PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

Pre-holiday -- that would include Christmas -- pleasures and errands have kept me from posting more in depth comments on current issues. This next week, I need to put any blogging time I have (this is only a hobby) into the essay I will be posting over the Christmas and New Years holiday -- an essay regarding my experiences in the American public school anti-teaching machine.

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


(This is a reprint of comments made -- with some alteration -- at another site earlier this year, regarding Libertarianism)

As someone who typically considers himself a libertarian (with increasingly conservative sympathies*), I have to acknowledge that libertarian philosophy is, indeed, idealistic and probably impossible to really implement.

My stand for the ideals of libertarianism is made out of a guarded concern for what non-libertarians seem to want.

If political realities could somehow be magically frozen and those of us in Japan or America were stuck with massive ineffective bureaucracies, considerable taxation and wasteful expenditure, and stupid rules regarding personal behavior, I could certainly live with it. Admiration for government waste and petty coercions is hardly the gulag.

The concern most libertarians have -- and I certainly can't speak for all of them -- is that statist and collectivists "don't know when to stop."

The United States has spent well over 5 trillion dollars on a largely ineffective "war on poverty," and we're still told every year that "we're not doing enough." (That's one minor example).

Today, when I hear the rants of those who favor collectivist / statist schemes, I realize that their demands (they are never mere hopes or requests) are no different than what I heard as a high school student or what I'm sure my father (and his father) heard during their lives -- "more laws, more rules, more state control."

I'm a libertarian because libertarians ultimately say, "less laws, less rules, less state control."

No one can "prove" that I should be a slave to a collectivist ideal and I can't "prove" that I should be left alone, none the less; I choose to be left alone.


* I find myself increasingly “conservative”-- like many people -- after 9/11 as a response to the manner the left in general has taken after the attack on America. Their response has been far beyond their usual disagreement with the nature of Capitalist society and limited government and has extended itself to stances that often boarder on treason. When I say treason I do not mean disagreement or mere opposition to war or the President's policies, I'm referring the stance many on the left now take; sympathy and support for an enemy (Islamo-fascism) that openly states their hopes of destroying the United States and bringing massive suffering and death to its citizens. To support such a horrid worldview and openly seeking to undermine efforts to defend the country from attack is despicable. The left's obvious and bitter hatred for American society, culture, and its common citizens has grown far beyond the pale…… In all honesty, libertarians aren't taking a very strong stand in this regard, and conservatives are. As I've mentioned often before, by conservatives I certainly don't mean Christian religious fanatics or corrupt corporate stereotypes in smoke filled rooms. I mean those who believe in a limited and decentralized constitutional government that defends the individual freedom of its citizens (and not the legal concerns of foreign thugs). This stance defines many libertarians and conservatives and is definitely far removed from the realms of statism and appeasement which defines the left.


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

p.s. In addressing the libertarian view, I need to take issue with the word, "selfishness" as an ideal libertarians support. While it may be an accurate description of the desire to pursue one's own freely chosen objectives, the word is unfairly loaded in meaning and often implies, to some, a kind of aggressive, cruel, or "heartless" disposition and outlook. Wishing to pursue what one feels is best for one's self and for those one values is a common sense way to live. One can call such behavior "selfish," but a self-interested person can be quite decent, sociable, and compassionate. I've met many self-described "compassionate" people from the collectivist/statist crowd who are downright mean (not to mention phony).

Like Ayn Rand said, "You must first say, 'I' to say, 'I love you.'"

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

Boortz says it like it is…again

…“It's not that Democrats don't think we'll win in Iraq, it's that they don't want us to. An American victory in Iraq would be vindication for George Bush. The left's hatred of Bush runs so deep; they're willing to abandon our troops and Iraq to the Islamic terrorists just to win political points. The Democrats politicization of this war is shocking and outrageous.
There are genuine public policy debates and disagreements out there, but when it comes to the cut-and-run strategy in Iraq there is no reasonable way anyone can look a the Democrats "let's call it a day and go home" proposals and not recognize the dangers that lie therein. If the US announced that we would be "redeploying" American troops in six months the Islamic terrorists and insurgents would immediately understand that victory is theirs. All they would have to do is lay low for a few months, let the Americans leave, and then move to seize control of the fledgling Iraqi government. Shortly after the Americans withdrew the terrorist factions would be fully in charge in Iraq. Terrorist training camps and weapons development would follow. Not only would the terrorist elements realize that they had won, but the Iraqi people would have to face the realization that once again the United States had failed to fulfill their promise of a stable and freely elected government for Iraq. Those in Iraq who cooperated in any way with the Americans would be marked for execution. As soon as the intentions of the United States were made know millions of Iraqis would suddenly express their opposition not only to the American presence, but also to the new government of Iraq. The people of Iraq would know that their continued safety would depend on their being on the winning side, and the winning side would be that of the insurgents and the terrorists. al-Zarqawai would be the new de-facto leader of Iraq. In the meantime, any move towards representative governments in Syria and Iran would be over. All progress made in the Middle East over the past four years would be erased overnight.
Democrats know this ... all of it. Yet they don't care. They are driven by their blind hatred for George Bush and the bitterness that still exists over their being removed from control of the Congress by the voters in 1994. Hatred robs you of logic and rationality. The left's hatred of Bush, and, in some cases, America, deprives them of the ability to see the consequences of their actions. Their hatred has made them politically and mentally unstable. If we don't recognize this dangerous pathology soon, we'll all suffer for it.
Remember...when a Republican is in the Oval Office....Democrats thrive on bad news. What's bad for America and bad for the Military is just fine for the left.”

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

More Media techniques to help the cause of Islam-fascism

A brief note regarding something I’ve noticed in my regular reading of articles by Reuters and the Associated Press.

As I had stated before, on a few occasions, I do not believe there is a well orchestrated or planned conspiracy to skew the news to the left’s favored talking points – it’s simply automatic. It’s what happens when you have a bunch of college educated (often indoctrinated) spoiled brats who want to be genuine intellectuals but have settled for a close second in the pseudo-intellectual field of journalism. Some in the field have become the mere equivalent of used car salesmen who write. Honesty and precision are certainly not the standard, “getting their message out” is.

I’ve noticed a recurring theme regarding the reporting on speeches made by Bush or prominent members of his administration regarding Iraq. In an article headlined as being about a particular speech, a mere few quotes from the speech are printed. More often than not, most of the speech is summed up by the reporter, (i.e. “Bush claimed….”). After this brief reference to the speech (what the article is supposedly about) there is often a lengthily list of quotes from critics – usually considerably longer than what was actually stated in the speech itself. Also there is the usual list of statement to the effect that the war was begun on the grounds of “weapons of mass destruction which were not found [as if this is new news].” In addition to this regular feature of speech coverage we get the usual current soldier body count of course – something that typically has nothing to do with the speech. Either in the article itself or in a separate article -- usually highlighted -- next to it or actually embedded in a darkened or outlined box, one will find any bad news the journalists can find to completely juxtapose any positive statements Bush or his staff have made.

Japan’s Daily Yomiuri English edition recently had an article headlined; “Bush cites improved Iraqi economy.” The AP article began with four short paragraphs of Bush’s quotes and a journalist’s telling the reader what Bush had said. Beginning the anti-Bush news, “Bush’s speech came amid new violence in Iraq….” The rest of the article consisted of eight paragraphs of criticism, quotes by Bush’s critics, and what ever bad news they could get together to counter the few weaker statements made in their chosen excerpts from Bush’s speech. The article ended with, “…they gave him a cool reception. Some in the audience interrupted to applaud when Bush said the U.S. would not run from Iraq, but most sat stoically during the entire speech.” As an additional cute trick (as referred to earlier); a separate article in a darkened box embedded within the article on Bush’s speech, declaring, “Suicide attack on bus kills 30.”

Amazingly, an article supposedly about a speech the president made regarding the Iraqi economy had become a lengthily anti-war rant with a brief preface of cherry-picked quotes from Bush’s speech.

Not the first time, not the last. Watch for this stuff. It’s downright pathetic.


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


A brief excerpt from a “glossary” of Ed-World terminology (from an essay on my experiences in Ed-land U.S.A., to be posted over the holidays while I’m away from my computer and weekly postings):

- “Classroom management techniques”
Ed-land’s belief that schools without clear standards of order, discipline, or consequence can be none-the-less “managed” by some non-existent “techniques” to con kids into smiley-face obedience. Every honest teacher knows that, in today’s schools, there is virtually nothing that can be done to elicit or compel good behavior from some students. The result has been classrooms where a mere one or two students are able to disrupt or completely thwart any attempts at teaching or learning. Another result of this bureau-incompetence has been a “teacher shortage” exacerbated by many teachers leaving the profession after only a couple of years (if not during their actual student teaching before even getting a job in Ed-land).



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

A Comic Commentary from Promethean Visions:


Critiques on the market economy and other insights...



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

Promethean Quotes from The Promethean Observer:

"The difference between a pack animal and a socialist is that a pack animal is less dangerous to those around it."