Friday, January 28, 2011
...Antecedent perspectives which determine viewpoints on a variety of issues large and small.
At the heart of every leftist scheme lies an inability to acknowledge human nature. In their eyes, all imperfections can be rectified by planning, molding, and coercing human behavior. And, when that fails to accomplish it's ends, sufficient deprivation or punishment is always the next step in their compulsive drive to gain compliance.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Be Careful What You Say
A Random "Something to Say"
I realize that it's a bit lame to simply cut and paste one's other ramblings as a blog post. I don't have time to play much in blogland but I hate to have nothing posted for so long. So...what follows is a slightly edited response I sent to a friend on topical matters. Nothing grand or exceptional but just something to say:
Fox occasionally has some lefties among their commentators as other networks will occasionally toss in a token conservative. The difference is that the conservative will be labeled "a conservative" and the lefties are typically labeled, "former adviser [with no partisan political alignment presumably], member of [non-aligned] think tank, lawyer, observer, etc. etc."
Regarding members of congress, there are partisan organizations that rate degrees of conservatism or liberalism based on legislators' voting records, which adds some element of objective criteria. For example, several conservative organizations gauged Obama to be the most left-wing ("liberal") member of congress when he was a senator. Likewise, liberal organizations (equally respected for such things), found Obama to be the most "liberal" (seen as a plus from their viewpoint). If both sides are saying the person in question is very left (or right), they probably are. Communists don't think Obama even begins to go “far enough,” but on the the whole they feel his heart is in the right place (though he's increasingly a disappointment to them when he moderates for political expediency).
The fun sites are the ones that tell you the members of Hollywood who are conservative or "liberal" (often, dare I say - in "McCarthy fashion," socialists/communists). I don't remember the exact names of the sites and organizations noted but they can all be found easily in searches. One has to make their own judgments regarding how "legitimate" or professional they are in their appraisals. The conservative entertainment personalities tend to be lower key (often silent) in their political comments (Jon Voight and a few country singers being a recent rare exception). The leftist ones (many can hardly be called mere “liberals”) are typically front and center and I dare say “full of hate” in appraising America and the free enterprise system – the hand that feeds them.
Regarding the Palin thing. It's almost amusing that the clowns of leftland attacked her after the shooting with no legitimate criteria and now that she defended herself (on her personal facebook page), they're attacking her for doing that. (When a conservative defends themselves or their values it's because they're “full of hate,” of course). To me this is all great because it means that they're so obsessed with her that they think she can win. This will help facilitate a genuine win by someone like Guilliani or Romney etc.
The left almost always overstretches and acts on rapid impulse. When they feel that their “revolution” is in site, they run with it. The public – who overwhelmingly do not support Palin – isn't swayed by their hyperbole because the truth is, most of them aren't very moved by the values and lifestyles of metropolitan intellectual cafe' “rebels” who have issues with their parents but enough money to complain to the apprehensions they see in the mirror.
They can't pull off talk radio, they can't pull off successful polemic movies (Fahrenheit 9/11 being a rare exception), and they're seldom able to keep momentum up when they're in office, which is why they have to tear down the opposition. It's a cliché argument on the right but I believe it's true that most leftists/”progressive” values just don't stand up to reasoned debate (“liberal” values, in the old sense of the word, can). So why state one's case if you can simply write your opponent off as “full of hate, dangerous, violent, racist, a war-monger, and fascist.” ”The tea parties have no legitimate issue, the government isn't too big, taxes are not hurting economic recovery and Obama is god...so why debate conservatives or libertarians on the issues, they're obviously racist homophobes who eat babies (and make insane people wound congresswomen – and kill nine year old girls and Republican judges).”
American's on the whole aren't socialists (in spite of Newsweek's stupid cover story to that effect). That's why it's a critical part of the leftist strategy to make as many people as possible dependent on the state – it's a constituency building effort (“if they aren't socialist, we'll make them socialists by necessity”). Then the Jacobin progressives get what they've always wanted, a society that is “well-planned” by the “experts” who know better how we should all be directed to live “for the common good”...or, “the Volksgemeinschaft” (folk community) as a German socialist once called it.