.
.
.
Ideology shapes legislation. So, the difference between various ideologies (I recognize three fundamental ideologies: Liberalism, Conservatism and Anarchy) ultimately determines how legislation is written and intended.
Liberalism operates on the notion that a person is free to make any choice they want, free from consequence, repercussion and responsibility.
Conservatism also operates from the “any choice” position, but with two key caveats:
1. That once a choice is made by the individual, ALL consequences, repercussions and responsibilities are ALSO borne by that individual (and that individual alone).
2. No choice may be made which, in making that choice, the rights of another individual are violated.
Example: ABORTION
Legislated by a Liberal court (Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion) and supported almost entirely by Liberals (along with a few Left-of-Center “Republicans”), abortion law stands as a perfect example of the difference between Liberalism and Conservatism.
According to current law, a woman (and ONLY a woman) has the right to terminate the life of an unborn or partially-born child (in Illinois, Obama attempted to include newly born children of failed abortion attempts). There needs to be no reason given for such an action. (Since this is not a discussion, specifically, about abortion….that will be coming soon, as January marks the anniversary of Roe…I will refrain the details of abortion law). What IS important for this discussion is to understand the fundamental Liberal vs Conservative stance.
Liberalism teaches a woman can decide to be sexually active and, if pregnancy results, the responsibility (of carrying and delivering the product of that pregnancy) can legally be handed off to others. (I specifically exclude men in this discussion because, legally, with regard to abortion law, they have no rights). The responsibility and consequences associated with a woman’s decision to be sexually active are carried by two groups of society:
1. Taxpayers, who are required, through their tax dollars, to pay for abortions.
2. The unborn child, who pays with their life.
So, Liberals, through the courts, draft a piece of legislation which frees a woman from all personal responsibility for a decision which she, alone, makes.
Conservatism teaches that abortion law is a fundamental violation of our founding documents (The Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence) all of which (except the Constitution, which merely defines the duties of Government) requires equality for all. In fact, several of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights further emphasized the notion of equality (The Thirteenth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and The Nineteenth Amendment, as examples). (The discussion of the redundancy of these Amendments can be examined and discussed at a future time). A Conservative approach to “abortion law” would be to legislate on the fact that an unborn child is, in fact, fully human, and would therefore be afforded all protections and equalities defined by our founding documents.
The various arguments, offered by Liberals, in defense of the “right to an abortion” cannot stand serious scrutiny. Some of the more common defenses include (but are not limited to):
– “It (the child) is a part of the woman’s body”
o A fetus contains a genetic code. It is this genetic code which defines humanity; the person. That genetic code is made up of 46 chromosomes, of which 23 are donated from the ovum (female), leaving the other 23 donated by the sperm (male). The “uniqueness” of an individual is determined and complete at the moment an ovum and sperm unite. And at that same moment, that individual is an entity separate from both man and woman.
Therefore, at MOST, a fetus is HALF “the woman’s body”; the other HALF being “the man’s body”.
– “It (the child) is simply a mass of cells”
o Unfortunately for the pro-choice crowd, “a mass of cells” also describes ANY person regardless of age.
– “A ‘fetus’ is not the same as a ‘human’”
o “Fetus” merely describes a stage of life, just as “toddler”, “child”, “baby”, “teenager”, “adult”, “senior citizen”, etc, also merely describe stages of life.
– “A fetus cannot survive, by itself, without massive intervention, outside the womb”
o A newborn also cannot survive without massive intervention. Nor can a one-year-old, two-year-old, etc…
o Many physically or mentally infirmed cannot survive without massive intervention.
o Many elderly cannot survive without massive intervention.
These are just some of the biological arguments revolving around the abortion law issue. There is a whole legal (Constitutional) argument as well, but, again, that can be examined at a different time.
Next up in “Conservatism 101”: Two views of The Constitution.
Hirota: out.
“Liberalism operates on the notion that a person is free to make any choice they want, free from consequence, repercussion and responsibility.”
Your entire post flows from that thesis, and so I ask;
Where is the academic source, where is the philosophical source, where is the writing, the speech, who expounded this?
Are you saying that Hirota can only have a valid opinion if someone else has told him what to think?
Anon, these theses derive from personal observation and, while I only included a single issue by way of example, the examples which can be offered are myriad.
“No choice may be made which, in making that choice, the rights of another individual are violated.”
So if “conservatives” believe in this credo, please explain to me how “conservatives” (with the notable exceptions of Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano and Walter Jones) can justify a foriegn policy of waging the pre-emptive and unlawful wars over in the Middle East? Wouldn’t the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation violate the natural rights of these people who live there? In addition, would you consider interrogation tactics such as waterboarding in violation of this conservative credo? If not, how would you justify that?
-Lemmy Kilmister, bassist and lead singer of Motorhead
First, Guy….let me state up front that I LOVE Lemmy!
But, let’s look at this statement: “…how “conservatives” (with the notable exceptions of Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano and Walter Jones) can justify a foriegn policy of waging the pre-emptive and unlawful wars over in the Middle East? Wouldn’t the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation violate the natural rights of these people who live there?”
1. Pre-emptive? Sorry, it wasn’t, as, in the Congressional resolution which authorized the war (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002), included in its stated reasons for war “Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.” Therefore, there was no “pre-emption”.
2. Unlawful? Sorry, no it wasn’t. As Congress has the right to authorize war, they did so in 2002. The vote was 297-133, in favor. In addition, The UN passed UN1441, which included the same reinstatement of hostilities (based on the 1991 ceasefire). (Now, if you’d like to research an actual illegal act, look into Clinton’s actions (bombings) in Iraq which he did without congressional OR UN authorization)
3. “Natural rights of these people…”. I think you’ve got it a bit backwards, Guy. Approximately 25 MILLION Iraquis were liberated as a result of the coalition’s actions in Iraq.
4. Interrogation tactics. Setting aside the fact that the groups with which we are engaged in hostilities do not comply with the Geneva Convention and therefore, are not subject to it’s governance, criminal (or in this case, the actions of enemy combatants) carry consequences. In the US, a person convicted of various types of crimes, sacrifices certain rights. This is not an act of aggression toward that criminal, but rather a consequence of the crime. (This, by the way, comes dangerously close to demonstrating EXACTLY my thesis….the notion that an action/choice carries no personal consequences).
….hope this helps clarify.
Cheers!
Right. As a liberal, I believe I can, say, rob a bank and there should be no repercussions.
“Any” choice?
Right. Exactly.
Where do you get this stuff?
Being ambivalent on this topic and believing as I think most Tea Partiers do that abortion doesn’t belong in political debates, I am still curious, Hirota, what you believe the rights and of the MOTHER are? Has she no freedom of choice and right to go with her body what she wishes?
Seriously, I ask for pure curiosity’s sake with out any disrespect — you’ve made a nice argument above.
Fred,
Hirota did discuss the woman’s choice – it was to be sexually active, resulting in pregnancy (yes, I’m leaving out the typical liberal mantra of rape and incest which are but a fraction of the aborted pregnancies). She had the choice to have sex (whether it’s protected or unprotected) and once she became pregnant, the baby now has the right to live.
Fred:
A woman has the right – to a certain point – to do what she wishes with her body. However, as stated in the blog, the child is not her body. As soon as the egg and sperm unite a biologically unique individual is created. Accoring to the Declarartion of Independence, at that moment of creation, the individual has the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness…the EXACT same rights as the mother, no more, no less. Given that they both have equal rights according to the founding documents of our system of law, she has no more “right” to terminate her pregnancy than a mother has to murder her 1 year old son. Remember, the child IS NOT HER BODY.
Thank you, Fred M, for your comments!
As to “women’s rights”, again, basic knowledge of reproductive genetics and biology clarifies the fact that that entity, temporarily residing with a woman’s body is NOT her body. Rather, “it” is a genetically separate entity; a person. Therefore, as “it” IS, in fact, separate AND undeniably human, “it” has all the rights of any other human. And, yes, she has choices: the choice NOT to engage in activity which may lead to unintended consequences, the choice to accept the consequences of her choices, etc…
cheers!
I accidentally happend upon this article and i would just like to say
GO **** YOURSELF YOU STUPID **** PIECE OF **** YOU’RE A ******* IDIOT
Gilbert comment. If you can’t refrain from cursing to make your argument don’t post anything.
What a well-reasoned, rational, thoughtful response, Guy. Thank you for the liberal perspective.
Get a grip, Newbie. There are uncivil ingrates on BOTH sides of the political aisle…do the ones on YOUR side define conservatism?
Guy: Nothing is more clear than liberal tolerance. Joseph Goebbels and Michael Moore would be proud of you. Liberalism is today’s National Socialism.
How dare you link my name to yours!
Instead of cursing and making simplistic 3rd grade statements, try your hand at graphic or obscene descriptions that break taboos or perceived social norms. They are a lot more fun and generate a lot more controversy among your fellow readers than just saying “You’re a f’n idiot!” or “you’re a piece of sh!t.”
If you’re going to be obscene and crass, you might as well go all the way. Look what it did for Larry Flynt.
Guy. Some readers cannot make their case and revert to name calling and swearing.
Not exactly within our guidelines. Take us to task if we make a bad call but there are other Juice readers who get turned off by the profanity that slips through the cracks.
When I see it I will deal with it and so should the other writers
Hmmm….an interesting POV and a well-elucidated and reasoned argument…
As my mom would likely say (when us bratty kids would tell her that we hate her): I love you, too….
xoxo
Hirota
It takes a lot of chutzpa to set yourself up as an “informer” of political philosophy, but when that “informer” can’t even leave his prejudices long enough to give an ACCURATE definition of the different political philosophies that he is trying to elucidate us on, well that chutzpa just becomes SHAMELESS ARROGANCE. Hirota’s characterization of liberalism is so biased and uninformed that it is just plain silly;
“Liberalism operates on the notion that a person is free to make any choice they want, free from consequence, repercussion and responsibility.”
Hmmm, if that’s “liberalism” then what is “anarchy”
This is the very definition of SIMPLISTIC claptrap.
To better understand the differences between liberal and conservative philosophy, I suggest you start with Webster’s definitions;
Liberalism : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)
Conservatism : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
Two very different philosophies to be sure and ideas that RATIONAL, MATURE people can disagree on with out DEVOLVING INTO PURE DEMAGOGUERY.
Vern surely the OJ can do better than Hirota.
You’re not missing Crowley, are you?
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/author/terry/
If Webster’s definition is correct, then why do liberals make laws based on all people being evil?
Liberals don’t punish racism, they make laws that assume everyone is a racist and force people to hire a quota of minorities and, until recently, openly forced schools to admit based on racial quotas.
Liberals don’t punish criminals, they pass curfew laws that assume that anyone out beyond curfew is a criminal.
Liberals don’t protect freedom, they created the “Fairness Doctrine” to destroy it. They lambasted GWBush for tapping a few international calls between suspected terrorists yet now make efforts to tap all cellular calls and control the internet. They create McCain-Feingold which destroyed freedom – unless it’s Union freedom. (Don’t even start with McCain being conservative!)
Liberals give us Thought Crimes, Newspeak and Political Correctness. They keep guns from honest people and defend child molesters and the most vicious villains.
Liberals want foreign nationals and felons to vote in American elections. At least they know where their base is.
Liberals enable crime and poverty. They are so proud to help more poor people that they eagerly create as many as they can.
Most heinous of all, Liberals give us frivolous lawsuits and a dirty legal system. Why do trial lawyers donate almost exclusively to Democrats and liberals? Because they give the lawyers the power to keep us all in fear.
Webster’s definition is propaganda from the left.
Liberalism is a plantation mentality. Everyone is equal, except for the liberal overseers and the enforcers. The 3 classes in a liberal utopia: Politicians, Enforcers and workers.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need: Liberals will tell you what your ability is (according to their need) and tell you what your needs are (according to liberal’s ability to part with the wealth and power.)
Right. The Webster’s definition of liberalism is propaganda. And the definition of conservatism is spot-on. Got it.
And tomorrow, the sky will fall.
Julian,
I never said that Webster’s was the definitive answer to the differing political philosophies, but rather a better starting point for an informed discussion than Hirota’s, totally one-sided screed.
I too would quibble with Webster’s over liberals believing in the “essential goodness of the human race”, on an individual level, yes, but as a group, no. What I find so interesting about your comments is that they are all without context. You like to blame liberals for everything from racism to crime to poverty to a “dirty legal system”, so PLEASE Julian, point to the time (and be specific) when this country didn’t suffer from racism, a time when all people were treated equally and had equal opportunities, without laws and regulations forcing the issue.
You think that “Liberals enable crime and poverty”, do you not know that the good ol’ US of A has MORE PEOPLE LOCKED-UP than any other nation on earth?
From Reuters;
US Has the Most Prisoners in the World
A U.S. Justice Department report released on November 30 showed that a record 7 million people — or one in every 32 American adults — were behind bars, on probation or on parole at the end of last year. Of the total, 2.2 million were in prison or jail.
According to the International Centre for Prison Studies at King’s College in London, more people are behind bars in the United States than in any other country. China ranks second with 1.5 million prisoners, followed by Russia with 870,000.
The U.S. incarceration rate of 737 per 100,000 people in the highest, followed by 611 in Russia and 547 for St. Kitts and Nevis. In contrast, the incarceration rates in many Western industrial nations range around 100 per 100,000 people.
*************************
The US is hardly a bastion of liberal mollycoddling or don’t those FACTS matter?
On poverty, please, give specifics on how liberals are at fault for creating poverty. When was that “golden age” in America when there was no poverty, was it before child-labor laws, overtime pay, the week-end and worker health and safety regulations (yep, all brought to you by us evil libs)?
Of all your ranting this is probably the most foolish; “Most heinous of all, Liberals give us frivolous lawsuits and a dirty legal system”. Here again, you provide no specifics, just worn-out old talking points from crazy right-wingers,it’s all the fault of those evil “trial lawyers”, yeah, go ahead and do away with “trial lawyers” and see how long you retain ANY of your precious rights and freedoms.
People like you and Tim Hirota feel smug and superior, you feel that you have “earned” what you have all by your lonesome and are being burdened by “others”, what you have FORGOTTEN is ALL THE SOCIAL ENGINEERING (aka GOVERNMENT) that was put into place (and yes, mostly by liberals) that has aided and abetted your “success”. All those evil government rules and regulations that protect you from the ravages of unfettered capitalism, all that evil government spending on infrastructure (roads,ports, bridges, airports, hospitals, schools, courts)that allows middle class commerce to flourish and lastly our progressive tax policy that helps equalize society;
“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” Thomas Jefferson 1785
I wish that you or Hirota or any of your other government-hating brethren, could point to a country that has the size of government you advocate for and where you would still want to live and raise a family or point to that golden-moment in US history that you seem to be yearning for.
I think most “liberals” believe that there is always room for debate on how much regulation and taxation is necessary and it is GOOD to have LEGITIMATE and THOUGHTFUL OPPOSING viewpoints, so why do “conservatives” in a supposedly “educational commentary” feel the need for this irrational demonization of “liberals”, it’s as if you and Hirota would rather there was only ONE VIEWPOINT and ONE PARTY in this country and that I find, VERY DISTURBING!
Anonster,
Certainly, this debate can get out of hand in the context of following any one of so many points. And kudos for your civility.
First, please do not divert from my attack on liberalism with attacks on conservatism. I am independent, but better defined as libertarian who hates (yes, hate. Hate can be good, i.e., I hate racism.) liberal, authoritarian oppression.
Next, I don’t believe that Hirota or I believe that our opinion should be the only ones in America. A take question your comprehensive skills, here.
BLAMING LIBERALS:
Yes, the very essence of liberalism creates the very problems that destroy society, but can be solved through the liberal plantation mentality. The more crime, the more poverty the more dysfunctional the society, the more people will demand a strict government. It dumbs down society with NewSpeak. Tolerance and zero-tolerance – make up your mind so you can tell us all how we have to think. Liberals recently deemed 2” candy canes to be weapons, while harmless pencils sit passively on their desks.
Liberals have no standards and refuse to allow for checks and balances. So long as it looks like they are helping, who cares what the results are? Look at the liberal amnesty Bill: A contract that says, fill out this form, truthfully or not. We will give you things and promise never to prosecute you with any information you give us. You cannot be denied amnesty regardless of your honesty of history.
Liberals: We can’t tell you what’s in our Bill until we pass it. There are no death panels in this Bill (until it’s passed.)
Liberals defy transparency in Government, despite Aboma’s promise. (Loved that headline about Aboma’s “secret meeting about transparency”!) This include McCain/Feingold (another specific).
MORE PEOPLE LOCKED-UP than any other nation on earth?
Statistics also show that there were substantially more car accidents in 1930 than the 10 years previous. Go figure. Could it also be possible that Hawaiians eat more fish than people in Kansas?
Freedom allows from criminal behavior. The liberal answer to crime has always been to suppress the masses, not punish the perpetrator. The police in the UK can knock your door down and search your house on a whim, as it is in most nations. This certainly keeps the need of prisons down. As does executing political opponents.
Punishment deters criminal behavior.
Liberals lessen punishment and protect criminals. Liberal “Sanctuary” cities like SF even protect multiple-offender, murdering illegal aliens. Liberals benefit financially from multiple offenders and multiple appeals. Liberals benefit from the fear of these criminals being at large because of lesser sentences. Sports, Cable TV and all sorts of posh prison living can be considered better than being on welfare and fearing for one’s life living in the ghetto.
ON POVERTY
Welfare create laziness. Why work, when one can sit at home and watch TV? The French and Germans import fruit pickers from Poland and eastern Europe while their own citizens on welfare languish on the dole. Giving people things for free, with no end, creates the lazy, entitlement attitude that rarely changes into ambition, let alone self-confidence.
A great liberal lie: tax-cuts for the poor. People who don’t pay taxes do not benefit from tax cuts directly. Any increase in income these people get is not a tax cut, it is welfare. A tax is something that is taken, a cut means to take less. Taking less of nothing is still nothing. Maxine Waters has only bettered people’s lives in her district by taking from others and rationing it out to her constituents at a level to keep them happier, but never enough for them to prosper beyond the need of her good graces.
There will always be poverty. Life isn’t fair. Work hard and succeed, unless liberals are in control.
Does ACORN attempt to bypass minimum wage laws to increase production? Yes they do. Ironically, they did it in California when attempting to increase the minimum wage in that state!
When was that “golden age” in America when there was no Union thuggery and corruption? Why do Unions spit on the hard worker and promote people base on showing up or bribe money? No 2-year worker can be promoted in a union over someone with 2 years and 1 day, even if the junior person is clearly more qualified, skilled and productive. This is liberalism.
When there is no reason to produce, then why bother?
FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS AND A DIRTY LEGAL SYSTEM
Specifically, I said trail lawyers give almost exclusively to liberals, and why.
Frivolous lawsuits are one of the most damaging thing to American domestic freedom as well as the very concept of right and wrong. Liberals refuse to have any debate on tort reform, let alone do anything to help. Cowardly Republicans cower in the corner on this issue.
Activist conservative Judge: Displaying the 10 Commandments in court. (usually incorrectly, BTW). This act supposedly violates the Establishment clause, but that, like abortion is not in the Constitution. Reference is not establishment. Name another issue.
Activist liberal Judge:
Overturning the will of the people, regularly. 60+% vote yes, one liberal judge says NO!
Over-riding established law: specifically, in 2002: NJ state law bars replacement candidates less than 51 days before an election; Robert Torricelli withdrew 36 days before Election Day. The liberal New Jersey state Supreme Court ruled: who cares about the law, we need a liberal in the election. Not to mention Al Franken winning with more votes cast than people voting. Liberal judge says: YES he can!
Bush vs. Gore in 2000. How many times were the 8 liberal Florida Supreme Court justices over-ruled by the US Supreme Court – WHICH INCLUDED 4 liberal judges? 4 times, with 3 unanimous votes that said YOU 8 LIBERALS ARE ATTEMPTING TO STEAL THE FLORIDA ELECTION FOR AL GORE. Yet the conventional wisdom is that the theft was by Bush.
Citing international law:
Usurping power, even when they know it’s a crime: “…court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know — and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know.” Yes, Sonia, you do make law, and that’s un-Constitutional, but why should a racist like you care about right or wrong?
SMUG AND SUPERIOR
The Smug and the Superior are those hypocrites who demand that we work for their purposes. Liberals demand, make into law, that we think a specific way or go to jail. Liberals raise a billion dollars in taxes to they can give 200 million dollars to the poor. FEMA/Katrina wasn’t Bush’s fault, it was big government’s fault!
The Smug and the Superior are those who spend more than their 43 predecessors combined when there is already record debt.
Tolerance: Liberals tell us we must be tolerant while bashing Republicans, Christians, Boy Scouts, Profit, Freedom, America and anything else that threatens their power.
Liberals legislate feelings! Sensitivity seminars? Gulags! It is not freedom to be jails for hurting someone’s feelings!
SOCIAL ENGINEERING (aka GOVERNMENT)
Not our government’s job. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It does not say socially engineer society into teet-sucking babies who are dependent on a nanny government.
MOST “LIBERALS” BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ALWAYS ROOM FOR DEBATE
Should we take everything or leave them some crumbs?
Most liberals don’t care how many people they actually hurt in able to be able to say they helped.
While Marx, Lenin and Stalin ate caviar and sipped Champagne, the PEOPLE were starving or being murdered. Leftist dictators live this same life.
I’m puzzling over how anybody could respond to such a Jackson-Pollack canvas of crazed rightwing verities, and where would it ever end? (I know, Anonster started it with their smorgasbord of facts.) I’m thinking of diluting this comment down to its few factual nuggets, leaving out everything that’s either completely false and defamatory, ludicrously exaggerated, positively Orwellian, or too temptingly easy to respond to an an immature way with examples of right-wingers doing similarly reprehensible things or worse. What we have left is this:
[Some] liberals defy transparency in Government, despite Obama’s promise. (Loved that headline about Obama’s “secret meeting about transparency”!) Welfare [can] create laziness. The French and Germans import fruit pickers from Poland and eastern Europe while their own citizens on welfare languish on the dole. [Did] ACORN attempt to bypass minimum wage laws to increase production? [possibly, not sure] Ironically, they did it in California when attempting to increase the minimum wage in that state! Specifically, I said trail [sic] lawyers give almost exclusively to liberals, and why. Frivolous lawsuits are … damaging. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Amendment 10: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” MOST “LIBERALS” BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ALWAYS ROOM FOR DEBATE. While Marx, Lenin and Stalin ate caviar and sipped Champagne, the PEOPLE were starving or being murdered. Leftist [and all other] dictators live this same life.
Julian,
First, let me say that I find it amusing that a libertarian would request “notification” when his post is responded to, I thought you folks didn’t like or need nannies.
Secondly, I wouldn’t be casting aspersions on anyone else’s intellectual abilities with sentence construction like this;
“A take question your comprehensive skills, here.”
Third, I have to agree with Vern, you’ve thrown so much gibberish (and yes, Julian, it IS gibberish, especially when you don’t use punctuation and spellcheck) out there, that to respond/decipher it all would take more time than I care to spend.
Lastly, let me finish by giving you some advice, you need to EDIT your thoughts, it’s obvious (because you believe a lot of stuff that is easily disprovable) that you watch/listen to right-wing TV/radio and it gets your blood boiling and your stomach-churning, but you just can’t barf it all up on a blog and expect to be taken seriously.
Wait a second – scratch “Marx” from the leftists that ate caviar etc. He lived and died in poverty, with the poor people he loved. ONE LESS word of fact in your rhapsody.
Brother Vern.
Having visited the High Gate cemetary where Karl Marx is buried (outside of London) am I on your watch list? That area of England is not exactly a ghetto.
“anonster”, thanks for the commnets.
“chutzpah”? (one of the coolest words ever!)
As a passionate student of politics, which both invigorate me and infuriate me, I like to make simple what others work feverishly to confuse. Most people (Liberals, mostly) work agressively on convincing the public that the world is mostly gray, with fringes of black and white. I don’t happen to subscribe to this notion. The world, to me, is mostly black and white, with a thin line of gray between. So, when I offer positions on Conservatism, it is from this perspective.
As to the difference between Liberlism and Anarchy: these, in truth, are completely opposing philosophies. Liberalism strives for more Government, while Anarchy strives for NO Government. Conservatism, in contrast to both, believes in limited, Constutionally-based Government (as in: Government, as defined by The Constitution).
Hirota
We’ve been over this “conservatives see everything in black and white” thing, and I’ve told you before – what we liberals see is called COLOR.
no truer words were ever spoken….
we Conservatives are colorblind…..
Sad. It’s a beautiful, complex world you’re missing.
Well, Vern, I suppose that’s one way to look at it. Another way might be that I, in being colorblind, do not judge the world’s beauty by it’s color…
Always bringing race into it. I guess that’s a “conservative” thing too.
Did I say race? Again….”projection” (According to Freud, projection is when someone is threatened by or afraid of their own impulses so they attribute these impulses to someone else.)
Cheers
Yeah right. Takes more than the PeeWee Dodge ( http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2010/03/the-crowley-peewee-dodge/ ) to explain away your twice joking about how color-blind you are.
Tim,
You are the one that wrote;
“Liberalism operates on the notion that a person is free to make any choice they want, free from consequence, repercussion and responsibility.”
not me, please explain how the above description of liberalism differs from anarchy, oh, and no shades of “gray”, please.
Anonster,
The difference resides in the method by which Liberalism and Anarchism go about enforcing or practicing their beliefs. An anarchist, believing that they can do anything, simply does it, regardless of consequence. Liberals work tirelessly to get government to write laws PROTECTING their right to make choices without consequence. Then, Liberals are free to make those choices and the consequences are legally shouldered by society.
Tim,
Choice without consequence is not limited to “liberals”, as I recall certain “conservatives” advocated and defended our uneccessary and disasterous attack on Iraq, I wonder where they stand on PAYING for that war, now that Iraq has cost us a TRILLION dollars and counting, because as I’m sure you will recall, we had tax cuts and war, which was a RADICAL departure from traditional sound economic principles.
So Tim,as one of those “conservatives” do you support higher taxes to pay for our ongoing wars?
High taxes are a necessary consequence of war, and as a war-protesting liberal I resent having my tax dollars go to pay for war-mongering hubris just like you resent having to pay for some poor 15 year old girl’s “mistake”, the BIG DIFFERENCE being that WAR is far costlier than abortion.
From Pub-Med;
Public benefits and costs of government funding for abortion.
In state referenda to end public funding of abortions for poor women, one of the most successful tactics of abortion foes has been to charge that abortion funding increases the burden on taxpayers. A state-by-state analysis by The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) shows that the opposite is the case. For every tax dollar spent to pay for abortions for poor women, about four dollars is saved in public medical and welfare expenditures. The savings are in public expenditures that otherwise would have to be incurred because of the babies that poor women would have borne. On the basis of earlier research, it was assumed that 20 percent of Medicaid-eligible women who could not obtain abortions would give birth. Public costs examined in the AGI analysis include Medicaid expenditures for prenatal care, delivery and postnatal care for the mother, and for newborn care, neonatal intensive care and pediatric care for the child for the first two years of life; as well as expenditures for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), food stamps and the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) during those first two years. The benefit-to-cost ratio varies from about 9:1 in Massachusetts to 2:1 in Hawaii and Pennsylvania. The net savings for the nation as a whole over a two-year period if abortions were publicly funded in every state would total at least $339.6 million.
*************
The tax hikes may need to be HUGE as economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes are now predicting the COST of our WARS will reach a STAGGERING 4 to 6 TRILLION DOLLARS;
From The Daily Beast
Nobel Prize recipient Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard budget guru Linda J. Bilmes are revising their original $3 trillion war cost estimate. As Bilmes reports, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are at least 25 percent costlier than previous projections.
As Election Day draws near, it’s pretty clear: Voters are worried about jobs, the budget deficit and the rising national debt.
But behind those issues—behind the ads and candidates’ speeches, behind the rhetoric about “out-of-control” government spending—there lurks a hidden, less-talked-about issue: the cost of the ongoing wars.
Already, we’ve spent more than $1 trillion in Iraq, not counting the $700 billion consumed each year by the Pentagon budget. And spending in Iraq and Afghanistan now comes to more than $3 billion weekly, making the wars a major reason for record-level budget deficits.
Two years ago, Joseph Stiglitz and I published The Three Trillion Dollar War in which we estimated that the budgetary and economic costs of the war would reach $3 trillion.
Taking new numbers into account, however, we now believe that our initial estimate was far too conservative—the cost of the wars will reach between $4 trillion and $6 trillion.
For example, we recently analyzed the medical and disability claim patterns for almost a million troops who have returned from the wars, and, based on this record, we’ve revised our estimate upward to between $600 billion and $900 billion—a broad specter, yes, but certainly also a significant upward tick from our earlier projection of $400 billion to $700 billion, based on historical patterns.
Similarly, our estimates for the economic and social costs associated with returning veterans can be expected to rise by at least a third—the staggering toll of repeated deployments over the past decade.
The Bush administration not only vastly underestimated the cost of the wars but cut taxes twice—in 2001 and 2003—just as we were ramping up the war effort. This was the first time in U.S. history that a government cut taxes while also appropriating huge new sums to fight a war. And the consequence is that the wars added substantially to the federal debt.
drivel……..
We saw a Conservative once: John Roussellot –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Rousselot
Those were the days….when Honorable belonged in front of those elected. We miss that
clarity today!
Thank you, Tim for illuminating just one of the ways that Liberalism fits into your definition. When one person makes a decision that all of us taxpayers must take responsibility for, then it seems to me that it would be appropriate to say that someone’s rights are being violate. What if that decision is against my moral principals? We cannot use war and the military as examples because those decisions are made on a national level, sometimes involving national security. And we must protect our country. But in this case regarding abortion; usually it involves a decision made between a woman and a doctor. Where should the responsibility lie? If I had a choice to pay for an execution or not, then I would probably choose not. Tim, the arguments you bring up are lucid and valid. Most pro-choice advocates do believe that the unborn person (in whatever stage of development) is indeed a human being. Just not the same kind that deserve rights like us born people. Quite frankly I do not want to support with my income the deliberate taking of innocent human life. Does Liberalism mean the whole is taking responsibility for the individual decisions that are being made. Is that a fair estimation of what you are saying?
“One nation” (under God):
Thanks for the comments!
A couple points:
1. While I agree that the taking of a life for certain types of crime IS an extreme measure, the death penalty IS clearly contemplated in the Constitution: “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (Fifth Amendment.
2. You’ve got it pretty much right about Liberalism in that the expectation is that society should shoulder the consequences of an individual’s actions. Further, it is not merely a belief in this notion, but action taken to support this notion, through legislation.
What are we? 19 years old enrolled in an online poli sci class?
Liberal/Conservative? Blah. Meanwhile, the Corporate state is increasingly consolidated behind the veneer of this “great divide.”
Well, Gabriel, based on some of the comments, I doubt that some folks would have the proper prerequisites to get into that poli sci class…
cheers!
Hirota
Thanks for the comments!
Caldwell wrote all the books on U.S. History and he was one of the biggest liberal panty waist
known to mankind! Poli Sci Class? Hrummph!
rw
Taxpayers are not required to pay for abortions. There is so much wrong with this, I don’t even know where to begin. It’s insulting. The whole point of choice is that someone can also choose to have that child and liberals will want that choice to include health care for the mother who chooses to keep that baby, affordable child care, public education, health care, etc. while this woman raises a child she CHOSE to have.
Conservatives actually just want the woman to choose to have the child, the rest they could care less about.
Sorry, but you are mistaken. One obvious example of taxpayer-funded abortions is, of course, Planned Parenthood, who not only funds abortions, but carries out abortions for minors….without parental consent.
And, no, your characterization of Conservative ‘caring less about’ everything else is flat wrong. Conservatives care about the 50 MILLION not-yet-born lives lost, so far, in the name of “women’s rights”.
Hirota, I ask you to consider whether you regard these ideologies that you refer to as “traditions”—as doctrines with a history, including the reflections of key theorists. Do you? I shall assume you do.
Then it is hard for me to square your remarks with these ideologies as such. “Liberalism,” you declare, holds that one may choose to do anything (and, more specifically, to do so regardless of consequences). What on earth are you referring to? I cannot imagine John Stuart Mill ever taking such a position. I cannot imagine any great liberal taking it. You seem to be committing a particularly coarse straw man fallacy here.
“Conservatism,” you say, operates, too, from the “any choice” position. What could you be trying to say here? Have you ever read Edmund Burke (an indisputably conservative theorist)? Do you have any idea what he and other conservatives stood for?
Certainly not what you identify.
Burke (and, for that matter, Buckley) would certainly reject the doctrine you attribute to “conservatism.” The rights of others must never be violated? Tell me. How on earth can one attack a hostile nation (e.g., the Germany or Japan of 41-45) without killing innocent people—and thus violating rights?
Re the abortion debate: the Roe v. Wade decision certainly does not reflect the curious straw man of “liberalism” that you identify. As I recall, the decision indicated that the state may have a legitimate interest in regulating abortion during the second trimester insofar as it intends to protect the mother; and the state may have a legitimate interest in regulating abortion during the third trimester insofar as it intends to protect the “potential life”—i.e., the fetus. Roe v. Wade, whatever its faults, does hold that the state may restrict a woman’s desire to abort a fetus in an effort to protect that fetus.
Have you even read Roe v. Wade?
One more thing. You state that you “recognize three fundamental ideologies: Liberalism, Conservatism and Anarchy.”
From what I read here, you have little grasp of Liberalism or Conservatism. What, I wonder, do you suppose that anarchists believe?
Have you ever read anarchist theory? I wonder if you could explain the fundamentals of, say, Noam Chomsky’s political philosophy (which is a kind of anarchism).
And what sort of statement is this, anyway? Presumably, fascistic and, say, theocratic philosophies are neither “liberal” nor “conservative” (they’re certainly not anarchistic). Why have they been excluded? Why is “anarchy” included? Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
One expects more from a blog than the merest of windy opining. Hirota, explain to me how you have risen above that woeful level?
My head hurts.
Mine too!
E-nuff for God’s sake!
This is good for you, Fringer. Where do you fit in?
I don’t think
Horatio’sHirota’s “philosophy” envisions Fullerton Fringerism either.The conceit of a linear political spectrum is an absurdity. Out here on the fringe the perspective is a lot different. A new and functional paradigm is needed.
I’ll need a beer or three and then maybe I’ll get back to you.
Roy, thanks for the comments! (Are you a “Bauer” of the wonderful Santa Ana Bauer family??)
I offer these explanations of ideologies as “ideal” positions, based on personal observation. What I’ve found, through the perspective of time, is a general movement toward either side. Legislatively, this can be seen constantly (two sides debating, eventually reaching the so-called “compromise”). With respect to “traditions”, I think that it can be argued that, yes, these are traditional stances, irrespective of what they’ve been called in the past. (At the founding of this great nation, the battle to draft the Constitution was fought, fundamentally, between the “Federalists” and the “Anti-Federalists”.
Re: “Then it is hard for me to square your remarks…”
What I refer to, as in the example I used (abortion law), is that Liberals strive to force society, through legislation, to shoulder the consequences of their individual choices.
Re: Roe.
Yes, I have read the Roe decision…many times. That Liberals have bastardized the very language of Roe and expanded it far beyond its intent, up to and including partial-birth abortions, though, is irrelevant to the argument. As to the state’s involvement, this is also irrelevant to the argument, which is that humans are equal, irrespective of their particular stage in life. And, as humans, have the “right to life”. Abortion law requires taxpayers, if the woman chooses to go this route, to pay for an abortion (she makes the choice, society shoulders the cost). More fundamentally, a woman may choose, legally, to terminate the life of a human (she makes a choice, an unborn human shoulders the cost).
To my argument, it is the ACTION of Roe law which exemplifies Liberalism.
Re: “little grasp”…
To paraphrase the great Harry Nilson: a person will “…see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to hear”. I’m not particularly surprised that you’d feel that way. Folks who know me (even ones who vehemently disagree with me) hold a different opinion…
Cheers!
Hirota
“I offer these explanations of ideologies as “ideal” positions, based on personal observation.”
You give yourself too much credit. Let’s face it…these so-called definitions are the regurgitated rantings of the irrational wing of conservatism, primarily sourced from the unhinged, divorced-from-reality screeds of talk radio and cable TV punditry. THOSE are the “mothers” who gave birth to these “definitions”.
Exactly anon, well said.
Hirota, I see you persist in your strategy of giving words whatever meaning is convenient for you, despite their actual meaning. You “offer these explanations of ideologies as ‘ideal’ positions, based on personal observation.” An “ideal” position, of course, is a perfect one not observed in reality. How then can it be based on “observation”?
Yes, I am aware of the debate between Federalists and anti-Federalists, a focus, of course, of the usual suspects of the demagoguesphere. My point was that you seem utterly unaware of the larger political traditions (e.g., liberalism) without which that particular debate would be unintelligible. My point is that your reflections proceed with obliviousness to the actual history and development of political thought within our political tradition as Americans (and Westerners).
Your remarks re Roe v. Wade are question-begging: you simply assume the truth of a highly controversial assertion within the abortion debate—namely, that a fetus is a person with a full set of rights from the moment of conception. This curious feature of your “argument” makes your remarks logically insubstantial. What is the point of discussion with someone who will “argue” from the perspective of the truth of his position, sans argument?
Finally, you misspell Harry Nilsson’s name, and you obviously have no clue who the fellow was referring to in that lyric.
Stop listening to the radio. Learn something about history and politics. Be a part of the solution, not the problem–namely, proud and assertive ignorance and obliviousness.
Here is another take on the difference between liberals and conservatives
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/conservatives-fear-center-brain/
I happen to be one of the those people who actually have a BA in Political Science. When I was in college, I dabbled on both sides of the illusionary left/right coin only to come out with the belief that, outside of names and animal mascots, there isn’t a hill of beans difference between the two. I despise the whole lot of them.
Well, sometimes an education is wasted.
Compare and contrast Bush 43’s first year vs Obamas first year and then try and defend “there isn’t a hill of beans difference between the two”.
BUSH 43;
From the Free Republic;
George W. Bush’s first year in office (List of 77 accomplishments)
March 25, 2002
In George W. Bush’s first year in office he:
1. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.
2. Cut federal spending on libraries by $39 million.
3. Cut $35 million in funding for doctors to get advanced pediatric training.
4. Cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%.
5. Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water.
6. Blocked rules that would require federal agencies to offer bilingual assistance to non-English speaking persons. This, from a candidate who would readily fire-up his Spanish-speaking skills in front of would-be Hispanic voters.
7. Proposed to eliminate new marine protections for the Channel Islands and the coral reefs of northwest Hawaii (please see San Francisco Chronicle, April 6, 2001).
8. Cut funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks by 28%
9. Suspended rules that would have strengthened the government’s ability to deny contracts to companies that violated workplace safety, environmental and other federal laws.
10. Approved the sending of letters by Interior Department appointee Gale Norton to state officials soliciting suggestions for opening up national monuments for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting.
11. Appointed John Negroponte — an unindicted high-level Iran Contra figure to the post of United Nations Ambassador.
12. Abandoned a campaign pledge to invest $100 million for rainforest conservation.
13. Reduced by 86% the Community Access Program for public hospitals, clinics and providers of care for people without insurance.
14. Rescinded a proposal to increase public access to information about the potential consequences resulting from chemical plant accidents.
15. Suspended rules that would require hardrock miners to clean up sites on public lands.
16. Cut $60 million from a Boy’s and Girl’s Clubs of America program for public housing.
17. Proposed to eliminate a federal program, designed and successfully used in Seattle, to help communities prepare for natural disasters.
18. Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty global warming agreement. 19. Cut $200 million of work force training for dislocated workers.
20. Eliminated funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which encourages farmers to maintain wetlands habitat on their property.
21. Cut program to provide childcare to low-income families as they move from welfare to work.
22. Cut a program that provided prescription contraceptive coverage to federal employees (though it still pays for Viagra).
23. Cut $700 million in capital funds for repairs in public housing.
24. Appointed Otto Reich — an un-indicted high-level Iran Contra figure — to Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.
25. Cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $500 million.
26. Proposed to curtail the ability of groups to sue in order to get an animal placed on the Endangered Species List.
27. Rescinded the rule that mandated increased energy-saving efficiency regulations for central air conditioners and heat pumps.
28. Repealed workplace ergonomic rules designed to improve worker health and safety.
29. Abandoned campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide, the waste gas that contributes to global warming.
30. Banned federal aid to international family planning programs that offer abortion counseling with other independent funds.
31. Closed the White House Office for Women’s Health Initiatives and Outreach.
32. Nominated David Lauriski — an ex-mining company executive — to post of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
33. Approved a controversial plan by Interior Secretary Gale Norton to auction oil and gas development tracts off the coast of eastern Florida.
34. Announced intention to open up Montana’s Lewis and Clark National Forest to oil and drilling.
35. Proposes to re-draw boundaries of nation’s monuments, which would technically allow oil and gas drilling “outside” of national monuments.
36. Gutted the White House AIDS Office.
37. Renegotiated a free trade agreement with Jordan to eliminate workers’s rights and safeguards for the environment.
38. Will no longer seek guidance from The American Bar Association in recommendations for the federal judiciary appointments.
39. Appointed recycling foe Lynn Scarlett as Undersecretary of the Interior.
40. Took steps to abolish the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
41. Cut the Community Oriented Policing Services program.
42. Allowed Interior Secretary Gale Norton to shelve citizen-led grizzly bear re-introduction plan scheduled for Idaho and Montana wilderness.
43. Continues to hold up federal funding for stem cell research projects.
44. Makes sure convicted misdemeanor drug users cannot get financial aid for college, though convicted murderers can.
45. Refused to fund continued cleanup of uranium-slag heap in Utah.
46. Refused to fund continued litigation of the government’s tobacco company lawsuit.
47. Proposed a $2 trillion tax cut, 43% of which will go to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
48. Signed a bill making it harder for poor and middle-class Americans to file for bankruptcy, even in the case of daunting medical bills.
49. Appointed a Vice President quoted as saying “If you want to do something about carbon dioxide emissions, then you ought to build nuclear power plants.” (Meet the Press.”)
50. Appointed Diana Roth to the Council of Economic Advisers. (“There is no gender gap in pay”, Boston Globe, March 28, 2001.)
51. Appointed Kay Cole James, an opponent of affirmative action, to direct the Office of Personnel Management.
52. Cut $15.7 million earmarked for states to investigate cases of child abuse and neglect.
53. Helped kill a law designed to make it tougher for teenagers to get credit cards.
54. Proposed elimination of the “Reading is Fundamental” program that gives free books to poor children.
55. Is pushing for development of small nuclear arms to attack deeply buried targets and weapons. This would violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
56. Proposes to nominate Jeffrey Sutton, the attorney responsible for a recent case weakening the Americans with Disabilities Act, to federal appeals court judgeship.
57. Proposes to reverse regulation protecting 60 million acres of national forest from logging and road building.
58. Eliminated funding for the “We the People” education program which taught school children about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and citizenship.
59. Appointed John Bolton, who opposes nonproliferation treaties and the UN, to Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
60. Nominated Linda Fisher, an executive with Monsanto, for the number-two job at the Environmental Protection Agency.
61. Nominated Michael McConnell, leading critic of the separation of church and state, to a federal judgeship.
62. Nominated Terrence Boyle, an ardent opponent of civil rights, to a federal judgeship.
63. Canceled 2004 deadline for automakers to develop prototype high mileage cars.
64. Nominated Harvey Pitts, a lawyer for a teen sex video distributor, to head SEC.
65. Nominated John Walters, a strong opponent of prison drug treatment programs, to be Drug Tsar. (Washington Post, May 16, 2001.)
66. Nominated J. Steven Giles, an oil and coal lobbyist, for Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
67. Nominated Bennett Raley, who advocates repealing the Endangered Species Act, for Assistant Secretary for Water and Science
68. Is seeking the dismissal of class-action lawsuit filed in the US against Japan by Asian women forced to work as sex slaves during WWII.
69. Earmarked $4 million in new federal grant money for HIV and drug abuse prevention programs to go only to religious groups and not secular equivalents.
70. Reduced the Low Income Home Assistance Program by 40%; it aided low-income individuals who need assistance paying energy bills.
71. Nominated Ted Olson, who has repeatedly lied about his involvement with the Scaiffe-funded “Arkansas Project” to bring down Bill Clinton, for Solicitor General.
72. Nominated Terrance Boyle, a foe of civil rights, to a federal judgeship.
73. Proposes to ease permit process, including environmental considerations, for refinery, nuclear and hydroelectric dam construction. (Washington Post, May 18, 2001.)
74. Proposes to give government the authority to take private property through eminent domain for power lines.
75. Proposes that $1.2 billion in funding for alternative renewable energy come from selling oil and gas lease tracts in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve.
76. Plans on serving genetically engineered foods at all official government functions.
77. Forced out Forest Service chief Mike Dombeck and appointed a timber industry lobbyist.
****************************************************************
OBAMA;
The 79 promises kept, as fact-checked and reported by PolitiFact.com, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking service of the St. Petersburg Times, are as follows:
No. 6: Create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to invest in peer-reviewed manufacturing processes
No. 15: Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners
No. 16: Increase minority access to capital
No. 33: Establish a credit card bill of rights
No. 36: Expand loan programs for small businesses
No. 40: Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch
No. 50: Expand the Senior Corps volunteer program
No. 58: Expand eligibility for State Children’s Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)
No. 76: Expand funding to train primary care providers and public health practitioners
No. 77: Increase funding to expand community based prevention programs
No. 88: Sign the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
No. 110: Assure that the Veterans Administration budget is prepared as ‘must-pass’ legislation
No. 119: Appoint a special adviser to the president on violence against women
No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq
No. 132: No permanent bases in Iraq
No. 134: Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
No. 154: Strengthen and expand military exchange programs with other countries
No. 167: Make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti-terror efforts
No. 174: Give a speech at a major Islamic forum in the first 100 days of his administration
No. 182: Allocate Homeland Security funding according to risk
No. 184: Create a real National Infrastructure Protection Plan
No. 200: Appoint a White House Coordinator for Nuclear Security
No. 208: Improve relations with Turkey, and its relations with Iraqi Kurds
No. 212: Launch an international Add Value to Agriculture Initiative (AVTA)
No. 215: Create a rapid response fund for emerging democracies
No. 222: Grant Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send money to Cuba
No. 224: Restore funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne/JAG) program
No. 225: Establish an Energy Partnership for the Americas
No. 239: Release presidential records
No. 241: Require new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political affiliation or contributions.
No. 247: Recruit math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession
No. 266: Encourage water-conservation efforts in the West
No. 269: Increase funding for national parks and forests
No. 270: Increase funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
No. 272: Encourage farmers to use more renewable energy and be more energy efficient
No. 277: Pursue a wildfire prevention and management plan
No. 278: Remove more brush, small trees and vegetation that fuel wildfires
No. 284: Expand access to places to hunt and fish
No. 290: Push for enactment of Matthew Shepard Act, which expands hate crime law to include sexual orientation and other factors
No. 300: Reform mandatory minimum sentences
No. 307: Create a White House Office on Urban Policy
No. 325: Create an artist corps for schools
No. 326: Champion the importance of arts education
No. 327: Support increased funding for the NEA
No. 332: Add another Space Shuttle flight
No. 334: Use the private sector to improve spaceflight
No. 336: Partner to enhance the potential of the International Space Station
No. 337: Use the International Space Station for fundamental biological and physical research
No. 338: Explore whether International Space Station can operate after 2016
No. 342: Work toward deploying a global climate change research and monitoring system
No. 345: Enhance earth mapping
No. 346: Appoint an assistant to the president for science and technology policy
No. 356: Establish special crime programs for the New Orleans area
No. 359: Rebuild schools in New Orleans
No. 371: Fund a major expansion of AmeriCorps
No. 380: Bolster the military’s ability to speak different languages
No. 391: Appoint the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer
No. 394: Provide grants to early-career researchers
No. 411: Work to overturn Ledbetter vs. Goodyear
No. 420: Create a national declassification center
No. 421: Appoint an American Indian policy adviser
No. 427: Ban lobbyist gifts to executive employees
No. 435: Create new criminal penalties for mortgage fraud
No. 452: Weatherize 1 million homes per year
No. 458: Invest in all types of alternative energy
No. 459: Enact tax credit for consumers for plug-in hybrid cars
No. 460: Ask people and businesses to conserve electricity
No. 475: Require states to provide incentives for utilities to reduce energy consumption
No. 480: Unprecedented expansion of funding for regional high-speed rail
No. 483: Invest in public transportation
No. 484: Equalize tax breaks for driving and public transit
No. 494: Share enviromental technology with other countries
No. 498: Provide grants to encourage energy-efficient building codes
No. 500: Increase funding for the Environmental Protection Agency
No. 502: Get his daughters a puppy
No. 503: Appoint at least one Republican to the cabinet
No. 506: Raise the small business investment expensing limit to $250,000 through the end of 2009
No. 507: Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits
No. 513: Reverse restrictions on stem cell research
Then explain to me why we are still at war in the Middle East and there have been no attempts in the soon to be former Democratic Party majority to repeal the Patriot Act and FISA or close Gitmo as was promised. How about bringing an end to the Drug War and curtailing the violence on our southern border by instituing some real drug policy reform? Oh wait, raids on medical marijuana dispensaries are still continuing even though your anointed demigod said those raids would stop.
Or are you going to make the tired 2 1/2 year old pathetic myopic apologist claim a la Dan Chmielewski that Obama has all this change in the back of his mind because it’s all Bush’s fault? Or that there is a secret Nixonian plan to end the war? You can utter the ridiculous cliches “Change You Can Believe In” and “Yes We Can” all you want and live in that fantasy land of denial that many a partisan who subscribe to the illusionary left/right paradigm resides. The fact of the matter is that this Administration has done absolutely nothing to separate itself from the disaster that preceded them.
Hirota was right on one claim: People who consider themselves to be liberal see people as inherently evil. What he failed to point out is that conservatives see people in that same light when it comes to imposing their “standards” of morality on others.
I’m sure you’ll post a self promotional photo of yourself showing what good works you do in this community to quash my claims or stifle debate or make assumptions about my level of education by flashing around your meaningless and worthless piece of paper. Or cutting and pasting stuff from another news source and parading them around as facts a la Chris Prevatt and TheFibOC. Besides, that’s what liberals and conservatives do so well.
Whoop dee do! Obama got his daughter a f’n puppy. I got my daughter two kittens. Does that mean I can be President too?
Gosh Fawkes, for someone who claims to have a BA in political science you don’t seem to know how your government works (hint; there are no magic wands involved).
Yeah, in a perfect world we would snap are fingers and end the wars, close gitmo and repeal the patriot act, those things are going to take more work, but to say that there has been no progress and that because you didn’t get everything you wanted, that everything else is meaningless is just childish and diminishes your credibility as a political analyst.
Ask a starving man whether he’d rather have half-a-loaf of bread or none, I wonder how many of you purists would really rather starve?
No, that just makes you a pathetic myopic pawn and apologist for the government. Maybe I should shut up and take my medicine because Boehner, Pelosi, Obama or Bush told me so. That’s what you want in order to stifle debate and gloss over the real issues that concern individual freedom. It’s compliant people like yourself that allow for this bullshit to continue and makes those of us wonder why this is another fine mess our government got us into.
Ask Cindy Sheehan how the food was at the last Democratic Party fundraiser. Oh wait, she wasn’t there. She go thrown under the bus along with the likes of people who want DOMA and DADT repealed. It usually takes the works of revolutionaries like her, John Brown, Emma Goldman to affect any real change. If you think for one minute that anyone of the jackass or elephant party really gives a shit about people, I have a bridge to sell you in Minneapolis that is part of I-35W.
I know how government “works.” It works as a necessary and unbearable evil that seeks to control people with the belief that people are evil by nature and plays favors with those aiders and abetters (like yourself) who are the highest bidders to their campaigns. I’ve been on the inside, saw how it works and decided want no part of it. The demise of a large Federal Government and its ever expanding overseas empire could be the best thing to happen to this country. Sooner or later, the big boys and girls will fall.
And if you think that’s a wasted education, so be it. At least I can think for myself am not stupid enough to go down with this fragile house of cards because the collectivist mindset says that its stable.
So Fawkes,
I’ll ask you the same question I’ve asked the conservatives, what government, or period of time in this country or in your case, country without a government can you point to and say, “I’d like to live there and I would be comfortable raising a family there”, otherwise all this “purism” is nothing more than whining and sour grapes.
I wonder how involved you and Hirota are in real world politics, as anyone who has spent anytime working with others to solve even the most minor issues can tell you, it takes hard work, patience and the ability to compromise.
In other words, it’s easy to tear down, whine, complain, throw stones and say what you won’t do, it’s much,much,much harder to build up, find solutions and commit to a path that actually solves problems even if and especially when, it’s not perfect and you don’t get everything that you as an individual desires. The best of us, keep on trying and working for a better world, not giving up like some spoiled child who hasn’t gotten his every wish and who gathers up his toys and goes home.
Just because we work within the system doesn’t mean that we have stars-in-our-eyes, we are being realistic about what can be done now and what we have to fight for in the future.The world that you espouse and desire, doesn’t exist, that makes you a dreamer and an ideologue.
“that makes you a dreamer and an ideologue.”
Would it be rude of me to say “thank you?” As if these attributes are supposed to be badges of shame and an insult? Maybe in the twisted, complaint world you groupthink plantation in that you live in.
Anonster….the 21st century author of “The Scarlet Letter.”
I liked to think of myself as a dreamer and ideologue as well, all the way up to the Bush years, when I looked at what was going on and decided, in St Paul’s words “It was time to put aside childish things.” And joined the Progressive Democrats of America and DFA.
I’m like Frank Zappa. I don’t feel the need to join a group to justify my existence. The Orange Juice will suffice for now.
To answer your question…there is a movement that is beginning in Vermont (Google “Imagine Free Vermont.”)
Spare me with your star crossed, divisive apologetic “we’re better than you because we are complaint to our masters and you are a bunch of whiners” rhetoric. If it wasn’t for acts of civil disobedience and resistance to unjust laws, you would not have the change that you see today. But I suppose you would pooh pooh the efforts of those who stand up and revolt because they are not working “within the system” and are a bunch of whiners. I’m more inclined to support those people who actually stick their necks out and made some real world sacrifices than those who sit in their ivory towers holding out false hope that their masters will see the errors of their ways.
You attitude is akin to the co-dependent spouse of an alcoholic or a powerless domestic abuse victim who believes that despite continued abuse from their abusers, they will see the error of their ways and change because “we are in love.” You go ahead and continued to receive the abuse that is being doled out. I refuse to be party to it.
I think both of you are overgeneralizing. Get a grip. There are examples of civil disobedience working without government help and there are examples of civil disobedience and real change happening WITH government help (I seem to recall photos of MLK lobbying/coercing/working with government leaders). To say that one approach is better than the other is ridiculous…they BOTH work.
“a movement that is beginning in Vermont” LOL, in the whole history of the world THAT is the best you can come up with? Pretty pathetic and very indicative of how realistic your “dream” is.
“I’m more inclined to support those people who actually stick their necks out and made some real world sacrifices than those who sit in their ivory towers holding out false hope that their masters will see the errors of their ways.”
Oh, I too admire those that have “stuck their necks out” but ADMIRING and DOING are two VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. It’s EASY to say you want change, but have YOU “GUY FAWKES” ever RISKED anything? A beating, an arrest? What civil disobedience have you participated in?
Again it’s easy to sneer at those who participate in conventional politics, who work for change so that hopefully people won’t have to risk life, limb and liberty to get a better world.
You say you won’t be a “party to it”, but don’t you live in Irvine, how much more conventional, mundane and co-dependant could you be, big talker?
Probably a lot more than you think, Northwood Night Stalker. If you are who I think you are. I don’t like to assume. Must be lonely in your Canyon View neighborhood (Dawn on vacation?) or the hits aren’t coming in on TheFibOC website, “the best political blog in OC”.
I’m sure we can compare resumes and get into pissing matches until the cows come home with the “I’ve done more than you, war stories” or “I’ve got more useless pieces of paper that say more I’m adept with using Crayola crayons and pushing paper.” It’s not going to change the fact that you aren’t going to change my mind while you get your magic underwear in a bunch over the fact that:
a) There’s someone doesn’t like our government and he’s not a conservative. Oh, the horror!
b) I don’t have the inherent need to justify myself. Obviously, I must have touched a nerve with the co-dependent domestic abuse victim reference or the fact that you must reside in your myopic ivory tower and have not done anything to risk life and limb. You thought I was referrign to you? Boy, oh boy. A victim of low self esteem or erectile dysfunction you must be. You obviously have a need to justify yourself as do most people (with the exceptions of Vern, Hirota and Duane Roberts) who have that emotional void or deep dark secret that they have in their lives. Kind of akin to Matt Cunningham, who compensates for his void by outing minor sex abuse victims.
Yes, I do live in Irvine. So what? I agree it’s mundane and there are a gaggle of your apathetic, conformist ilk that live here with obvious voids in their personal lives. I think you’ll fit in well here. If you don’t already live in Canyon View.
You have mistaken me for someone else, but never mind that, I think it is I who has “touched a nerve”, that explains the name-calling and off-base personal jabs.just
Lighten up Fawkes, it’s just a philosophical discussion, albeit one you’re losing.
LOL. Anonster is not Chmielewski, Guy. Anonster is only about 15 times cooler. LOL. Chmielewski. Anonster kicks his ass.
Thanks, Vern!
“Ask a starving man whether he’d rather have half-a-loaf of bread or none, I wonder how many of you purists would really rather starve?”
To answer the question to your stupid and tired cliche, you must of the mindset that the man in question is absolutely powerless to find a way to feed himself and is totally incapable of making his or her own decisions. With that being said, this leads to your illogical conclusion that the government will automatically provide for the starving individual because they are obligated. This is, of course, provided that your assumption about the man in question is true. Which it isn’t more often than not because if there is one thing I know about human beings and survival, a person will often go to any lengths to help themselves if push really came to shove.
By the way, I thought you “progressives” were all about “inclusiveness”
I think you are interpreting my “stupid and tired cliche” a little too literally, simply put, it does make a difference that Obama “Reversed restrictions on stem cell research” as opposed to Bush “Revoking rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water”, one is better than the other, it’s a value judgement.
I know all is not perfect, but I’ll take “better” over “worse” any day of the year.
We also have the recent spectacle of a government that legislated a policy like DADT, and then that very same government (albeit with some different players) overturning that mistake and correcting itself.
I’m generally with anonster…it ain’t perfect, but it DOES get things right at times, often after getting it wrong to begin with.
We all should be working to make it BETTER and stop worrying about big vs. small so much.
This site should notify posters when there is a response to their post.
– Don’t know how
– Most sites don’t
– U just gotta check in now & then…like you did!
Julian. I have signed onto free Google Alerts where you can be notified whenever your name appears in the blogosphere. I monitor multiple policy/projects beyond my name to stay connected.
Without double checking I believe you have the option of being notified immediately, weekly or monthly.
As to your question. I’m not sure if it works for individual blog comments but I am often notified regarding comments to my posts as the Juice story author.
Whenever the word “Julian” appears in the blogosphere? LOL, that should keep him busy.