just be honest and tell the whole story if we're going to debate it?! WHY DO THEY HAVE TO LIE?!

#11 The city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin makes it incredibly difficult to go out of business. In order to close down a business. Milwaukee requires you to purchase an expensive license, you must submit a huge pile of paperwork to the city regarding the inventory you wish to sell off, and you must pay a fee based on the length of your "going out of business sale" plus a two dollar charge for every $1,000 worth of inventory that you are attempting to sell off.

Finally a point I might concede.  This one does seem a bit stupid.  Unfortunately I wasn't able to find much else on it, so I guess I'll just have to leave it at that. I am left wondering, however, how this can possible be enforced.  My lease is up, I close my doors, I walk away.  If that's really a crime? The yeah, I'll give them this one.  But hitting 1 for 11 (.091) won't keep you a roster spot in any league that I'm aware of! (And tongue-in-cheek I might quip that this might keep some business from going under!) (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

#12 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is projecting that the food service industry will have to spend an additional 14 million hours every single year just to comply with new federal regulations that mandate that all vending machine operators and chain restaurants must label all products that they sell with a calorie count in a location visible to the consumer.

First, the joking: LOOK! The Stimulus is working!  All that overtime!  (And in all seriousness? This WOULD have that effect. And that's not necessarily a bad thing!)

Second, all kidding aside? Why do these people have a problem with their customer's being able to make an informed decision?!  I mean... back in the disease-infested milk example, they though people could make informed decision on their own.  So fine: I can choose to eat crap out of a vending machine.  Or... maybe I won't...  If I know how many empty calories are in that shit!  This isn't about the overtime, or the regulations. This is about business doing less volume if people start making MORE INFORMED CHOICES. That is why this is a problem for the Right. 

Sorry folks, between the overtime and cost avoidance by getting the obesity problem under control, I'm filing this under the "DAMNED GOOD IDEA" category.

And thirdly: Every single year? I seriously doubt that.  The calorie count of the Snickers Bar has been a universal constant since 1947. (Yeah, I just made that up.)  I don't think they'll ever offer that much variety.

He goes on to say that "no matter what changes are made a lot of companies will still not want to set up shop in the United States until something is done about all of these ridiculous regulations."  Umm... My company does business in Europe, Japan, the Gulf Coast Countries (GCC) and China. And I can assure you that ALL of them have just as many regulations as we do and then some.  (Socialist Europe? Communist China?) India's 10 times as bad as we!  The only places with LESS regulations?  Africa and South & Central America.  IOW: 3rd world shit-holes where the people largely get screwed over by the utter LACK of regulations! And yeah, I'm generalizing, and there are lots of very nice places in those regions as well.  But the overall standard of living is MUCH LOWER than it is in the U.S., Europe, Japan and even China and India.  And - as I work in the field of automotive safety - I can tell you, as a matter of absolute, verifiable fact - that the cars sold in those markets are a LOT LESS safe that they are in the U.S. or Canada.  They sell shit in Mexico that would fail FMVSS regulations big time. I know of cars there that are guaranteed to severely injure or kill you in the case of a crash.That's something else these John Stossel types will never tell you!

OK... so what's the deal with all the (*)'s?

Well... Licensing and fees and professional requirements and regulations are something that B-Schools call, "Barriers to entry."  (MBA, University of Michigan, 2006, with Honors - if you're wondering.)

Now... are these Liberal? Well... the Right wants to tell you they are because most of them are revenue streams for Cities and States.  Plus, supposedly, no Liberal ever saw a piece of Red Tape (or a tax) that they didn't like.  And I suppose... from a certain point of view... in some instances, there might be some validity to that. (You know, in the binary world of the Right Wing Conservative.)

But ask yourself this: Why does a Liberal care about how many interior decorators there are in Texas? Why does a Liberal care about how many tour guides operate in Washington D.C.? Why does a Liberal care about how many sources there are for hand-made caskets?

Really? WE DON'T. 

Liberals don't have a shit to give about where the Pumpkins and Christmas Trees in Lake Elmo, Minnesota come from.

Seriously.

These are nothing more than BARRIERS TO ENTRY.  These are things that BIG BUSINESS sets up to deter potential new competitors from entering the market!  $300 (or whatever the licensing fee is) is nothing to an established firm.  But if it prevents a new firm from starting up? THAT could be worth big money in terms of decreased completion.  (Less advertising needed, higher prices can be charged, etc...)

But... But... Isn't that PROTECTIONISM? And isn't protectionism a LIBERAL thing?

Yes, I suppose it could be called protectionism.  But if you call it that, then you've already disproven that protectionism is something that's engaged in only by Liberals!  And keeping smaller competitors out of a given market is night-and-day next to to trying to keep jobs from going to China. NAFTA? Not Liberal. (Global) Free Trade? Not Liberal!  These are anti-protectionism measures that screw over American Workers and they were written by Republicans, backed by Big Business!  Clinton may have signed them into law, but who ever accused Bill Clinton of being a Liberal?! (Other than the same idiots who call Obama one?!)

And remember the Right's own narrative: Liberals hate Big Corporations, right? We hate Big Business!

Then... Why is it our fault when Big Business pushes for licensing fees and regulations that keep smaller competitors out of the market?

Answer? IT ISN'T!

And if these fools would get their heads out of their asses for just two seconds and turn of Fox news, they might realize that there are plenty of Liberals who would be more than happy to GET RID of a lot of these regulations!  (Save for those that protect consumers, but that still leaves a TON of common ground!)  See.. By blaming LIBERALS, more and more Conservatives get elected.  And (remember our narrative) those are the pro-Big Business types. And contrary to what this Right-Wing blogger is telling you, these "absurd regulations" are mostly things that deter competition for Big Business.

Now is that bullshit? Yes, it certainly IS.

But is it LIBERAL? Um... NO FUCKING WAY!!!

We want to STOP big business's influence on the Government!

No one wants to disentangle Corporatism and Corporate Interests from Government more than LIBERALS do!  And you don't hear the big companies complaining about these things! It's always the LITTLE GUY!  Well, you know how we always say that 98% of America is voting against their economic interests? Well, this is a perfect example of that! Big Business backs Republicans. Republicans talk a good game, but do NOTHING to eliminate the regulations, and the Little Guy gets screwed because he's so convinced that LIBERALS are behind all this!  SINCE WHEN DID LIBERALS START RULING THE WORLD?! (Especially the parts of it called "LOUISIANA" and "TEXAS!") Blaming Liberals is just propaganda by those same Big Businesses trying to prevent the very people they're screwing over from ever electing the right people to fix the mess!  As long as the little guy keeps thinking the Democrats are against him, he'll keep voting for the Party who's REALLY against him!

Some of the regulations actually make sense, and were merely misrepresented, as I pointed out.  But the rest of them are barriers to entry, nothing more.  They're things that mostly benefit Big Business. Again: To a huge company the cost is minuscule.  But keeping out smaller, nimbler, cheaper competitors? THAT'S key to their very survival! Yet they try to blame these anti-competitions measures on the OPPOSITION of the very Party that Big Business generally backs! And to the extent that Democrats do this too? Shoot... That's just Democrats acting like Republicans! And we hate them just as much!

And don't let some Right Wing Liar (or Fool) try to tell you otherwise!

Do the Right’s Thing

A couple posts ago, I mentioned how I felt that the best parallel to what President Obama has done in the past two years with regards to his negotiations on economic policy, health care and other issues was Henry Clay, brokering compromises with the Slave States to preserve the Nation at the expense of preserving a great evil. And, of course, as history went on to show, this is impossible. It’s a contradiction. And the ability to compromise is only to your credit if your opposite’s position has some merit and both sides give something up and both sides gain something. I suppose it could be argued that Clay’s compromises failed only the first test, but it beyond any doubt that Obama’s have failed both. And this is evidence of a larger trend that goes way beyond merely Obama, as I would include both Clintons, Reid, Bauchus, Nelson and possibly quite a few other Democrats, and the Party as a whole, in the following statements:

As the Republicans have moved farther and farther to the RIGHT, the Democrats hacve responded by moving to the Right.

And this is a dangerous phenomenon, for than just the obvious reasons of… well… the fact that the Right is inherently dangerous. It is worth remembering that before the Civil Rights movement, it was the Democrats who dominated the Southeast and were the Social Conservatives, while the Republicans dominated the Northeast and were the fiscal Conservatives. (For what it’s worth the Mid-West has always been a battle ground, the Mountains have always been Republican, and the West Coast was also mostly Republican, at least at the Presidential level, up until the early 1990’s.) Anyway, the great switch happened after the Civil Rights Act: Noreasters became Democrats, while Rednecks started voting Republican. And while there was a great shift in Party affililation, each party still had its Conservative and Liberal wings. And thus there remained some Democrats that were to the Right of some Republicans (the last of the Dixiecrats and the last of the Yankee Republicans, for example) and vice-versa. So while the Civil Rights Act changed the geographic political landscape, I do not necessarily mark it as the moment when our currently toxic political environment began to form. It gave the Right an opportunity, but it would be another decade and a half before someone would finally seize on it:

RONALD W. REAGAN.

It was Ronald W. Reagan that cobbled together the Republican Coalition that lives on to this day of Libertarians, Funny-Mentalists and Chicken-Hawks – three groups that basically had mutually exclusive agendas, at leats before the first two sold out. (Also, I read somewhere recently where someone pointed out that Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pots and have sex. I KNEW there was a reason I could tolerate the Libertarians! LOL). And it was Regan who stamped out all the intra-Party bickering and forged the iron-clad lock-step Republican unity that live on to this day. “Do not speak badly of your fellow Republican” was his mantra, and his victory in 1980, followed by the 2nd biggest landslide in history in 1984 showed them the wisdom of this.

The Republicans moved to the Right, and the Democrats figured it might be a good idea to follow suit.

Now, the one thing about the politics of ideologues, about those who hold their ideology as sacred, is that there is a constant need to differentiate oneself for the opposition. To the one who is the farthest to the Right, in this case, goes the prize. So as the Democrats moved to the Right, the Republicans had to respond by moving even farther to the Right!

See how that works?

The Republicans PULL the Democrats to the Right, and each time this happens the Democrats then PUSH the Republicans farter to the right! Where does it end? Well, in complete and utter insanity for one thing. Only it doesn’t END there: It perpetuates there. And this was on full display listening to the latest brand of Corporate Nationalists on dis play last night in Iowa.

For example, Michelle Bachman saying she stuck to her “principles” and opposed raising the debt ceiling. Apparently her “principles” include not paying her bills. Maybe I should stop paying my mortgage out of “principle,” what do you think? And here she is, saying she’s opposed to the fact that President (1) caved to Republicans on (2) an issue entirely create whole-cloth out of nothing, in order that (3) our country to do something as basic as fulfill its existing obligations to its creditors and the public.

She’s OPPOSED to that.

Well… so am I, I guess! I mean… Obama never should have let the Republicans make an issue out of this in the first place. But somehow I doubt that my objections and those of the Crazy Congresswoman from Minnesota have anything in common.

She went on to criticize Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (not very Reaganesque of you, Michelle!) for endorsing “Cap-and-Trade,” another Republican idea that was invented to oppose the once Liberal policy of “Cap,” and then again for endorsing the individual mandate in “Obama-care.”

Pawlenty for his part deflected, calling it “Obomney-care” and saying he opposed it and then turned to the former Massachusetts Sellout, Mitt Romney.

Romney then insisted that there were “significant differences” between what they did in Massachusetts and what Obama did.

Yeah: For one thing? “Obama-care” includes things that eliminate some of the worst abuses of the insurance industry – denial of coverage, preexisting conditions, dropping people, etc… So the most glaring difference between the two? Are the things that most people actually LIKE about “Obama-care.” Another difference? In Massachusetts there were subsidies lined up to assist people who couldn’t afford it. In “Obama-care” we’re apparently going to use “markets.”

See what they did there? Obama moved to the Right, and the Right had to respond by moving farther to the Right!

How far to the Right does Obama really want to push these people anyway?

And how much farther are the Democrats willing to be pulled?

A few facts to consider:

1) Congress historically gets a below 50% approval rating from the public. And this has only been trending worse and worse and worse over the past few decades.

2) While Americans generally self-identify as “Conservative,” issue polls have shown that the bulk of Americans, typically over 60% favor the position which is represented by the Liberals.

Now… Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, people’s general dissatisfaction with Congress have anything to do with a growing feeling, as both parties move to the Right of the General Public that they don’t feel like they have adequate representation? Or ANY? That their Candidate or their Representative doesn’t fight for polices that will actually help them? Or benefit them?

Well gee…

I would say that, in a country that wants the Liberal Position 60% of the time, and the “new-Liberalism,” according to this mythical “Liberal Media” that I keep hearing about, includes:

1) Taking Republican ideas on Health Care

2) Taking Republican ideas on Taxes

3) Taking Republican ideas on Entitlements

4) Taking Republican ideas on Environmental Protection

5) Taking Republican ideas on Foreign Policy

And the “new Conservative” involves rejecting these ideas as being “too liberal” and finding a new position even farther to the Right?

Well… It’s no surprise to me that people don’t feel well represented. It’s no surprise to me that Congress gets increasing negative approval ratings as they keep drifting to the Right. We’ve gotten to the point that their absurdly chosen poster child for Liberalism is actually to the Right of most of America! And it’s no surprise to me that there is no end in sight. But moving farther to the Right is not, can not be and has never been the answer to the problem. That we have BOTH parties moving farther and farther to the Right IS the problem!

And maybe it’s coming time for us to have a Tea-Party of our own.

Maybe tell the Right that they’ve Taken Enough Already!

(*sigh* If only the media would report something that generally resembled reality)

I’ll end with one more example of this, from the Iowa Debate…

Mitt Romney said that “he wouldn’t eat the dog food Obama was serving,” in reference to the “debate” about the debt ceiling and the “deal” that was finally worked out. See what he did there? I mean, just as with Loony Bin Bachman, I AGREE that it was ‘dog food.’ BUT, it’s only because Obama never should have given the Republicans the time of day on it! If caving into Republican demands and letting them frame the issue and dominate the debate and giving them everything they want in exchange for what amounts to routine housekeeping is the “new liberal?” Where does that leave the Republicans to go?

Note to Obama: The Right will always seek to distinguish itself from the Left. And, accurately or not, the Democrats will continue to be labeled as the Left. So you will not get the Republicans to stop running to the Right by chasing them there! You are embracing their insanity and only making them more crazy! If you want to “bridge the partisan divide” try using a ROPE, like in a tug-of-war, and try PULLING ON IT for a change! Right now? You’re chasing a moving target who, right or wrong, for whatever reason, doesn’t want to be anywhere near you! And the closer you get, the faster they run! You can’t go on trying to be just like someone who will only, ever seek to differentiate themselves from you! You will never achieve that, nor will you ever get them to stop! So stop chasing them! Stop PUSHING them farther to the Right! The Republicans have only, EVER shown a desire to Negotiate with Democrats when the Democrats actually OPPOSE them! SO FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, COUTNRY AND PROGRESS, PLEASE: START PULLING!

Before there’s nothing Left!

Worst Democrat since Andrew Johnson.

Four things...

The were a couple of items today on Media Matters that really got me thinking. I was tied up all day at work and didn't have the time to comment on them, but I'd like to do so here, because I think they are very indicative of how Conservatives thynk and what they prynciples are.

(See what I did there?)

The first was this item about the Federal ICE and Secure Communities Programs.  There's a lot of the same old bullshit... (They're not racists, they're just saying that every Mexican is a criminal!)  They lie about they're affect on our economy, and our tax base, and the job market.  But there's a sub-text buried in there, almost like an afterthought, that I found to be almost laughably profound:  They focus on California, and the fact that in opting out of these programs, they also want to opt out of federal cross-checks.  Or, at least... not perform them, per federal immigration law.

Now... they were hardly praising this move.  In fact, as I read it, they seemed to take rather serious issue with California's bucking federal law here.  Which got me thinking:

Aren't these guys supposed to be all about State's Rights and limiting the power of the Federal Government and letting States decide for themselves what laws to have and how to enforce them?

Well... They certainly TALK a good game there.  But it's clear that this principle only matters if those States choose to resits LIBERAL Laws (non-discrimination laws, hate-crime legislation, industrial and environmental regulations) and replace them with CONSERVATIVE ones (anti-abortion measure, union-busting, prayer in school, etc...)  Which means this whole, "States Rights" thing? Isn't a PRINCIPLE at all.  It only comes into play when  it serves their overall agenda - Which has nothing to do with States Rights.  In this case? It's just more blatant racism, using propaganda to refute reality.

The second thing, was this.  In their effort to vilify Planned Parenthood as nothing more than an abortion mill, dedicated to some kind of genocide, the National Review's Rich Lowry, when presented with actual, factual data on how much of PP's business is abortion services (3%) and how much of its revenue was represented by those services (15%) and the fact that no federal money was ever used to pay or or subsidize those services, he simply waved his hands and called the data, "Fake And Bogus."

I've said it before folks: The biggest different between how Liberals think and how Conservatives thynk is that Liberals evaluate the evidence and then form their position accordingly, whilst Conservatives form their position and then evaluate the evidence accordingly.

I've always known that to be true, but I'd never thought I'd see it proven so... clumsily!

The third was RW micro-hack Hugh Hewitt's advice for Sarah Palin to not participate in presidential debates that are organized by "traditional media" outlets, claiming that they were overwhelming opposed to the election of GOP candidates, and that she should expect them to ask the "gotcha" questions.  Like...

"[The] standard stunt questions on abortion in the event of rape or incest, weapons of mass destruction, evolution, global warming, or any of a dozen other dog whistles to the left designed to create the moment that replicates across the Web."

Anyone see anything wrong with this kind of thynking? 

Calling out the fact that they are so far to the right on abortion that they no longer support exceptions for rape victims (or as Keith Olbermann more aptly put it: supporting the rapist's Bill of Rights) is something bad, journalistically speaking?

Pointing out either the continued, absurd belief that Saddam had WMD's, or the utterly psychotic viewpoint that the war was even remotely justified without them (hell - it wasn't necessarily justified WITH them!) is information that the American People shouldn't have access to?

Teaching evolution in the classroom?  Believing in long and thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, and wanting to TEACH that to our children?  We shouldn't know (or care?) about that?!

Global Warming?!  Again with the thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, only this time they get to make money off of it, while slowly dooming humanity to a planet that can no longer support them?  This isn't something we should know about the candidate?!

Hugh... I've got a question for you: If you're so ashamed of you viewpoints, WHY DO YOU HAVE THEM?  If your positions on these issues make you so unpalatable to the American people that you can't even defend them in a simple interview, then WHY SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTE FOR YOU['RE CANDIDATE]? 

Again... I always knew they only cared about winning, and about power, and couldn't give two shits about what's important to a super-majortiy of the American people, but still... 

They're usually better about hiding it!

Though... I still wonder why any politician, any Representative of the People, should hold a position that such an anathema to the people he represents, that he doesn't want anyone to know about it! That ALONE should disqualify ANYONE from holding a public office, no?

And the LAST THING, well... if you REALLY want to read some shit... ;)

Proof that MSNBC is not the Left-Wing verison of Fox.

Just a quickie, showing the biggest difference between Fox and MSNBC...

Countdown Anchor Keith Olbermann has been suspended from MSNBC over political donation that appear to be in violation of  that stations standard of ethics.

This is in contrast to Fox News, whose anchors have shamelessly shilled for the Republicans time and time again; who's PAC and Parent company have donated millions to Republicans and Republican backed organizations; who has given a platform to future candidates; and who will not even suspend you if you wish for President Obama's assassination!

They may be mirrors of each other in that one leans Liberal and one leans Conservative, but that is where the symmetry ends.  Because only one has any hosts representing anything that would qualify as opposing viewpoints (such a Joe Scarborough) and only one has an ethics policy that actually MEANS anything, and they they are willing to enforce.

The difference is PRINCIPLES. MSNBC has them.  Fox, time and time again, has shown that they don't.

My Reply to okiepoli

Background: This conversation started as some back-and-forth between myself an commenter okiepoli just under two months ago, in the Cooler Heads Prevail post.  In my defense I didn't realize that he had sent me an mail, due to my habit of simply deleting any emails that look like they're notifying me of blog comments, opting instead to read them on the actual blog.  And this one was interesting to me, because okie falls into an odd, but growing Category of voter, especially as that Tea Party insanity claims any remnant of the Right not already claimed by the funny-mentalists: A self-identified Conservative Republican who basically sees nothing of value in the Republican Party.  Now, to be sure, that's certain my kind of "Conservative Republican." LOL. I'm both kidding and not kidding when I say we need more like him.  (What I mean is, but the cynical and the principled interpretation of that statement hold true! LOL)  And I may be simplifying things a bit, off course.  I only know him from his posts here and on MMFA, and for the longest time had him pegged as a LIBERAL, due to nothing else that his penchant from joining in on most of the rounds of Republican bashing.  So, following up for that earlier post, he sent me the email below to continue the conversation that blogger apparently would let his post in the comments section. (I'll have to see if there is something I can do about the character limitation.  because it really is too short.)

Just as with my response to Steeve's email, I'm going to put the excerpts from okie's  in yellow.

Eddie;


Sorry it took so long to get back to this - you may have noticed a decreased presence on MMfA also. I've been "live(ing) in interesting times" lately, mostly due to the end of the fiscal year at work. (DOD civilian) And you have 8 new posts I need to catch up with since.

A two-parter, huh? OK, I'll play along:

PART the FIRST – RE: your first reply:


You say, "Unfortunately that school of thought was largely abandoned back in 1980, and all that remains of it now is a distant memory, clung to by the few principled (true) Conservatives left."

Why do you hate Pres. Reagan? (j/k) I would pin the start of the downhill slide to the early '70's – Pres. Nixon was as progressive a Republican as you could hope to find. I think he was confused by the concept of a relatively weak presidency - Constitutionally a mere figurehead – the weakest of the three branches. (See: The Federalist Papers: #67 - 77, specifically #69, 70 &77, arguments can be found in The Antifederalist Papers: #67 – 77.) Combine a pro-unitary executive view with the idea that 'peaceniks,' 'leftists,' and Democrats (my words, not his) were an enemy to be beaten at any cost to prevent the country from sliding towards communism, were, in my view, his downfall.

Pres. Ford wasn't bad, but he wasn't perceived as being 'good' and certainly didn't come across as being as strong as Pres. Nixon. Nixon's pardon combined with the state of the nation at the end of Ford's term, voter dissatisfaction with any Republican rule – weak or strong – and the promise of government reform gave us Pres. Carter. (You can defend Carter if you want to, but you don't need to on my account.)

This may come as a surprise, not only coming from a self-identified Liberal, and one who's written a piece on how badly Nixon really sucked, but really?  I don't think Nixon was all that bad a President, as long as we're only talking policy.  You can criticise the war tactics, although you can defend them as well, but in the end, he DID end the damned war.  He created several important Government regulatory agencies, and normalized relations with China.  (Which again, one can argue either way, but I'd take the problems we have now over what would have been 40 years with a second major player in the Cold War and the arms race. 

The way I see it, much like with Carter, the biggest problem with Nixon was Nixon himself.  His personal issues far outweighed any policy issues he may have had.  I mean, come on... spying on the Democrats in 1972?!  He won 520-17 for cripes sake!  And I don't think ANY of that came from any secret information he might have gleaned from those shenanigans.  His personal demons got in the way of his better judgment.  But Watergate was paranoia, not policy.  And without Watergate?  No one today would even know who Gerald Ford was.

Nixon would be a RINO today.  He may have been perceived as pretty hard-Right in  his day, but remember that he was coming in after Lyndon Johnson, maybe the last public servant who was still supporting the "New Deal" philosophy of Roosevelt.  IMHO? He also had his policy flaws (Vietnam?) but he was the last truly liberal President, and maybe the last truly principled, leader we've had in the White House.

I feel it's important to point out that Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford all had distinguished military service in foreign theatres, as did Sen. Goldwater. This distinction is lacking when we turn our attention to:

Pres. Reagan


Reagan never had to be a hero (but he played one on TV!), or even come close to an enemy – his 'service' was all done state-side. I'm not sure if that is the difference – merely memorizing the lines and mouthing the words – vs actually having to live the life... Anyway, you and others have repeatedly pointed out Reagan's faults, to which I would only add. Reagan probably could be classified as the 'event horizon' of 'principled Conservatism.'

Wait... who "hates Reagan" now? ;)

Speaking of Reagan, who popularized the term 'welfare queen,' now might be a good time for an aside on my thoughts on the welfare state:


I don't consider myself a heartless bastard so I care, at least a little, about my fellow inhabitants on this speck of mud we call home. I subscribe to the oft mis-attributed phrase "Charity begins at home..." - unfortunately, it seems to end there as well for the modern crop of Republicans. I would challenge them to prove that they are not heartless bastards by "promote(ing) the general Welfare" - not necessarily by taxing and funding social programs, perhaps by getting personally involved? Many folks would defend their charity by saying "I donate..." clothing (they no longer wear,) household items, canned goods, yada, yada, yada – I do that too. Here's the difference – it takes money and people for the kind non-profits to operate – those canned goods that you wouldn't eat unless you were starving, those clothes that you cleaned out of your closet to make room for newer, more fashionable (or better-fitting, whatever) clothing – they're NOT going to collect, warehouse, sort, repackage and distribute themselves. It takes trucks, fuel, space and PEOPLE!

OK, first of all?  No one thinks of themselves as a "heartless bastard."  I'm sure even Rush Limbaugh thinks of himself as a generous and magnanimous guy fighting for what he honestly believes is right.  I'm not suggesting the you are one, not at all, only that this statement doesn't really mean anything. ;)

Second of all, while I applaud anyone's participation in charity, and feel that there is a lot of good work being done in that area... Do you really think it would ever be enough?  If we got rid of the welfare state, do you really think a few dollars here and there, some threadbare clothing, and as many cans of creamed corn will really make up the difference?  What's more, I propose that if the taxes were lower proportionately, once those programs were cut, that charitable donations might actually DROP as the marginal return, in terms of the tax deduction, drops. 

What more, while I don't adopt the label "Keynesian," I do understand how Keynesian economics WORKS.  All that welfare money?  Goes right into the economy.  Every after-tax penny of it immediately becomes someone else's income.  People who WORK.  And people who would also be OUT OF WORK in that big chuck of revenue was suddenly denied them or their employer. (Which in turn would that much less consumption by those people, and less revenue for than many more businesses.)  Whether or not huge deficits can change the course of an economy is up for debate.  What is FACT is that Taxing and Spending - in unison, now, as a balanced budget - increase incomes for everyone.  And cutting taxes and spending - in unison - will hurt just about everyone.  Those rich folks at the top? They're going to be rich either way.  They get every penny they pay in taxes BACK through all the increased consumption resulting from the increased spending.  And the farther down the ladder the spending starts, the more people's income it will become before finally being whittled way by taxes and acts of non-consumption (savings.)  Tax-cuts for the rich?  Pretty much ALL end up as acts of non-consumption.  They'll save it.  So it benefits no one but them.  But a welfare case?  Spends every penny, and thus gives the highest economic benefit to the economy.  THAT'S the fundamental difference between supply-siders and Keynesian: Recognition that the health of the economy depends far more on CONSUMPTION that it does PRODUCTION.  (That, and a recognition of the fact that right now?  Stuff is pretty cheap.  WAGES and INCOME are what's keeping consumption down, not high prices.
I volunteer two hours every two weeks at a kitchen. (I'd do more, it's extremely rewarding in it's own 'warm-fuzzy' way, but I _really_ can't find the time in my schedule.) I manage to work in about 24 'unscheduled' hours a year for projects for Goodwill, SA and some local groups. I'm doing more than some (I suspect many,) and less than others (I suspect too few.)

I applaud you.  I'm ashamed to say that I've done no more than donate, myself.  And while I can make any excuse I want, I'll be honest: Even without the hectic family life, I probably still wouldn't donate much time.  So you could argue that I'm as much a part of the problem, from the Left.  But hey, I'll do my part: I pay my taxes, and I'm not out campaigning to get rid of the social safety nets.  In fact, I would see them strengthened. That may seem like the weaker choice from a Conservative's perspective, but I simply believe that more can be accomplished for the rich, middle class and poor alike by using the resources of the Federal Government instead of society loose change.  And remember: Johnson, Nixon/Ford, Carter?  All of those administrations were basically deficit neutral, at least as compared to everyone since Reagan.  So it's not the "Great Society" program that are killing us.  It our unwillingness to PAY for this great nation, thanks in large part to Ronald "Event Horizon" Reagan and the culture of deficit spending that he kicked off.

I challenge any 'Republican' (or anyone else, for that matter,) who decries the cost of social programs and the tax burden they cause to step-up and either whip out their checkbook or invest their time – otherwise they should admit that they're heartless bastards or, STFU, pay their taxes, and attempt to salve their consciences with the previously mentioned "I donate..." defense. (sorry for the rant – one of my pet peeves.)

Hey, I hear you.   And I feel a little bit better now about saying "I donate," because I'm NOT one of the one's complaining about high taxes.
 
Back to your post: "For me, the label (and the party) is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure we both just think what we think and believe as we do. You're mat be more comfortable with the one label, or party. Me? I couldn;t care less what soemone wants to call it."


In "The Federalist Papers" #10, Madison rails against 'Factions' (political parties,) as does Washington in his Farewell Address – Who am I to pit myself against these and other great thinkers on that subject? Unfortunately, a 'mob mentality' trumps logic. Many people can't be bothered to think independently and have forgotten the wisdom of their elders (or betters, as the case may be.) I would say that modern life has become too fast-paced to allow for considered thought and reasonable debate – but I take our conversation to be evidence that this is not the case. Hell, even during the Founders time, dirt-farmers who worked from sun-up to sun-down managed to find the time to weigh-in on political issues. (I guess they weren't too busy watching TV.)

The evolution of Political Parties was inevitable.  It's human nature and really the nature of a Democracy.  Even in parliamentary systems, they still end up forming coalitions, so you effectively still end up with two sides: The Government and the Opposition.  Those are a bit more diverse groups than what we have, but until recently there were Liberal Republicans, and there remains rather a few Conservative Democrats.  But multiple parties just means split votes, and everything only gets messier.  Like in Great Britain recently, where the Liberal Democrats, who are to the Left of Labor, joined with the Conservative to put them over the top.  And it's a mess.  The Liberals lost on all points - hence the austerity policies that are being enacted, and which I mentioned a few posts ago.  So while Parties suck, there's really no way around them.  Washington and Madison were absolutely right, but they were asking way too much of humanity.

I wouldn't mind if we had at least 5 or 6 viable parties that addressed a variety of issues, values and views. I feel the choices would stimulate thought and debate, and would be preferable to the two-party monopoly that we currently see.

Wouldn't matter. Wouldn't make a bit of difference. (See above, LOL)  And more and more I'm coming to the impression that we really DON'T have two Parties.  The Democrats have shown themselves to be little more than "Republican-lite."  And the funny thing? The Tea-Baggers say the same thing about the Republicans!"  And I can certainly perceive a POV form which BOTH of these statements are true!  And that might be why Congress is so partisan: It's no longer about the policy.  The policies aren't that far apart.  So it's all about which team wins.  Now if the TeaBagger's take over the right? And we have ourselves a little Coffee Party on the Left?  And we compete for the moderates?  (Thus moderating both sides in the process?) THEN we'll have true two-party system.
"What the right practices these days may not be "Conservative" but that's what it's called and I utterly reject it. And if they're going to throw the "Liberal" label at me, then screw 'em. I'LL WEAR IT WITH PRIDE."

So you're OK with letting dishonest people pervert the meaning of words? I know you're not, and neither is Classic! There should be no shame in those labels. We are victims of a campaign to distort the language and those subversives who are conducting that campaign should be called-out and beaten over the head with a dictionary. (Pocket-version or collegiate with large type – depending on the severity of the crime.)

It's not that I'm "OK" with the meaning of words being perverted.  But I'm still a pragmatist.  You say "Conservative" but I hear very little from you that I can't, very fairly, call "Liberal."  So you choose to use a definition that most people, for whatever reason, no longer really consider valid.  Tragic yes, buts that;'s the reality of it.  If I really wanted to choose a label for myself?  Anti-Neo-Conservative might fit better than any.  But is there really any difference between that and "Liberal"? Not really. And hey, "Anti-Neo-Conservative" might be another way of saying "Classic Conservative" or even "Libertarian."  The only thing that puts me on the side of "Liberal" is my recognition that the policies of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson work.   

And the political Landscape shifted far more in the past 30 years than I have.  I've matured: After all I was only 8 years old when Reagan was elected.  So while I could idolize him as a kid, I had little understanding of policy.  Now that I do, I find that it's not so much that my core beliefs have changed, only that I didn't realize, as a child, how much Reagan differed form them.  And I don't think ANYONE at the time realized the full extent of the long-lasting damage his polices would do. 

In 1979, I may have been just Left of center.  But I find myself practically on the hard Left now, because the republic's perception of the Center has been puled so far to the Right!  And really I don't care about the Label, or the Party.  They're just tools I can use to describe what I believe in, in a simple way that can give a complete stranger some idea what those beliefs are.  It's not a perfect picture, but I dare say that when I say "Liberal" people get a more accurate picture of me than the do of YOU when you say "Conservative."

You can argue who's right and who's wrong. (Answer: You're right; they're wrong.)  I'm just being practical. I can't change the world if no one knows what the hell I'm talking about! LOL

"And it shows."

Agreed!

"So... COME TO THE DARK SIDE!!! (we have cake)"

But I'm watching my weight! ;)


"Thanks for your comment, and for that lucid, principled, well written post on MMFA. Can I use it?"

Fine Print: Copyright restrictions, yada, yada, yada. In whole or in part, etc. Not valid in any other state (of mind.) /Fine Print Thanks for the compliment, you're welcome to quote me. (Especially now that you threw my half-baked idea for solar-powered nuke waste-disposal out there for the world to see. Who knew being outed could be so liberating! Freed from the secret shame. Joy!)

I give up.  I'm not even sure at this point WHAT "shows." LOL.  But I'm glad we agree. LOL

PART the SECOND – RE: Oh, hey Okie, one thing

Ed note: "Okie" refers to someone from Oklahoma – capitalization and use correct in that sense. okiepoli is the screen-name of one opinionated blow-hard from Oklahoma – not capitalized by choice – suitable short-form "okie"

Duely noted. ;)

You said: ""Larger" Government (whatever THAT means) might be harder to "keep track" of, but "smaller" government, by contrast, give any/all of the individals in it more power individually. Personally, I'd like to try it the opposite way... Check out www.thirty-thousand.org.

I followed that link from your blog 22 July, 2010, and collected 7.73 Megs of information from the site and related links – I admit I am intrigued, but haven't had the time to digest and analyze it yet. My argument on size of government is more to do with scope rather than numbers of people or dollars. That said, I still believe that 'smaller' (limited scope,) more efficient (most-bang-for-buck) government is better than 'larger' (broad scope,) inefficient (expanding bureaucracy) government. (My definition of bureaucrat: a non-elected public 'servant' whose decrees (regulations, codes, etc.) carry the weight of law (I can be fined, jailed or otherwise punished for non-compliance.))

I offer this personal observation to clarify my position:


Recently, the OKC "Jesus House" non-profit made the news due to some scandalous activity. My conversations with other volunteers leads me to believe the allegations are true, and I will no longer donate money to that organization until the problems are corrected. It saddens me because Jesus House is such a valuable resource for the homeless in my city, and I know that many others are withholding donations and it has more of a negative effect on the quality and quantity of services offered than it does to the (mis-)management. Still, I made the choice – not some bureaucrat in a bureaucracy that is slow to recognize and correct it's mistakes. I agree – poverty, homelessness, hunger, etc. in the wealthiest nation in the world, is shameful. I also believe, with all my heart, that a government cannot adequately address, much less cure, these social ills.

I'm also dismayed by the Republican support of 'faith-based' organizations – tax-exempt for 501c's I'm OK with, but any kind of grant with that provision seems to cross the line I draw for separation. Where would we stop? If we give a penny to the next "Heaven's Gate" cult, we'd need to give three cents to the next Branch Davidians, more to the next Jim Jones, etc. until we get to the more main-stream folks. (Based on the percent of population represented by these faiths.) To apportion the money otherwise would smack of favoritism.

Again, government (federal) should concern itself with government affairs, LIKE PRESENTING A BUDGET FOR THE PRESIDENT TO SIGN BY APRIL, instead of shirking it's (Congress) Constitutional duty and running the country on continuing resolutions. State and local governments should concern themselves with their respective concerns. Society, through the efforts of it's members and Non-governmental Organizations (NGO's) should address social problems. There are levels of scope involved for each – local, regional, national, global – and levels of commitment. Political and social involvement is a citizens duty.


okiepoli

Wow.  That's mouthful and then some! LOL.  I really don't DISAGREE with anything you've said here.  My only "counter," if that's even the right word for it, is this:
 
1) As I stated previously, there are far more resources available at the federal level to combat poverty that would otherwise be available at the charitable level.  We need BOTH, and of course I'm fine with people dong charitable work.  I just don't understand the mentality that the two must be in competition with each other, instead of part of the same solution.  (Which is how I see them.)
 
And we DO have a repsonsibilty ot combat that poverty if for no other reason than we don't actually aim for full employemnt!  As a coutnry, we actually have a targeted unemployment rate!  So if we're going to keep ANYONE out of work as a matter of policy, I'd say we have some responsibility to them.
 
2) Regarding "punishing wrongdoing."  I'm going to offer something I learned, from a very conservative professor I might add, when I got my MBA.  In any given organization, redundantcny combats fraud.  It does this by requiring more people to be involved in any given conspiracy. And the more people involved, the more likely that one squeals or that it is otherwise discovered. 
 
You can see a very simple example of this at the movie theatre: Why do you pay one person and then give your ticket to someone else?  Why don;t you just PAY and then GO IN?  Because by separating the two processes, you have an accurate count of ticket purchases from one person, that makes it harder for the cashier to steal from the register without being caught.  And even if they tried to coordinate their efforts, all it would take is to be off by one or two ticket purchases here and there for management to know something's screwy is going on.
 
In contrast, a friend of mine has her own business.  She's very good at the service she provide, but she's not much at the business side of things.  She had just two people running the office, doing the billing and tracking the books.  And these two? Milked her to the tune of $700,000 over several years.  How? No redundantcny.  No one checking theirr work.  No checks and balances against which their numbers would ever be compared.  By the time she finally caught on? Her business was on the brink of bankruptcy.
 
People get frustrated with bureaucracies, and that's understandable.  But at least in those cases their is a PROCESS.  If I'm dealing with one person who has all the power? That can be a mixed blessing, big time.  If s/he wants to help me it's great.  But if their job is as a gatekeeper?   And they DON'T want to help me?  I'm twice as screwed as I am dealing with the bureaucracy.  Bureaucracies are SLOW.  But a single point of decision making? Is FINAL.  And of course, it becomes very easy for that person to pull of the very kind of shenanigans you are describing, if there are not redundant layers of process that his work will be compared against.
 
Again, big or small doesn't really matter to me.  The fact that so many things don't work, IMHO, has nothing to do with the size.  It has to do with political games where people don't like something so they slash their budget and then go on TV and say, "Look!  It doesn't even WORK!"  We can accomplish great things when we want to.  And we'd be that much better off if politicians and the media weren't so good at fooling people.  I maintain, and I think you;d agree with me, that a well infomred populace would all but wipe out the modern Republican party.  (And the modern Democrats as well, but they would be pushed back to their more historcical place in the true American Left.)
 
Anyway, that was a very interesting perspective, but I still don't see why you cling to the labels like you do! I read what you say, and, right or wrong, it just doesn't jive what I think of when I hear "Conservative" and certainly not when I hear "Republican." 
 
And thanks so much for the e-mail, and for your continuous contributions to this blog.  I don't think you'll be changing my positions anytime soon (I don't think we're all that far apart on most things to begin with) but I do really appreciate having a principled Conservative around to keep me honest!