PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

There are more extravagant essays in the works for this site but getting them from hand-written notes to keyboard is a chore I'm, admittedly, a bit slow at performing. The longer writings to come include another, more in depth, description of the planet Saturn and its symbolism in the astrology charts of the cruel and ruthless. I realize this may not sound interesting (or believable) to some or fit the usual template of this blog, but I think you'll find the coincidence of certain astrological configurations with the psychology of tyrants rather curious. I'm also refining my somewhat autobiographical observations regarding the American public school system and the pathetic "philosophies" that dominate the college Ed schools that teach future teachers.

For now; Some brief and random observations :

Selfishness

The concept, "selfishness" has been horribly twisted in our time by a crowd that has made the actual concept both a paradox and art form.

A number of examples can be made to define an obvious lack of consideration one may exhibit toward others. I think most would agree that a person deliberately pushing aside someone in a burning building is selfish. On a lighter note, cutting in front of someone in a line can be reasonably argued to be an act of selfishness. I personally think that anyone who demands that others be made responsible for their own errors in judgment is a bit worthy of the accusation as well.

What puzzles me most in the evolution in meaning of the word selfish is the success that the left has had in pinning the label on anyone who is productive and successful. If one chooses to educate themselves, if one is wise, assertive, practical, or inventive, they may become wealthy and successful, especially if they produce an idea, product, or service that others wish to freely purchase. Why is this a problem? What exactly is "selfish" about success, whether it be an individual, group, or country?

Of course part of the semantic myth in defining one who is selfish has been to assume that anyone who is successful (or, "rich") could only have reached such a position by deception, cruelty, or diabolical cunning -- they could have only "taken" their successful status from someone else. The implication of this old standard of socialist delusion is that every day Bill Gates becomes richer, I become poorer through some kind of mystical cause and effect relationship. In truth, no such economic relationship exists.

From my own experience, the irony in all of this is that those who often speak most of "the need to share" or the virtues of altruism are some of the most spoiled -- and genuinely selfish -- people one will ever meet.

To some clouded minds, it will always be a mark of selfishness to use one's mind and will to better one's circumstance -- and a mark of innocence to want to steal another's good fortune.

Selfishness is in the eye of the beholder and some of those eyes merely covet the lives of others, hardly noble -- or lacking in selfishness.


****************************************************

Bush Apologizes

One of the things I admittedly see as a weakness in the character of the current president, is his willingness to, rather passively, take the nonsense that's regularly dished out at him by his critics. It's certainly good protocol for a president to say he -- or a future she -- is partly "responsible" when the federal bureaucracy fails to act effectively. "The buck stops here" is a good sound-bite for any leader to make, especially when they've done something wrong. While there may be some reasonable criticisms made against Bush's response to the Katrina disaster, he ultimately did everything he was supposed to do in such a situation. The local and state politicians did virtually nothing they were supposed to do ('hear any of them claiming their share of "responsibility?").

Along with his bowing to unjust criticisms, I don't think the virtual blank check of mega-bucks Bush is signing off for Katrina is necessarily a wise move. In the future, we can surely expect every state or town with a problem to use this as a precedent for instant federal "assistance." It's neither mean-spirited nor lacking in compassion to note that individuals, localities, and states, along with the federal government, all have responsibilities in times of crisis. State and local governments have their own considerable stash of ever increasing confiscated funds, which they recklessly skim, spend, and waste with all the fervor that their bigger brothers in Washington are noted for.

The Democrats will surely go along with every Katrina related spending program and then later bitch about "Bush's lack of concern" (while also complaining about his spending). They'll also play up the "need to end [or reverse] the tax cuts."

The Bush tax cuts are economically sound actions that have helped the country rebound from the last recession. Of course the very idea of actually cutting spending will be unheard of in the halls of congress (regardless of political party). I don't need (or wish to take the time) to itemize examples, but anyone with a vague awareness of what kind of nonsense the government spends billions of dollars on knows the federal budget can be cut considerably without so much as making a dent in acts of "compassion" or "helping those in need."

***********************************************
A friend recently asked what Ronald Reagan would have said in response to this latest call for more "federal support" in a time of need.

I think Reagan would have said something along the lines of the following:

"Each branch of government was designed by our founders with the interests of a free people in mind. Separation of powers and the distribution of powers between the states and the federal government were not some mere afterthoughts in our country's design but are the very essence of how free society functions. While disasters can compel us to make exceptions, we must never stray far from the course that our founders designed with their considerable wisdom and foresight. Assistance will be given in this time of need, a blank check will not. Each level of government, along with the private sector, will contribute what is required, but no level of government will be permitted to renounce their own responsibilities in times of local crisis. Being in need of help and being helpless is not the same thing. The founding document of our republic was not called a 'declaration of independence' for nothing. The spirit of independence was not just that of one government breaking its chains from another but individual citizens breaking free from the very concept of government itself. A free people are not a dependant people and a helping hand is not one that pushes those aided into positions of greater weakness or helplessness."

************************************************

An excellent point made at Riding Sun.


************************************************

Counter Revolutionaries

In a few days, September 24th to be exact, a rabble of Jacobins will descend upon Washington D.C. in the guise of an "anti war" protest. Every nut case from Hollywood will no doubt be on the scene along with all the regular professional "revolutionaries." The media, as usual, will edit out the banners with Che Guevara's face along with the ever popular hammer and sickle motif that graces all of these gatherings of the middle class rebelling against itself.

The media will present the events as a cross section of moderate "voices" who disagree with "Bush's War" (which was voted for by most members of the United States Congress). Rest assured that the leadership and organizers of this protest of "moderates" will be the usual groups from the Stalinist left. A.N.S.W.E.R. and like minded organizations are supporters of the North Korean dictatorship, Al Queda, and any ruthless dictatorial philosophy that opposes the United States. Many within the leadership of this protest are hard core authoritarians to whom the Iraq War is a mere rallying point. It goes without saying that like Bin Laden and Castro, they hate George Bush. They also hate the United States and every attribute of free society. One can almost certainly expect that this aspect of the protest will not be noted by the mainstream press. This is not because most journalists are communist or even necessarily adore dictators; they simply hate George Bush and his action of removing Saddam Hussein from power. With this all-encompassing template, they will do anything to undermine the current effort to establish democratic government in the Middle East. (Actually, more than a few probably actually do like Che Guevara also).

Conservatives by nature are not pack animals -- they are not collectivists. It's usually difficult to mobilize large groups of conservative or moderates into "collective" action.

Fortunately, during this Jacobin whine-fest, there will be some organized groups that will take a stand in defense of The President's policies, the soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the country and its principles in general.

If you despise the Marxist, Communist, Leftist, Authoritarian Collectivist mob, (as I do) by all means throw some support to the "counter-revolutionaries."