Thoughts on Allegations of Selfishness

Image credit: Microsoft

One of the most effective tactics for making someone feel guilty (presuming they have an active conscience) is to accuse them of being selfish.

This works particularly well as a progressive closing salvo against free markets and low taxes... at least, it tends to hurt my feelings and shut me up, because "I'm not selfish" isn't much of an argument.

So I've been thinking about that accusation and honestly evaluating my motives for advocating lower taxation and less government restriction and regulation, and my thoughts have solidified into these grounds:

A healthy respect for each individual's natural rights: Life, Liberty, and Property (the fruits of our pursuit of happiness).

This respect leads me to the following conclusion:

Moveon.org: Tool of Oppression

Wow. Walt Minnick, "the other Representative" from Idaho (meaning: the Representative from not my district, but Idaho's other Congressional district; although I put it in quotes because he's also the only one of four Federal representatives who ran on a Democratic ticket, and I know some people get really bugged by that, LOL...), voted against Obama's fascist Stimulus bill.

Yes, he disagreed with the Democratic Party "leadership" on a bill. (He didn't even disagree with the basic - I believe, flawed - principle behind it, but rather its untargeted implementation.)

How DARE he, right?!?!

Walt Minnick is doing a great job upholding responsible principles in an oppressive, establishment-oriented environment. For two big votes now. That's hard. And it's even harder for someone who happens to have a "(D)" by his name because of the political machine in Washington.

But he doesn't toe The Party Line! Therefore, the hard left has targeted him. I'm not sure how far the machinery ties extend, (although I have a hypothesis), but moveon.org has gone after this good, decent, responsible man simply for not falling in line with the other party zombies.

Exhibit 1: This ad, which has been all over Facebook for DAYS now:

Exhibit 2: This Google sponsored ad in my Gmail account.

It might be hard to read, and I tried to make it a little bigger so you'd be able to read it, but it says the same thing: "Minnick voted no on jobs." But this time, it tells who sponsored it: moveon.org.

Oh, outrage! (I'd say "oh, joy," but I try to avoid sarcasm.) A dishonest, irrational organization is targeting "not-my" representative because he's voted his constituency and his conscience.

Fortunately, everyone I've talked to is thrilled with him. But we need to gear up to support him against the establishment machinery, because he's on moveon.org's radar now.

He's not a Party Man.

He's not a communist.

He's not a group "conservative," either.

He's independently-minded.

He's exactly the type of representative we need in our Capitol.

And moveon.org is the enforcer of thoughtcrime, of party-man socialist conformance - 'free thought be banned.'

(No, I'm not a prude: I would say "damned" in this highly-appropriate instance, but I figured my play on it fits even better.)

"Nine out of Ten Dentists Recommend..."

Or, "How could a consensus POSSIBLY be wrong?"

The Global "Climate Change" religion relies on one-sided hysteria - and it makes it to press that way! Gee, good thing we're thinking through things and getting both sides of the story, right? Oh, wait... well, at least we're not actually micro-managing economic, social, and energy policy based on it... oh - what's that you say? - hmm.

And in a completely unrelated article:

Scientists initially believed the greatest solar breach occured when the Earth's and sun's magnetic fields are pointed in opposite directions. But data from Themis found the opposite to be true. Twenty times more solar wind passed into the Earth's protective shield when the magnetic fields were aligned, Oieroset said.

Solar flares and holes in Earth's magnetic field work differently than scientists thought they would, too. Huh!

Well, at least NOW we know everything, right?

Perestroika? Hmm...

Drudge has linked to an article about Gorbachev's recommendation for President-elect Obama: PERESTROIKA.

Hmm.

(Showing age...) I was fairly young when Gorbachev came to power, but I remember hearing perestroika and glasnost and some other seldom-used member of that triad... and I remember that they were "good things."

Anyway, that word caught my attention, and I looked it up.

Here's Wikipedia's definition:

the Russian term (now used in English) for the economic reforms introduced in June 1987^[1] by the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Its literal meaning is "restructuring", referring to the restructuring of the Soviet economy.

And here's another - from Gorbachev himself in 1987 - read the whole thing if you're up for night terrors:

...overcoming the stagnation process, breaking down the braking mechanism, creating a dependable and effective mechanism for acceleration of social and economic progress and giving it greater dynamism

...utmost respect for the individual

...the revival and development of the principles of democratic centralism in running the national economy, the universal introduction of economic methods

...a resolute shift to scientific methods

...the combination of the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution with a planned economy

...ever better satisfaction of the Soviet people's requirements for good living and working conditions, for good rest and recreation, education and health care.

...elimination from society of the distortions of socialist ethics

ACK!!! Run like the wind, people!!!

*ahem... regaining composure* Let's take some of these one at a time:

• "Breaking down the braking mechanism?" You mean, like what's left of our divinely-inspired Constitution's checks and balances? In favor of "accelerat[ing]... social and economic progress?" Bad idea, especially since it depends on who's allowed to define, "progress."
  
• Combining science and technology with a planned economy? It's not too far from those words to "eugenics."
• Satisfying "people's requirements for good living and working conditions, for good rest and recreation, education and health care" - like FDR's Second Bill of Rights?
• Eliminating "the distortions of socialist ethics" - (I'm assuming he's not referring to the distortions that ARE socialist ethics...) - that sure sounds like shutting down criticism and silencing disagreement, to me.

We must fight these things!!!

Granted, from reading up on it at Wikipedia, it seemed to be a move in the right direction, the way it was sold: freeing up the economy - to a point. Freeing up political discourse - to a point.

But everything was still ultimately under state control - it seems like the populist Gorbachev and his glasnost were able to make the people (and world media) happier about it, though.

Let's be careful what we let ourselves be made happy about, because "utmost respect for the individual" is incongruous with the rest of those definitions.

Do They Know?

That's the way Cassandra closes her latest brilliant post. (Seriously, go check it out - it's a great read!)

The question regards whether Obama supporters realize what he's doing and what his policies actually mean.

And I'm guessing the answer is, largely, a big "NO."

And for the ones who do know, they agree with him that people should have Constitutional rights to, say, other people's money and property, if it means "stuff" for them.

But do they realize what the Constitution means?

Another big "NO."

The real meaning of the Constitution isn't taught in schools anymore. Even Constitutional law courses focus on case law - with precedent actually taking precedence over the text of the Constitution.

Instead, we learn in school that, whereas the Founding Fathers were really bigoted/licentious men, FDR was a great guy - that he helped us out of the Great Depression.

*BZZZZZ*

FDR was evil. Even Wikipedia reads like a list of "accomplishments" that - from a Constitutional perspective - are travesties. (Yes, Our Public School Hero instituted internment camps.) He was so horrid that he was the REASON for the then-customary two-term limit being enshrined in the Constitution - after he was safely dead and gone, of course.

FDR's New Deal not only deepened and extended the Depression in the US, but stole the soul of America, broadly introducing the concept of dependence on the government for our daily bread.

But even he couldn't get the country to accept his "Second Bill of Rights." From VC:

This new Bill of Rights would guarantee the following government benefits by statute:

• A job with a living wage
• Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
• Homeownership
• Medical care
• Education
• Recreation

In other words, not only are those things natural rights (which I could still argue against), but it's the US Government's constitutional obligation to provide them.

I call FOUL. Very, stinky, FOUL.

But as I said - even FDR couldn't get the people to swallow that. So now Obama's trying.

And since all we know now is the quasi-socialist result of FDR's programs, combined with absolute information overload, it's going to be a lot harder to fight.

So "Go! Confront the problem! Fight! Win! And call me when you get back, darling; I enjoy our visits." (Edna Mode, The Incredibles)

I Think I've Come to a Direction

I think I've finally started leaning very strongly on the proposed "$700B" bailout. (The quotes are because we should probably quadruple any government estimates...)

Up until yesterday around noon, I was very conflicted. And like Sarah at Trying to Grok, I didn't feel smart enough to blog the bailout. I needed more information, and I needed to see clearly the "lesser of two weevils," as it were.

Then I heard more from Speaker Pelosi.

To paraphrase, since it was a radio blurb and I haven't yet seen it online: "we can't just bail out these companies and do nothing for the little people."

Oh, wow. That helped a lot.

Bailing out these companies is (theoretically, propaganda-ly) designed to keep us little people's savings and jobs and finances intact. Why would we need something else?

Then Congress introduced another massive stimulus package last night.

And oh, wow. That helped more.

This is absolutely not about "helping." This is about taking over our lives - in answer to our desperate plea to fix the mess that CONGRESS CREATED by sticking their fingers in the markets!!!

I don't WANT the government to own my house, if/when we buy one again.

I don't WANT the government to own my husband's work or his workplace.

I don't WANT the government to own my financial products.

I mean, name the last time government got involved and things got better.

Even the architects of it don't think it'll fix things - otherwise, why propose an additional stimulus package? (More debt and dependency....)

So... now that this bailout is revealed to be exactly what it sounded like before the confusing propaganda started, namely: an unconscionable power grab to socialize the country by blindfolding and holding hostage the American people; I DO feel smart enough to blog about it. At least on principle.

What's coming is UGLY. But I'm finally of the opinion that what Congress, the Fed, and the Executive branch are doing is not going to help.

And I oppose it.

-- Very interesting source (h/t Drudge) --
from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13918.html:

• "one option would be to make clear that the secretary needn’t be confined to buying up bad debts" - oh, why in the world would we limit governmental power???
• "Pelosi will be reluctant to expose her members if House Republicans are sitting out the process." - if you're so sure it's right, Ms. Pelosi, GROW A SPINE and stand up for it!!! Looks like she's just afraid of being "exposed."
  
• "Those principles will include improved oversight of the program, as well as a plan to phase in the $700 billion investment in stages, while still assuring the administration a virtual free hand for at least the first $350 billion." (emphasis mine) Pardon me???
• "And when Democrats left to caucus in the Roosevelt Room, Paulson pursued them, begging that they not “blow up” the legislation. ... The former Goldman Sachs CEO [Paulson] even went down on one knee as if genuflecting, to which Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) is said to have joked, 'I didn’t know you were Catholic.'" EXCUSE ME?!?! Yeah, joke about it, Madame Speaker, but we don't kneel before other mortals in this country. And I'd prefer NOT to have our economy bowing to Congress.

To quote, "Enough is Enough!"

What. The. Heck.

I just completed a survey through a company I'll not name, since I understand that they're just the agents of questioning. I'm also resisting the (STRONG) temptation to post screen shots, for concern over copyright and confidentiality infringement.

But some of the questions were just blatant race-baiting, and I was highly affronted. I'd say "offended," but it's not quite right... "smacked in the face-shocked" is probably the best term.

They had indicators to measure how warmly you felt about "black people." And "white people."

Huh?

You'll have to name the individual to get an actual opinion! For example, I think very highly of Condoleezza Rice, and very poorly of, say, Michael Moore. I think Rev. Wright and Timothy McVeigh are/were hateful individuals. I think Bill Cosby and Mother Teresa and George Washington are/were wonderful individuals.

Isn't judging someone based on who they are and what they do as a human individual, (you know, "the content of their character"), what Dr. King was fighting for?

Another question pertained to whether Barack Obama is "black enough."

Okay - first response: outrage at stupidity of color-based assumptions. How on earth are we supposed to all get along if we keep asking questions based on the premise that people still hold assumptions about others based on how much melanin their skin produces?

Second, as a "white" person, how would I make that call? What could I say that wouldn't be taken as an insult?

Third, since that's been a common criticism from the "black community" (read: a bitter editorialist who happens to be black), I'd have to ask what you actually mean by "black." Are you just judging on skin color, or are there socio-economic factors at work? Like, how critics say Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Walter Williams, etc. are "not really black" because of their positions - in society and on the issues? Could a "white" person be "black" if they fit those socio-economic factors?

Fourth, I know that there are still some die-hard idiot racists in this country, but I'd venture to say that the vast majority of us aren't badmouthing any particular color, or making sweeping (negative) judgments about individuals based on what hue their genetic make-up produces. (Yes, regardless of what recent surveys say.) So enough with the stupid, prejudice-imbuing, "when did you stop beating your wife?" questions!!!

Or maybe I'm wrong, and we're all just haters, and I don't get out enough.

Wow! Go, Justice Thomas!

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has recently given a speech that indicates he believes systems of racial preference are not only unconstitutional, but a just-plain-bad idea. Counterproductive, even. To quote him, "it almost trumps thinking." And to quote the news article:

He wrote with evident resentment in his autobiography "My Grandfather's Son" that he felt he was allowed to attend Yale Law School in the 1970s because of his race and took a tough course load to prove he was as able as his white classmates.

And that's exactly what good, hardworking people will (and do) feel when government provides "helps" in the system. It might be seen to take away from their accomplishment, if there is the spectre of preference - that they didn't really do it themselves and compete on a fair plane. And there's no way that they can prove to critics that they're truly "good enough." (Even if it's darn obvious, as in Justice Thomas's case.)

Plus, how insulting is it, to say, "you can't really do it... let me handicap your game" to people before they've even had a chance?!?! We're not talking about chivalry - we're talking about infantilizing people. It's lowering expectations based on their color or ethnic background. How is THAT not the "racist" position to take?

If, as a woman, I were graded on an easier scale in school or given a position at work largely (or at all) because of my gender, I would be highly affronted. I'm not a token; I'm an individual. I don't care what "plumbing" we have, or what shade of pale our skin may or may not be. I want to be evaluated as a contributing human being. And I may be projecting, but I think that's what other people want, too.

Golf Clapping Here

Pres. Bush has spoken out in "a blunt condemnation" of China's human rights policies.

I'm glad.

It's a step in the right direction.

But I still wonder what the right course of action is. According to the article:

...prominent Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, who has been jailed several times for his views and for his role in the 1989 student-led demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, said China’s leaders were likely to take a relatively sanguine approach.

"Whatever he says, the Chinese government won’t care too much about the content. The most important thing is that he is attending. Whatever he says is less important," he said.

And I'm not quite sure which of 1,000 ways to analyze that...

The Biggest Reason I'm a Conservative

I heard it crystallized last night:

"Individuals make wrong choices, but they make them for themselves; governments make wrong choices, but they make them for everyone."
-Mark Levin