The very essence of what it means to be human is predicated upon the existence of free will. It’s impossible to even imagine any story, book or movie where at least part of the drama or interest isn't derived from the observer's identification with a character's moment of decision; that moment when we as observers wonder what he, she or they are going ... to do next. What else are our lives but grand, unique stories that we ourselves assist in writing the pages each and every day? A human life without choice is the very definition of an ‘absurd’ existence. One’s life can never be, in any real sense, ‘absurd’ for those that have the courage, intelligence, imagination and faith to posit their own values to the world at large as 'good'. How can any chosen human action be deemed to be 'for the greater good' or to have any value whatsoever if we share no commonality of what 'the good' actually is? *To believe that all values are individual and equal is not tolerance but nihilism. If irreconcilable value systems are at the root of all war, so be it. Live free or die. Those who swim in the miasma of value relativity cannot but ultimately drown in their own shifting and ephemeral re'solutions de jour. And paradoxically, isn't the position that we should all be nonjudgmental a judgment in itself? Can't one be more intolerant of the intolerants than the intolerants themselves? Perhaps sadly, perhaps divinely, to live is to choose; and for all but the world's would be Raskolnikovs, at some point perhaps the best any of us can do is to relish this one in a gadzillion opportunity to choose our own way, day by day, and pray for guidance.
And just where does our common idea of the good come from? Now that's about the biggest question imaginable! No progress since Plato.
M.D.T.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Icarus's Wings
Leftist leaders and 'visionaries' love to take refuge in a future that’s too far off to accurately predict – slowing climate change and creating a new sustainable green economy conveniently will take decades and massive public investment before we'll even have a hint whether it's working. With the overwhelming majority of their ongoing projects it’s always too soon to tell with any accuracy how things are going plus their progress is always serendipitously too difficult to measure. How do we measure what a child is learning? Has the percentage of Americans living in poverty changed in 40 years? Are there fewer homeless per capita? Just how long will it take to achieve ‘social justice’? To succeed the Democratic agenda axiomatically seems to always require limitless money (aka 'public investment') and unspecified amounts of time. Similarly, there is no definable end nor identifiable line items that can ever be individually budgeted or checked off as ‘done’ within their agendas. Ponder just how absurd it is to ask, ’How long will it take to reduce greenhouse gases 25%, how are we going to do it ,what will it cost and can we afford it?’ Or, 'Just how much would it cost to eliminate povery once and for all and how would we do it?' Any idea how many global summits are required to achieve global nuclear disarmament? Meanwhile, all the prosaic, flat-earth, unintuitive, pragmatic (not infrequently Christian) selfish business people ( aka the mules pulling the cart ) are puting in overtime dealing with such pedestrian matters of the day as providing food to the grocery stores every morning by 6AM and gasoline that's cheaper than bottled water or developing a vaccine for the swine flu. (Though presumedly they could all do it cheaper and better if they had a little competition from the government - l.o.l.)
Is the idea of a conservative ‘visionary’ by definition an oxymoron simply due to the conservative’s inherent nature to feel compelled to supply actual constructive, measurable means to achievable ends? Wasn’t it John Kennedy that said some look at the world and say why, but I look and say why not? What if he had said, ‘But I look and say what, when and how much?' Nothing very inspiring about that now, is there! How many visionaries does it take to build a nuclear plant, a Las Vegas Casino or a new version of Windows? About the same amount as angels that can fit on the head of a pin.
Everyday necessity has a stubborn habit of consistently trimming Icarus's wings. It's a good thing too, lest the left's visionaries fly too high with our uninspired pocket books.
M.D.T.
Is the idea of a conservative ‘visionary’ by definition an oxymoron simply due to the conservative’s inherent nature to feel compelled to supply actual constructive, measurable means to achievable ends? Wasn’t it John Kennedy that said some look at the world and say why, but I look and say why not? What if he had said, ‘But I look and say what, when and how much?' Nothing very inspiring about that now, is there! How many visionaries does it take to build a nuclear plant, a Las Vegas Casino or a new version of Windows? About the same amount as angels that can fit on the head of a pin.
Everyday necessity has a stubborn habit of consistently trimming Icarus's wings. It's a good thing too, lest the left's visionaries fly too high with our uninspired pocket books.
M.D.T.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Slip Sliding Away
Nothing terrifies a liberal more than the prospect of having no one to blame and no one to ridicule. That would leave them alone with their own incompetence. If there weren’t greedy rich people to carry the shibboleth of ‘oppressors’ thereby absolving themselves and their purported victims of responsibility, it would be necessary for the left to invent them. At the very foundation of liberalism is a cause and effect world; a godless world where human behavior can be reduced ultimately to a combination of environmental factors; the study of human behavior, personality and outcomes perceived as a science. It’s not Ginger’s fault she’s a drug addict and a prostitute – she came from the slums, had no productive role models, was ignored in our under-funded schools, was molested as a child etc. For them it’s just simple cause and effect; poverty equals human failing. Post hoc ergo proptor hoc. ( A logical fallacy ) The left believes, by in large, there’s no free will in this world; that free will’s a Christian invention, a historical anachronism that doesn’t jibe with their scientific-materialistic world view i.e. a world without spirit. There's nothing divine or radically exceptional about mankind. We're part of the natural order. But there’s a lot more involved within the Darwin vs. Creationism argument than monkeys and men; there’s free will vs. determinism; there’s personal responsibility vs. environmental absolution. Can Man be deemed in any way truly free if he has no soul or if some part of him doesn’t stand somehow outside of nature, beyond cause and effect?
Now, with the specter of G.W. fading in the distance, it’s a virtual certainty that these impostors, these incompetents, aka, the radical elements of the Democratic party now in power, will invent ever new bugaboos at every turn to justify their lack of results and policy failures. Already they posit an institutional racism rooted intransigently within the indigenous American psyche that’s purported to be blocking health care reform. ( It’s not Obama’s fault ) Cries of racism wail siren-like over the media airwaves as the economic downturn and current malaise resists the antiquated fix-its of the old left; those tired and historically discredited fix-its such as leveling the playing field by disincentivising economic outcomes and ‘stimulating’ the economy with massive Keynesian deficit spending supplemented by yet ever greater environmental and financial regulation. When the pillorying of the powerless Republican Party as obstructionist no longer holds water with the American public, then the blame will shift to other countries, the Chinese, Israelis, Indians, Mexicans with their alleged unfair trade practices coupled with illegal immigration. The dark harbinger of protectionism looms. Finally, at last, only the people themselves and democracy itself* are left to blame; those sad, demented souls twisted by over 200 years of capitalist greed and ethnocentric religious dogma – so ethically contorted that they no longer even know what’s good for themselves. Ultimately the more vocal individualistic political opposition is criminalized, barred from the public forum, their opinion banned as ‘hate speech’ and key nonconforming industries are quasi-collectivized to insure their forwarding of ‘the public good’. ( Let’s tax away profitable self-sustaining industries such as coal and oil but subsidize non-competitive ones like solar and wind ).
And so can go the slow anesthetizing descent of a free society founded upon individual liberty and responsibility into one where ‘the buck never got here’; a society of faith, self-criticism, success and failure morphs into a soft totalitarian regime; a society that cherishes free speech above all else transmogrifies into one that enforces some bizarre, Kafkaesque, shape-shifting, unconstitutional nostrum of political correctness. And so we slip by one single, new, self-ordained societal victim at a time. And so the far left paves the way for a new generation of leaders; leaders cloaked in a lupine mantle of supreme compassion yet strong and ruthless enough to govern a country by imposing fairness and equality; a country that crushes wrong thinking; a country simplified to only the oppressors and the oppressed. And so our national flight away from personal responsibility and the sacrosant ideality of individual free will paves the way for America’s own Juan and Evita Chavez.
M.D.T.
Whoah God only knows, God makes his plan
The information's unavailable to the mortal man
We're workin' our jobs, collect our pay
Believe we're gliding down the highway, when in fact we're slip sliding away
Paul Simon
*I include the following excerpt from a recent, self-absolving The Guardian U.K. editorial.
“But it must be recognised that it's not just Obama's shortcomings that are causing the problem. The very structure of the American political system is at the heart of these failures. For example, thwarting Obama on a regular basis is an unrepresentative senate where "minority rule" prevails and undermines what a majority of the country may want. With two senators elected per state, regardless of population, California with more than 35 million people has the same number of senators as Wyoming with just half a million residents. This constitutional arrangement greatly favours low population states, many of which tend to be conservative, producing what one political analyst has called "a weighted vote for small-town whites in pickup trucks with gun racks."
Now, with the specter of G.W. fading in the distance, it’s a virtual certainty that these impostors, these incompetents, aka, the radical elements of the Democratic party now in power, will invent ever new bugaboos at every turn to justify their lack of results and policy failures. Already they posit an institutional racism rooted intransigently within the indigenous American psyche that’s purported to be blocking health care reform. ( It’s not Obama’s fault ) Cries of racism wail siren-like over the media airwaves as the economic downturn and current malaise resists the antiquated fix-its of the old left; those tired and historically discredited fix-its such as leveling the playing field by disincentivising economic outcomes and ‘stimulating’ the economy with massive Keynesian deficit spending supplemented by yet ever greater environmental and financial regulation. When the pillorying of the powerless Republican Party as obstructionist no longer holds water with the American public, then the blame will shift to other countries, the Chinese, Israelis, Indians, Mexicans with their alleged unfair trade practices coupled with illegal immigration. The dark harbinger of protectionism looms. Finally, at last, only the people themselves and democracy itself* are left to blame; those sad, demented souls twisted by over 200 years of capitalist greed and ethnocentric religious dogma – so ethically contorted that they no longer even know what’s good for themselves. Ultimately the more vocal individualistic political opposition is criminalized, barred from the public forum, their opinion banned as ‘hate speech’ and key nonconforming industries are quasi-collectivized to insure their forwarding of ‘the public good’. ( Let’s tax away profitable self-sustaining industries such as coal and oil but subsidize non-competitive ones like solar and wind ).
And so can go the slow anesthetizing descent of a free society founded upon individual liberty and responsibility into one where ‘the buck never got here’; a society of faith, self-criticism, success and failure morphs into a soft totalitarian regime; a society that cherishes free speech above all else transmogrifies into one that enforces some bizarre, Kafkaesque, shape-shifting, unconstitutional nostrum of political correctness. And so we slip by one single, new, self-ordained societal victim at a time. And so the far left paves the way for a new generation of leaders; leaders cloaked in a lupine mantle of supreme compassion yet strong and ruthless enough to govern a country by imposing fairness and equality; a country that crushes wrong thinking; a country simplified to only the oppressors and the oppressed. And so our national flight away from personal responsibility and the sacrosant ideality of individual free will paves the way for America’s own Juan and Evita Chavez.
M.D.T.
Whoah God only knows, God makes his plan
The information's unavailable to the mortal man
We're workin' our jobs, collect our pay
Believe we're gliding down the highway, when in fact we're slip sliding away
Paul Simon
*I include the following excerpt from a recent, self-absolving The Guardian U.K. editorial.
“But it must be recognised that it's not just Obama's shortcomings that are causing the problem. The very structure of the American political system is at the heart of these failures. For example, thwarting Obama on a regular basis is an unrepresentative senate where "minority rule" prevails and undermines what a majority of the country may want. With two senators elected per state, regardless of population, California with more than 35 million people has the same number of senators as Wyoming with just half a million residents. This constitutional arrangement greatly favours low population states, many of which tend to be conservative, producing what one political analyst has called "a weighted vote for small-town whites in pickup trucks with gun racks."
Sunday, July 5, 2009
If It Breaths Tax It
Clearly, it’s understandable that a such a trifling matter as new U.S. protectionist trade legislation against China passing the House couldn’t even make the pages of our major newspapers during a time when celebrity funeral chasing has become the event de jour for our national media. Our ever reliable Wall Street Journal however heretically printed,
China's central government reiterated its opposition to carbon tariff policies and said they could provoke a trade war, ratcheting up the rhetoric as lawmakers in the U.S. consider legislation to reduce greenhouse gases.
But last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that included such tariffs in order to level the playing field between U.S. industry and foreign competitors. China's export-reliant economy is extremely vulnerable to any moves such as a carbon tax that could raise the costs of its exports. WSJ 7/03/09
The specter of exploiting ‘climate change’ to protect domestic industry looms ominously over any world economic recovery. It’s frequently appeared to me that the greatest potential for evil occurs when there’s too much consensus on any given issue. Wherever there's mass consensus, there’s always someone sufficiently keen and malevolent enough lurking to exploit it. Peace is everyone disagreeing. (Can't get enough people moving together in one direction to do any real harm). The next Great Depression might easily be the result of the legislatures in economically stagnant democratic countries agreeing that punitive tariffs on developing countries are necessary to ‘Save the Planet’. Clearly no sacrifice is too great when the future well-being of every cuddly, slimy, scaly, buzzing, photosynthesizing, growling, chirping, fornicating thing on earth is at stake. Make no mistake, a deadly cocktail comprised of record deficits, increased intrusion by government into the private sector and trade protectionism is exactly what triggered the greatest economic collapse of modern times and the consequent world war that followed*. And yes, friends, recyclers, countrymen, it could happen again.
Ronald Reagan famously said, ‘Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.’ He should have added, ‘If it moves or breaths, tax it’, exhalation being a major contributor of CO2.
*One's compelled to ask oneself could they really be this stupid? Well, enlighted people paid thousands for tulip bulbs and bought condominiums with no money down on adjustable rate mortgages that hadn't been built yet with no intention of living in them and some folks walk around naked so they don't have to wash their clothes so often to cut down on the use of chemical cleaners that they use in their washing machines. Wanna really reduce your carbon footprint? Kill yourself. Maybe under national health care we'll finally get our free, organic, prescription, pain-free suicide medication. In Oregon, there's still a co-pay.
M.D.T
China's central government reiterated its opposition to carbon tariff policies and said they could provoke a trade war, ratcheting up the rhetoric as lawmakers in the U.S. consider legislation to reduce greenhouse gases.
But last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that included such tariffs in order to level the playing field between U.S. industry and foreign competitors. China's export-reliant economy is extremely vulnerable to any moves such as a carbon tax that could raise the costs of its exports. WSJ 7/03/09
The specter of exploiting ‘climate change’ to protect domestic industry looms ominously over any world economic recovery. It’s frequently appeared to me that the greatest potential for evil occurs when there’s too much consensus on any given issue. Wherever there's mass consensus, there’s always someone sufficiently keen and malevolent enough lurking to exploit it. Peace is everyone disagreeing. (Can't get enough people moving together in one direction to do any real harm). The next Great Depression might easily be the result of the legislatures in economically stagnant democratic countries agreeing that punitive tariffs on developing countries are necessary to ‘Save the Planet’. Clearly no sacrifice is too great when the future well-being of every cuddly, slimy, scaly, buzzing, photosynthesizing, growling, chirping, fornicating thing on earth is at stake. Make no mistake, a deadly cocktail comprised of record deficits, increased intrusion by government into the private sector and trade protectionism is exactly what triggered the greatest economic collapse of modern times and the consequent world war that followed*. And yes, friends, recyclers, countrymen, it could happen again.
Ronald Reagan famously said, ‘Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.’ He should have added, ‘If it moves or breaths, tax it’, exhalation being a major contributor of CO2.
*One's compelled to ask oneself could they really be this stupid? Well, enlighted people paid thousands for tulip bulbs and bought condominiums with no money down on adjustable rate mortgages that hadn't been built yet with no intention of living in them and some folks walk around naked so they don't have to wash their clothes so often to cut down on the use of chemical cleaners that they use in their washing machines. Wanna really reduce your carbon footprint? Kill yourself. Maybe under national health care we'll finally get our free, organic, prescription, pain-free suicide medication. In Oregon, there's still a co-pay.
M.D.T
Sunday, June 21, 2009
A New Panegyric for Revolution
The most remarkable thing about Revolutionaries is how they so hate Revolution. Yes, they are the ultimate NIMBYs -- once they got theirs, nobody else is entitled. According to all Revolutionaries, Revolution (read: their Revolution) is wonderful, it represents the will of the people, sets up a much needed Thugocracy, whether it be Marxist or Religious in character and always ends up replacing one evil King with another evil King or, in the case of Iran, a counsel of bearded evil Kings. Revolutions are supposed to be one-way - my revolution is the Last Revolution. Hitler and Hess broadcast the same notion: "woe to those who would revolt against the revolution." (Yes, they really did say that). Well, the only way to end revolution is to allow the ultimate revolutionary floodgates to be opened - and to give people a Republic, a Constitutional Libertarian based government and the freedom to change leadership. In reviewing the struggle of man to be free, one has to work back, in amazement, over the past 2500 years of Western Accomplishment - initiated in Greece, continued by Rome and preserved for all of us in institutions modeled on these ancient principles by our founding fathers. Yes, our country is founded on Roman principles of Comitia Curiata, Senate, original division of powers, limited terms of office, independence of action - checks and counter-balances. The infectious pollen of freedom was first born by the flower of Greece, continued into the construction of the Republic after the overthrown of the Tarquin kings of Rome - blood upon blood spilled from the veins of men desiring freedom. The best way to preserve a revolution is to allow people to speak through the ballot box while ensuring fundamental freedoms that no majority or minority can take away -- even through the ballot box. So, after the sacrifices of life and fortune of the courageous many who have spoken for freedom over the millenia -- what do we have today? Obama is afraid to speak up and be accused of "meddling" in Iranian affairs. Diane Feinstein says that "we don't want our fingerprints on what is happening in Iran" and we have to watch what we say. If the people who founded this country and sailed to America in leaky boats 400 years ago to start this country had this much courage, they would have never have left the harbor.
Doug Foley
Doug Foley
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Apothegm
If well behaved women seldom make history, what about Presidents? - Free Tibet - Free Iran
M.D.T.
M.D.T.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Scratching the Surface
So why can’t I go out in the marketplace and get a competitive bid to take care of my flabby white ass in the event I get cancer and only cancer? Or how about only for heart attack or stroke? Or how about only problems stemming from diabetes? Why can’t I take a look at my own family history, then get a competitive bid on just the type and amount of coverage which I think necessary? Where’s the ala carte menu? I’ll tell you why. Because our beneficent government thinks most of us are too damn stupid to make those decisions for ourselves and they don’t allow insurance companies to sell such policies. Just like most of us are too damn stupid to save for our own retirement, and too damn stupid to buckle our seat belt, etc. etc,
OK. I admit some Americans are too damn stupid to not wear a life jacket in a boat in a maelstrom, but why does that mean that those of us that aren’t that damn stupid have to be subject to the same rules as they? Well maybe it’s because the government thinks, perhaps accurately, that some of us think we’re smarter than we are. In a word, we’re not smart enough to tell if we’re smart. Good point. But just who in gad-jeezus gave the government the monopoly on smarts anyway? What makes them smart enough to determine if they’re smart enough to determine if we’re smart enough to determine if we need to wear bike helmets?
Those who believe that government is a force for good also have to believe that those who occupy its decision making positions, are smarter than the rest of us and that it’s possible to elect such people.* That’s why it’s impossible to be a statist/liberal without being an elitist. You have to believe that those smarter and most virtuous should make decisions for everyone else. When a liberal votes for someone, they’re essentially voting for someone to take care of them. No practical experience necessary, just a good heart, a good mind, and a belief in government as a force for good? (Remind you of anyone?)
But if our government doesn’t think we have the head-horse-power to make most practical decisions for our own well-being, how can they believe in a free society? If the only decisions we are allowed to make for ourselves are those that won’t potentially hurt us, are we in any real sense of the term, free people? And if we’re not allowed to make the most important decisions in our lives, what happens over time to our drive to succeed and to accomplish more with our lives, our will to take care of and defend ourselves, our sense of self-reliance and self-worth, even our creativity? Does the word maturity mean anything in a society where these goals and qualities aren't held in high esteem?
Clearly, those who believe that a uniform panoply of laws, regulations and disincentives must be imposed to protect each and every individual from their own bad choices can’t simultaneously, in any real sense, believe in a free society. If political freedom isn’t the ability to make meaningful decisions about one’s own life and future, what is it? It is a testament to the left’s elitist belief in their own goodness and wisdom that they can’t bear to allow any of us to hurt ourselves. But where's the line between a society that controls all potentially hazardous human activity and a totalitarian society? Strange, how quelled within seemingly innocuous terminology like ‘public safety’, lurks the potentially quintessential evil of tyranny. One needn’t scratch the surface of liberalism too deep to find totalitarianism. Failed controls bequeaths more control. A government strong enough to give you all you need is a government strong enough to take away all you have; but to gain that much power, it first has to cajole you into giving up your freedom. And in a democracy, paradoxically, giving up one’s freedom, is a choice.
*I’ve asked a score of liberals this question and never got a nay when asked for instance, ‘Do you think that if we got the right people in office we could fix health care?’
M.D.T.
OK. I admit some Americans are too damn stupid to not wear a life jacket in a boat in a maelstrom, but why does that mean that those of us that aren’t that damn stupid have to be subject to the same rules as they? Well maybe it’s because the government thinks, perhaps accurately, that some of us think we’re smarter than we are. In a word, we’re not smart enough to tell if we’re smart. Good point. But just who in gad-jeezus gave the government the monopoly on smarts anyway? What makes them smart enough to determine if they’re smart enough to determine if we’re smart enough to determine if we need to wear bike helmets?
Those who believe that government is a force for good also have to believe that those who occupy its decision making positions, are smarter than the rest of us and that it’s possible to elect such people.* That’s why it’s impossible to be a statist/liberal without being an elitist. You have to believe that those smarter and most virtuous should make decisions for everyone else. When a liberal votes for someone, they’re essentially voting for someone to take care of them. No practical experience necessary, just a good heart, a good mind, and a belief in government as a force for good? (Remind you of anyone?)
But if our government doesn’t think we have the head-horse-power to make most practical decisions for our own well-being, how can they believe in a free society? If the only decisions we are allowed to make for ourselves are those that won’t potentially hurt us, are we in any real sense of the term, free people? And if we’re not allowed to make the most important decisions in our lives, what happens over time to our drive to succeed and to accomplish more with our lives, our will to take care of and defend ourselves, our sense of self-reliance and self-worth, even our creativity? Does the word maturity mean anything in a society where these goals and qualities aren't held in high esteem?
Clearly, those who believe that a uniform panoply of laws, regulations and disincentives must be imposed to protect each and every individual from their own bad choices can’t simultaneously, in any real sense, believe in a free society. If political freedom isn’t the ability to make meaningful decisions about one’s own life and future, what is it? It is a testament to the left’s elitist belief in their own goodness and wisdom that they can’t bear to allow any of us to hurt ourselves. But where's the line between a society that controls all potentially hazardous human activity and a totalitarian society? Strange, how quelled within seemingly innocuous terminology like ‘public safety’, lurks the potentially quintessential evil of tyranny. One needn’t scratch the surface of liberalism too deep to find totalitarianism. Failed controls bequeaths more control. A government strong enough to give you all you need is a government strong enough to take away all you have; but to gain that much power, it first has to cajole you into giving up your freedom. And in a democracy, paradoxically, giving up one’s freedom, is a choice.
*I’ve asked a score of liberals this question and never got a nay when asked for instance, ‘Do you think that if we got the right people in office we could fix health care?’
M.D.T.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
