Archive | Politics RSS feed for this section

Are Americans on the Left Conservaphobes?

11 Oct

Since September 11th, 2001, Islamic terrorists have committed thousands of attacks. To the disappointment of many, moderate voices within Islam have been hesitant to confront those who murder in the name of their faith. However, this hesitancy has not caused those on the left to question whether Islam could be the inspiration for such attacks. To the contrary, those on the left have actively participated in a campaign to differentiate Islam, and her peaceful followers, from Islamic terrorists. The term Islamic terrorists is not even used in leftist circles. In point of fact, if you use such language, you run the risk of being labeled an Islamaphobe.

In stark contrast to the tepid responses from Muslims, to those who murder in the name of their faith, conservatives have been quick to condemn those who would commit violence and claim a common cause. Glenn Beck, a frequent target of accusations of incitement to violence within the big tent of conservatism, has condemned the use of violence on numerous occasions, quoted Ghandi and stated that peaceful change is his goal. Yet, in spite of that, and numerous other statements from prominent conservatives in condemnation of those who would use violence to further a peaceful agenda, the left is eager to link those who inspire conservative activism with even the most tangentially related acts of violence.

In the case of Islam we have “moderates” who make excuses for and attempt to justify acts of terrorism. In the case of conservatism we have broad condemnation, without equivocation, of those who would use violence to further a peaceful agenda. Conservatives actively condemn those who would use violence because they know it tarnishes them and is morally indefensible. My question is, what do conservatives have to do for the left to give them the same benefit that they give Muslims? Must they make excuses for those who commit violence and claim common cause with conservatives? Must they funnel money to front organizations that in turn send funds to organizations whose singular mission is the murder of innocent civilians?

If willingness to recognize the links between Islamic terrorists and moderate Muslims, who attempt to justify terrorism, makes one an Islamaphobe, what does it make those on the left who try to link conservatives who condemn violence to those who commit violence while claiming a common cause?


Rand Paul and Unpopular Principle

20 May

Some are giving Rand Paul a hard time for his position that business owners should be free to govern their private business as they see fit, even if they choose to discriminate based on race. Many in the mainstream media are highly critical of Rand Paul’s position, but these are the same people who belong to the ACLU. Now the ACLU actively defends the free speech rights of racists and child molesters, yet this is not criticized by the media. The mainstream media has (correctly) bought into the idea that free speech is only meaningful if those whose views you find repugnant are also free to express their opinions. This is good, but for Libertarians speech isn’t the only principle worth defending.

There is also the principle of the free market and the belief that consumers should be empowered to make decisions with their dollars rather than having the government dictate behavior. This principle is radical because it trusts individuals to be the final arbiters of what is right and wrong. They trust the people to not spend money at establishments that they find morally repugnant. They trust that the same spirit that encourages PETA members to not buy from companies that support cruelty to animals exists in all people. They believe in the people enough to trust that they will make moral decisions with their dollars and not frequent businesses that engage in racist practices.

Free speech advocates believe that good speech will triumph over hateful speech, because of human nature. Likewise, many Libertarians believes that good business practices will triumph over discriminatory practices because of human nature. Both principled positions are rooted in a belief in freedom and a trust in the judgment of individuals. The difference lies in the fact that the belief in free speech is safe, as a widely held principle, within the mainstream media, while the belief in the free market is not. In the movie The American President free speech saw one of its most moving defenses:

“America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, ‘You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.’ You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.”

If you truly trust the people, why doesn’t that trust extend beyond free speech? Government should not be allowed to discriminate and Rand Paul is not advocating that. He simply believes that trust in individuals can and should extend to private businesses and their patrons.

I Hate When This Happens

12 Dec

There is a melodic punk rock band called Rise Against. Though the bands conformist, hard left politics always annoyed me, I was able to look beyond that and appreciate the music. Sadly, I can no longer even do that. With the song Hero of War, they have taken away my ability to even reluctantly enjoy their music. The song in question paints the tale of a soldier who is a patriotic cliche who goes off to war and does bad things, with no context as to why he might be there. It paints soldiers as men who torture, murder and brutalize the innocent. It’s a cheap tune designed to appeal to leftists who’ve bought into the false narrative that, if it wasn’t for the ugly Americans the world would be all rainbows and kittens. It’s disgusting to see somebody like Tim McIlrath, who has never sacrificed a damn thing, is out there slandering all soldiers. It’s not like he’s ever done a song on the good that soldiers do, but that’s because it wouldn’t fit into his narrow political mindset.

This cliche portrayal of soldiers is nothing original. It can be seen in a number of Hollywood films and in your local university classroom. It’s an attitude born out ignorance. These leftists rarely see war on the news, unless the US is involved. As a result, they assume the rest of the world is as wonderful and peaceful as their San Fransisco coffee house, until the ugly Americans show up. It’s as much the medias fault as their own, that they turn a blind eye to the suffering of people living in “peace” around the world. Where are the songs about women who lose their faces to acid because they weren’t sufficiently modest or people who suffer horribly in Iranian prisons because they simply want a little liberty and freedom? For the leftist, who takes the freedom earned by their forefathers through blood, sweat, and tears for granted, it’s far too easy to ignore the injustice others must suffer, while they crusade for the rights of cows. Another band meets my trash bin because their musical talent is vastly overshadowed by their naivety and progressive posturing. Congrats guys and enjoy the bin.

Palin Made A Mistake

5 Dec

I may catch some flak for this, but I’m prepared.

While I very much like Sarah Palin, and what she represents, I do believe she made a serious error when answering a question concerning the issue of Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

Rusty Humphries: Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?

Sarah Palin: I think the public, rightfully, is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue ’cause I think there are enough members of the electorate who still want answers.

Rusty Humphries: Do you think it’s a fair question to be looking at?

Sarah Palin: I think it’s a fair question, just like I think past associations and past voting record — all of that is fair game. You know, I’ve got to tell you, too: I think our campaign, the McCain/Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area. We didn’t call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were and perhaps what their future plans were. And I don’t think that that was fair to voters to not have done our jobs as candidates and as a campaign to bring to light a lot of the things that now we’re seeing made manifest in the administration.

Rusty Humphries: I mean, truly, if your past is fair game and your kids are fair game, certainly Obama’s past should be. I mean, we want to treat men and women equally, right?

Sarah Palin: Hey, you know, that’s a great point, in that weird conspiracy-theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn’t my real son. And a lot of people say, “Well you need to produce his birth certificate! You need to prove that he’s your kid!” Which we have done. But yeah, so maybe we could reverse that and use the same [unintelligible]-type thinking on them.

I believe Sarah Palin made a serious mistake by excusing the paranoid conspiracy mindset that dominates the fringes of both parties. Truthers, birthers and baby trig conspiracy believers (see the deranged scum sucking troll Andrew Sullivan) deserve nothing but disdain and marginalization from serious individuals. Individuals who buy into these conspiracy theories should never be legitimized in my opinion. They are no different than ufologists and bigfoot chasers. Such ridiculous individuals should not be described as legitimate by a serious potential leader.

Sarah had options when it came to responding to such a question. She could have said that engaging in such reckless speculation, which is devoid of relevance and substance, should not be entertained when this country faces such serious challenges. She easily could have pivoted and discussed the bias in the mainstream media that was eager to entertain conspiracy theories regarding her, but hesitant to publicize those involving Barack Obama. By saying that “I think the public, rightfully, is still making [Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate] an issue,” Sarah Palin said that the public is also right to make the birth of her son an issue. I’m sorry, but I disagree. The paranoid twits who made the birth of her son an issue are insane and should be ashamed of themselves for perpetuating such clearly spurious allegations.

I’m not naive as to the nature of politics and I don’t expect Sarah Palin to be either. Opposition research and mudslinging are a part of major campaigns, but most candidates know to treat it as an unfortunate reality rather than embrace and legitimize it. I like that Sarah Palin speaks her mind and I agree with her in regards to investigating Obama’s past associations and radical views, but birth certificates and amniotic fluid cross the line of what should be considered off limits.

Some will say Barack Obama’s birth is a legitimate question, but they, like Sarah Palin, should know that, even if the birth certificate issue was legitimate, getting him removed from office for that reason would make him a victim in the eyes of many. It would be portrayed as undoing the election based on a technicality. There would be rioting in the streets and likely calls for a constitutional convention. The way to beat Barack Obama is at the ballot box and Palin should know that. By not dismissing the birth certificate issue as a non-issue and a mistake, she has made a major error. Obama’s past associations are one thing, but you can’t make him the bad guy because of something his parents did. You’d have to prove that Obama wasn’t born here and knew that while running for office, in order for him to even begin to look like the bad guy.

I like Sarah Palin. I’ve defended her when she has been wrongfully attacked, but I believe she made a serious mistake in this instance. I hope I’m wrong and this does not come back to haunt her, but I fear it will. I’ve criticized others for taking pleasure in attacking Palin, but there are times when we must soberly criticize our own. Newt Gingrich was wrong to back Dede Scozzafava over Doug Hoffman and Sarah Palin was wrong to excuse those who deal in destructive conspiracy theories. Acknowledging that they were wrong does not mean I won’t support them, but it does mean that I hope they learn from the experience. I fear that if we, the people, never correct those who would lead us, we run the risk of raising up politicians that are ill prepared to do so.

Cross-Posted at Feed Your ADHD

Meet The Relics

6 Sep

Hat Tip to Gateway Pundit

So how do the geniuses at Meet the Press respond to the resignation of Van Jones? They decide to piss all over the internet. I think bloggers, and the internet at large, anger some in the MSM, because they can no longer dictate the narrative. The internet has robbed the MSM of its position as the gatekeeper of what is and isn’t newsworthy. It is because of online resources that consumers are determining what is newsworthy, rather than an incestuous cabal living in a fishbowl. One of the more vocal critiques of the internet was Thomas Friedman of the New York Times.

Friedman, the bastard child of Christopher Hewett and a large rodent, proved just how out of touch some are in the MSM. He first used the Van Jones case to argue that you can’t be a public figure if you ever say anything controversial. I think Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor is proof that Friedman’s argument is deeply flawed. You can say stupid and controversial things, while still remaining viable as a public figure. However, if you repeatedly engage in the abject lunacy of somebody like Van Jones, Bill Ayers, or Reverend Wright, you should rightly be considered unqualified to hold a position of influence.

Friedman later commented that every modem should include a warning label that says, “judgment not included.” It’s a cute little jab at those who get the news from the net, but we would be better served if that label was placed on President Obama’s forehead, as well as members of the MSM who carry water for him. And by a happy coincidence…

judgment not included

There are legitimate critiques of news on the net, but the case of Van Jones is an example where the net got it right.

What Those Words Actually Mean

4 Sep

van jones

Recent controversy has surrounded President Obama’s Green Jobs adviser, Van Jones. As has been noted on other blogs and by Glenn Beck, Van Jones is a self described communist as well as a truther. Today, Stephen Gutowski posted the video (linked to the image above), which includes an assertion that minorities are criminalized by society and only white kids are involved in school shootings involving multiple victims. But the following part of the video that I’ve transcribed caught my eye.

We have got to look at this idea of criminality, of evil, of wrongdoing, of mistakes, as being a universal condition .. requiring a universally loving response and a universally embracing response.

What is implied in this statement is insidious at its core. He is attempting to trivialize the very real existence of those who perpetrate evil acts. By attempting to make these universal conditions, rather than results of choices, Van Jones is trying to make society the criminal & excusing the individual who is ultimately responsible. Not everyone from impoverished circumstances becomes a criminal. Not every angry white boy shoots up his school. Not every minority makes choices that put them in prison. We as individuals must accept that we are responsible for the choices we make and must accept responsibility that comes with that.

Van Jones is attempting to excuse individuals who make the wrong choices, but this mentality has proven devastating to many communities. Criminality, acts of evil, etc, are not universal conditions. They are the consequences of those who make poor decisions. It’s just one more reason why Van Jones does not belong in any president’s administration.

Why My Disdain For The Left?

28 Aug

professor sodomy

I feel like explaining why I hold those on the left in such low regard. During my years in college I found that the most arrogant, snotty, and unimpressive individuals were invariably leftists. Their entire sense of self worth was wrapped up in their delusions of a superior intellect. Such individuals have always rubbed me wrong way, just like the jocks of high school that bully the physically weak. Both throw their respective weight around in a pathetic attempt to compensate for their own insecurity. They do so, often without even being aware of their motivation.

Such individuals invariably mock and deride those determined to be “simple” and it often results in ugly exchanges. Against my better judgment, I would occasionally take the opportunity to damage their ego by making them feel inferior. While satisfying, it none the less required me to behave like those for which I hold deep reservoirs of disdain. This was the reality that the arrogant leftist never grasped. They so hated those that they looked down upon that they failed to realize how similar they truly were. The arrogant leftist intellectual and the rural rube are but two sides of the same coin. Like the anti-theist and the bible thumper, both live in the realm of absolutes and intolerance. The leftist intellectual and the rural rube both look down upon that which is different. They both believe themselves to be superior, though for different reasons. They both see the other as the source of the worlds problems. In short, they both hate themselves.

The question is then raised, why do you hold the leftist intellectual in such low esteem, if they are the same as the rural rube? It should be obvious. I often agree with leftist intellectual in regards to the ignorant rube, but my pool of rubes is broader and includes the leftist.