.
.
.
.
.
.
Happy New Year, folks!
When the folks at OJB voted me in as a blogger, I promised (myself and a couple advisors) that I’d give it a 30-day trial. If, at the end of that time, I thought there’d be some benefit (which I won’t quantify here), I’d continue. Also, I informed Vern, in a separate email, that I, personally, paid almost no attention to local politics; that my interests were at the state and national level.
These past few days, with the time I’ve taken off from blogging, I’ve had a chance to assess things…
This will be my final post, as a blogger, on the Orange Juice Blog.
Previous to my participation on the OJB, I had my own email-list world, to whom I sent out my “stuff” (spelling and grammar errors included…). With every email, my list grew. Great conversations were had, from all points of view. Through a couple years’ worth of posts, I saw understanding and common ground happening….irrespective of ideology!
But, with my focus shifted to the OJB, my personal project was sidelined. And, OH….have I heard about it from my readers!
So, while I won’t be blogging on the OJB, rest assured that I’m still out there with a renewed focus on my personal project, which will continue to expand and touch more and more people and, hopefully, continue the political debate and a respectful, intense and learning way…
I’ll be continuing my “Conervatism 101” series, as, in only two posts, it has already grown legs!
Out of deference to Vern and the OJB, I will not offer my email address. I would consider that disrespectful to Vern, who I consider a “brother-in-arms” in the fight to bring understanding to the world outside of the elected office.
My personal email address isn’t that hard to find, anyway: as with all my posts, all my rebuttals and all my rants, I remain Tim Hirota. I HAVE never and WILL never use a false name or speak in anonymity…
I wish to be VERY clear about one thing: I applaud ALL the folks at OJB, both on the blogging side as well as the reply side: for their activism…for fighting the good fight in a mostly respectful manner. It is because of blogs like OJB that people, in general, are more educated on the issues.
I wish all the OJB folks a healthy, prosperous and happy 2011!
(And….I forget which one of you prayed for this…):
Hirota: OUT!
Hey, not so quick, buster!
I believe there were a number of good comments from anonster, ww, and others on your last post that you didn’t deal with. You wouldn’t be just shamefacedly slinking away, would you? http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2010/12/conservatism-101-part-2-the-difference-between-conservatism-and-liberalism/
Heavens no, Vern. As soon as I have a moment, I will get to them….
Please take Quinn with you! Together you can criticize libruls all the day long….
Buh Bye—out!
I promised to respond to both “anonster” as well as “Guy Fawkes” before I closed completed my blogging time at OJB. And, again, I TRULY appreciate the discussions, points-of-view and energetic debate! (We ALL, hopefully, grow and learn…). Unfortunately, I’ll be unable to respond further because I’ve got myself good and buried in the business (and political writings) of the New Year….
A great 2011 to all!
ANONSTER
Posted December 17, 2010 at 10:39 AM
(…they also accept all the consequences of the choices they make…)
Yes…with a caveat: As National Security is a Constitutionally-defined responsibility on our Federal Government, I DO support tax dollars being directed toward the defense of our nation. BUT, if we would reform our grotesque national entitlement programs, which are NOT a Constitutionally-defined responsibility of our Federal Government, we’d have money….without the need to raise taxes…to conduct those aspects which ARE Constitutionally-defined. (I say “reform” because, at this stage, it is useless…for now…to discuss “elimination-of”).
Posted December 23, 2010 at 11:38 PM
(Standards)
Yes, I would (and do) apply the same standard to both Liberals and Conservatives. “Liberal” and “Conservative” represent the “ideal” positions. I measure the “Liberal-ness” or “Conservative-ness” of a politician based on how close they legislate to either ideal. While I recognize that my standard of measurement is subjective and therefore subject to debate, I would argue that my characterization of “Liberalism” and “Conservatism” (dictionary definitions notwithstanding) are accurate.
First of all, there is no “Bush Doctrine” (specifically defined by Bush), other than what has been ascribed to him by others. Did he contemplate pre-emption? Yes. So did Clinton when he justified an attack on Iraqi weapons sites:
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”
(Re: Catholicism)
The teachings of the Catholic Church, with regard to war, are not Dogmatic teachings. None of the Dogmatic teachings of the Church regard war and are therefore subject to interpretation.
And, as long as we are discussing “pacifists”, Gandhi clearly contemplates physical defense of self and nation:
“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look
upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
Posted December 29, 2010 at 10:05 AM
(The “BIG DIFFERENCE”)
I disagree. The “BIG DIFFERENCE” is that the Constitution CLEARLY defines the conduct of war as being a Constitutional duty of Government. NOWHERE in the Constitution is abortion legislation contemplated (the “right to privacy” was said, by Harry Blackmun, to be found in the Fourth Amendment, which states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”).
GUY FAWKES
(Abortion, etc)
How about that! We share some common ground, Guy!
I am VERY pleased to hear that you do not support publicly-funded abortions.
And, again, I agree: a person, whether woman or man, irrespective of race, creed, gender, gender preference, possesses sovereignty over their own “person”. But, as I argued, the child which temporarily resides within a woman’s body is NOT her body. Rather, that person is a genetically separate entity and, therefore, entitled to sovereignty.
A personal note to both “anonster” and “Guy Fawkes”:
Thank you both (and others) for your well-wishes as I worked to close a difficult fiscal. Your good thoughts were CLEARLY there as my company made its number……we ended the year UP .00007%!!!! (Can you say “skin of the teeth”?) I wish you (and ALL at OJB) all the best and thank you all for your political awareness and activism!
(And, by the way, as I continue to draft further “Conservatism 101” pieces, I’ll copy Vern. If you’re interested in reading them, contact Vern. Hopefully, he’ll oblige…
Take care, my friends.
Hirota: OUT!
Hirota,
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Sorry you can’t keep up with the back and forth debate, I guess I’m forced to have the last word :).
1) “Promote the general welfare” is also in the constitution.
2) Regardless of how you feel about “entitlement programs”, they were in place when we attacked Iraq. You had full knowledge of US budgetary obligations when you supported the war, thus I can only conclude that as a “true” conservative you would support massive tax increases as a consequence of the trillions we have spent attacking Iraq, because as we all know, “ifs and buts” won’t pay the bills.
3) “I would argue that my characterization of “Liberalism” and “Conservatism” (dictionary definitions notwithstanding) are accurate.”
Pure chutzpa!
4)”there is no “Bush Doctrine” (specifically defined by Bush..”
Other than semantics, not true.
From Wikipedia;
Bush addressed the cadets at the U.S. Military Academy (West Point) on June 1, 2002, and made clear the role preemptive war would play in the future of American foreign policy and national defense:
“ We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long — Our security will require transforming the military you will lead — a military that must be ready to strike at a moment’s notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.”
5) “Did he contemplate pre-emption? Yes.”
Are you joking? Bush ordered the weapons inspectors out and WE ATTACKED IRAQ, no “contemplating” about it!
6) ” So did Clinton when he justified an attack on Iraqi weapons sites”
To equate all out war with an attack on a weapons site is not only preposterous, but shows a total disregard for the human cost of war. In fact, it is down right grotesque.
What we have wreaked on the Iraqi people and on our own troops for Bush’s disastrous “doctrine” is truly horrendous.
Here’s a link about the human cost for Iraq (not that I really think that you would ever read it) the cost to our own troops is well known.
http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/
And let’s be real clear about one thing, the HUMAN COSTS of this war will continue for DECADES, the death and destruction aren’t nearly the end of it.
7) Who knew that a “mortal sin” was “subject to interpretation”.
“According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the invasion of Iraq did not “meet the strict conditions of Catholic teaching for the use of military force.” Bishop John Michael Botean of Canton, Ohio, even went so far as to declare that fighting against Iraqis was a mortal sin.”
8) Lot’s of things aren’t “in” the constitution, (the Air Force for example) that does not mean it isn’t constitutional. As long as abortion has been ruled “constitutional”, it is, or don’t you believe in the rule-of-law?http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#other
Again, the “BIG DIFFERENCE” IS cost, you may not like to hear it, but providing abortion services to poor women saves society money;
“For every tax dollar spent to pay for abortions for poor women, about four dollars is saved in public medical and welfare expenditures.” Pub-med