Thursday, September 23, 2010

"Why the 'conservatives are dumb' meme works," or "Yee-ah, I's kin reed dat dere Consteetooshun real good"

"Why the 'conservatives are dumb' meme works," or "Yee-ah, I's kin reed dat dere Consteetooshun real good"

by Lee Thomas Walker on Thursday, July 15, 2010 at 6:38pm
Below is an account of my experience as an observer at the Missouri state House of Representatives on April 7, 2010, taken from a message I sent to a House member not involved in following incident. The discussion pertained to a "state sovereignty" resolution being debated. "REP[Daniel] Nieves" is the legislator pushing this particular matter. (And yes, I have sent his official a copy of the original message.)

The point of this, as the subject suggests, is to show just how stupid--ignorant--conservatives tend to be. Liberals play the "uneducated" label against conservatives. This is an anecdote as to why it works. And it will continue to work until people holding traditional views and values start actually taking these things seriously.

I'm not confident.

MESSAGE:

My complaint is about [REP Nieves'] performance in the session this morning. After a fine job of calling the one lady rep on her "living, growing" Constitution slip, he reverts to utter ignorance. Two examples:

1. REP Nieves and another fellow got into a worthless back-and-forth all built around the STUPID MISTAKE offered by the other fellow that the phrase, "All men are created equal," is in the Constitution, with the other fellow having ignorantly built up a huge constitutional schematic around its alleged presence there. REP Nieves, who claims he's read the Constitution more than once, not only failed to cut him off on the error--and thus save them both embarrassment--he moved right along with it. It took a Democrat to explain the basic fact of civics that the phrase is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. That Democrat deserves credit for perfect sarcasm and successfully making your Republican colleagues look like idiots. (Honestly, I thought about applauding at his point!)

2. REP Nieves was asked a question from someone on his own side of the aisle. She raised a point of how his precious resolution has basic writing errors that any two-bit secretary would get fired for making, and then asked about a particular section of it, on which REP Nieves "punts." So not only did REP Nieves put forward a resolution that is flawed in its structure, but also one that he himself doesn't understand. He ought to have things like a resolution proofread several times by people who didn't sleep through high school English class, and make sure he knows what the H*** it is on which he's asking people to vote!

And he did all of this after leading with his opinion on how ignorant the other side in Washington is!!

... [T]he other side seeks to portray the conservative/Right, whether it be Sarah Palin, Tea Party activists, or "militia"-types, as "uneducated," "ignorant," etc. When our side's elected leaders do what REP Nieves did today--and this is far from an isolated incident--it not only gives them ammunition, it probably--from an objective viewpoint--proves them correct.

... I don't know if you're still reading this, or if I have offended you off, but either way, this sort of thing WILL catch up with us. I'm not talking about style or syntax--I believe "ain't got no" should be universally-recognized standard English--I'm talking about the factual substance. If a person is too "busy" to study up on things like this, they have no business leading.

Sarah Palin recognizes gaps in her knowledge base, and she is studying and learning. REP Nieves--and a whole slew of others--need to follow her example.

Sincerely,

Lee T. Walker,
Someone who has had his fill of stupidity from his own side.

"Answers to conspiracy artists," or, "Why? Well, I'll tell ya, and it'll be your call."

 

"Answers to conspiracy artists," or, "Why? Well, I'll tell ya, and it'll be your call."

by Lee Thomas Walker on Friday, March 12, 2010 at 9:09am
Some people try to stir up suspicions by giving twisted, lying answers to questions that have simple, self-evident answers. Here are a few of those explained:

(Be sure to see final comment at end)

--

Why healthcare costs can more easily wipe out savings than in times past:

Because we have more--and more advanced--medical procedures on which to spend savings, and the result is a longer life which involves more medical procedures, and thus, the spending of more money on healthcare.

It is not because of a gimongous cabal or greedy insurance companies.

People are not guaranteed to keep a life savings. And with the advances in healthcare, it may be impossible for most people. So, unless you want to give up your freedom to socialized medicine, you need to accept that. Or forsake a lot of medical treatment. Your call.

----------

Why America spends so much more than other countries on its military:

In addition to the fact that it defends half the world, America's military costs more because its equipment is better and more expensive, its safety and PC procedures are more intense, and (related to the first item) it largely develops its own technology, as opposed to having it given to it by a large foreign benefactor.

It is not because of an imperialistic cabal or an inordinate level of testosterone-driven aggression.

Warfare costs more today than in times past, and people demand more safety for troops. Either America spends most of what it does, or America collapses into Third-World status--meaning overt foreign domination--and/or troops are all the more in harm's way. Your call.

----------

Why the rich seem to have more voice in public than others:

They have lots of money and can afford it!

It is not because of some secret business cabal.

Wealth is power. Either some have more wealth (power), or all Americans give up their freedom. Your call.

----------

Why the rich and powerful seem to cooperate with each other across ideological boundaries:

They are rich and powerful, and seek to use each other, whereas the non-rich and less powerful really have less as individuals to offer.

It is not because of some secret world-ruling cabal.

Either people are allowed freedom of association or they are not. Your call.

----------

Why many Christians support Israel and the Jews:

Because Jesus was a Jew and their own Scriptures uphold Israel.

It is not because of a Jewish cabal.

Either let Christians follow their religion, or eliminate freedom of religion. Your call.

----------

Why the World Trade Center fell:

Because some evil towelheads hijacked some planes, and instead of holding them for ransom as was expected, they turned the planes into missiles and rammed them into some large, heavy buildings, the impact of which weakened the building and started hot fires which further weakened the steel, allowing the heavy upper stories to collapse as a unit, creating more downward foot-poundage on a structure than any structures have ever experienced in our history.

It was not because of a secret cabal which somehow managed to rig them to explode without being spotted.

Either the description I laid out in the first paragraph of this issue is essentially correct, or everything you know is a lie and you have a moral and possibly legal duty to violently rebel against it. Your call.

--

FINAL COMMENT: These are, of course, only a few of the many such questions asked by conspiracy dupes and nuts. Your job now is to take the principles laid out above, most notably the recitation of the obvious as a first step, and apply the technique to other such issues. It required actual thinking, but I suspect most of you are capable of that if you are willing to set aside selfish endeavors long enough to do something important. But we'll see.

Your call.

So you don't like politicking, huh?

So you don't like politicking, huh?

by Lee Thomas Walker on Wednesday, December 30, 2009 at 11:01am
Consider this the next time someone criticizes (right-minded) political activists, or when you start doing so yourself:

Campaign worker: You want answers?

Critic: I think I'm entitled to them.

Campaign worker: You want answers?

Critic: I want the truth!

Campaign worker: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has election campaigns. And those campaigns have to fought by men with words. Who's gonna do it? You?... I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for someone receiving campaign mail and you curse the PACs and campaign committees. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that being bombarded by all that political talk, while tragic, probably saved freedom. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves freedom... You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that campaign. You need me on that campaign.

We use terms like polling, talking points, policy positions... we use these terms as the backbone to a life spent upholding something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very political freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you go to a campaign office and take a shift. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Test: "Constitutional law--'Can you say, "In-cor-por-a-tion"'?

 

Test: "Constitutional law--'Can you say, "In-cor-por-a-tion"'?

by Lee Thomas Walker on Sunday, September 20, 2009 at 11:00pm
The following article, interesting also in itself, represents a test to determine if a commenter, talk-show host, or whatever, is qualified to speak on any matter Constitutional:

============ ========= ========= ========= ========= =========

Hattip: NRA: http://www.nraila/. org/News/ Read/InTheNews. aspx?ID=12829

And for those who don't understand "incorporation" in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights (hint: It has nothing to do with running a company), see this: http://en.wikipedia/ .org/wiki/ Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights) (If you're not sure, see my test at the end of this email.) Or, just nod your head up and down and say, "I hope this comes out in our favor."

http://www.cbsnews/. com/blogs/ 2009/08/25/ taking_liberties /entry5263569. shtml


August 25, 2009 2:30 AM
High-Profile Gun Rights Case Inches Toward Supreme Court

10 comments
Posted by Declan McCullagh

A federal appeals court on September 24 will hear a high-profile gun rights case that's a leading candidate to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to decide whether the Second Amendment's guarantee of a right to "keep and bear arms" restricts only the federal government -- the current state of affairs -- or whether it can be used to strike down intrusive state and local laws too.

A three-judge panel ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. But now a larger Ninth Circuit panel will rehear the case, a procedure reserved only for issues of exceptional importance, which means the earlier decision could be upheld or overruled.

Two other circuits have said the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, a legal term known as "incorporation. " If the Ninth Circuit's en banc panel continues to disagree with its peers, the Supreme Court almost certainly would step in.

The Ninth Circuit case involves Russell and Sallie Nordyke, who run a gun show business that would like to rent Alameda County's fairgrounds (the county includes Oakland and is across the bay from San Francisco). After being blocked, they sued. The author of the ordinance in question, then-county supervisor Mary King, actually claimed such shows are nothing but "a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism."

The hearing is set for 10 a.m. PT in the federal courthouse at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco.

============ ========= ========= ========= ===

Here's a test over whether you understand this "incorporation" function:

The last paragraph of the last comment on this article (as of when I looked at it) demonstrates the mindset of people who have no idea about the federalist approach of our national Constitution. If what he says sounds right to you, you need to study the issue:

...

"the language of the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear to most people, especially the last part: "the Right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." What does the word infringed mean to most people? Webster's defines it as "touched upon" or "interfered with". Clearly the authors of the second amendment intended this amendment, at least, to apply to actions by any group of individuals, and any level of government-- lccal, state, or federal.

"The Fourteenth Amendments "equal protection" clause should not even be needed. The Constitution itself states that it is the "Supreme Law of the Land." No law passed by any municipality, county, or state government was to be any more restrictive of individual's rights than any law passed by the federal government subject to the Consitution. all local, state and federal officials are required to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States."

This fellow preceded these paragraphs with some partially valid observations, then ruins it with this uninformed drivel. Again, if this sounds right, you need to study the matter.

"Where Were You (When the World Stopped Turning)"--Version 2.0 (in progress)

"Where Were You (When the World Stopped Turning)"--Version 2.0 (in progress)

by Lee Thomas Walker on Sunday, September 20, 2009 at 11:05pm
Still needs work. Open to input.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMJSvmXnqFw&feature=related (still looking for music only)


Where were you when the world stopped turning that November day
At a campaign party with your wife and children
Working on your job in LA
Did you stand there in shock at the site of
those blue states, rising against our true way.
Did you shout out in anger
In fear for your country
Or did you just sit down and cry

Did you weep for the children
Who'd die in abortions
And pray for the ones who might live
Did you rejoice for the future, for the backlash that is coming
And sob for the pain "now" will give

Did you burst out in tears
For the red white and blue
The heroes who tried to save you from you
Did you look up to heaven for some kind of answer
And look at yourself to what's really the matter

I'm not a singer of simple songs
I'm just a real political man
I watch Fox News Channel and I'm sure that can tell you
The difference between it and CNN.
But I know America and I talk to God
And I remember this from when I was young
God, guns and guts are the good things that made us
And in all three we'll be strong

Where were you when the world stopped turning that November day
Teaching a church full of innocent children
Driving down some cold interstate
Did you feel guilty cause you're a bystander
Among activists did you feel alone
Did you call up your mother and tell her you love her
Did you dust off that Constitution at home

Did you open your eyes and hope it never happened
Close your eyes and not go to sleep
Did you notice your freedom for the first time in ages
Stand against some traitor on the street

Did you lay down at night and think of tomorrow
Go out and buy you a gun
Did you turn off those meaningless sports that you're watching
And turn on a Red Dawn rerun

Did you go to a church and hold hands with some stranger
Get online and give your cash
Did you just sit at home and cling tight to your family
Pray to God that He would save your own ass.

I'm not a singer of simple songs
I'm just a real political man
I watch MSNBC and this I can tell you
I'd prefer even that old CNN.
But I know America and I talk to God
And I remember this from when I was young
God, guns and guts are the good things that made us
And in all three we'll be strong

I'm not a singer of simple songs
I'm just a real political man
I watched for years, and this I can tell you
It's been bound to happen, my friend
But I know America and I talk to God
And I remember this from when I was young
God, guns and guts are the good things that made us
And in all three we'll be strong

In all three we'll be strong
In all three we'll be strong

Where were you when the world stopped turning that November day

How conservatives are like the Ninevites of Jonah's time

 

How conservatives are like the Ninevites of Jonah's time

by Lee Thomas Walker on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 at 2:17pm
EDIT (17 FEB 2010): Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksq8GAVlB-A Then, for those who opt for the false "Liberty-Tyranny" definition of the "Right-Left" schematic, explain how the authoritarian nobles and clergy are "Right" and the democracy-minded commoners are "Left."

(Posted on Team Sarah.org at http://www.teamsarah.org/profiles/blogs/how-conservatives-are-like-the)

Good. I've got some people's attention. Now, what do I mean my this comparison of conservatives to Ninevites. Well, here it is in Jonah 4:11:

Shouldn't I feel sorry for this important city, Nineveh? It has more than 120,000 people in it as well as many animals. These people couldn't tell their right hand from their left.

(God's Word Translation--emphasis added)

Now, some of you know that perhaps my biggest peeve with the conservative/Right--right after their general self-focus and refusal to sacrifice for the cause we share--is the widespread misunderstanding--and often, intentional misrepresentation--of the meaning behind the "Left-wing/Right-wing" political spectrum. Below is a reproduction of a blog post by yours truly way back on November 9, 2008 ( http://www.teamsarah.org/profiles/blogs/explaining-the-difference ). Yeah, I could have just posted the link, but I decided to put all the information right here, so no one gets lost clicking on the link. (Yes, I know. I'm a nice guy.)

This post explains how political science uses the terms, and how the schematic works. In that regard, it's not an opinion piece, with which people can say, "Well, I disagree with your interpretation." No, it's simply the case. Quibble with details if you wish, but the point is accurate, as can be proven by asking any political science professor of whatever political stripe.

Please, folks. Please read this and then research it. Those of you who have fallen for the false definition, please look into it from objective sources (no talk radio personalities allowed in this) before getting all knee-jerk about being lopped into the same end of the spectrum as Adolf Hitler. Please, just for this, set aside obsession with "individual liberty" being the be-all/end-all of political evaluations (in other words, don't play Glenn Beck here), and try to consider values beyond oneself as issues as well. This is, I believe, the biggest intellectual obstacle between "our side" and success. The false understanding blinds people to the real threat faced by America as we've known it. The true understanding will, I assure you, enlighten you to the reality of the political world around us.

Thank you.

Explaining the difference between "Right" and "Left"
Posted November 9, 2008

A lot of people have the wrong idea what is meant by "Right" and "Left" in sociopolitical talk. Why is Hitler considered "Rightwing," instead of "Leftwing," over there with the other people we don't like? Below is a comment posted by a fellow on a blog back in March, who addresses this issue from a fundamentally wrong understanding. Following that is my reply to the person. Finally, there is a comparison of Right and Left I wrote in 2005. It is biased in making "Rightwing" sound good, but I believe there may be some value there.


Posted by Me at http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/07/friday-night-quiz-guess-which-collectivist-said-it/#comment-262807

On March 7th, 2008 at 9:50 pm, JohnHolliday said:

The problem with liberals is that they think socialism is on the far left of the political spectrum and Nazism is on the far right, with democracy in the middle.

It's not what's left and right, it's zero government versus total government. Socialism, Nazism, Theocracies, Monarchies, and to a lesser extent, Democracies, are forms of total governmental control.

Liberals just don't understand. The collective good is enhanced when the individual is free and the economy is not managed. Everyone prospers.

Or, maybe they do know this and just want that iron-fisted governmental control. Hmmmm?


=======================

MY REPLY:

Oh, it looks like I have to fight the same battle here I've had to fight elsewhere on the Internet.

The difference between "Rightwing" and "Leftwing" is not "zero government vs. total government", or "liberty vs. tyranny." It's about something alluded to in the terms, "conservative" and "liberal": What direction do we take? It's about "tradition vs. innovation," "nature vs. nurture", "creation vs. evolution," "realism vs. idealism."

The Left looks to make something of people and society they have never been and can never be. The Right looks to uphold what generally is or has been, and possibly make it what it used to be.

The original "Right-Left" distinction, in the French Parliament, involved people who wanted little or no change in government (Right) vs. those who wanted major and quick change (Left). In that case, it was the Right wanting to retain a powerful monarch (strong government) vs. the Left wanting a less-powerful, frankly freer government (weaker government).

John Kennedy made the point that often the extremes look more like each other than they do the center. This is very valid. There are liberal pro-lifers, who extend civil rights protections to "unborn-Americans", and conservative "anti-war" types who extend nationalism into non-interventionism/isolationism (Ron Paul).

Nazism is Rightwing because it focused on upholding traditional things--national greatness, racial concerns, the family, a certain deific religiosity, militarism, and such. It pictures a world with distinctions. Communism is Leftwing because it ideologically focuses on breaking down each of those. It looks to the "stateless utopia," a world without distinctions.

Nazism is reactionary, in that the Nazis looked at the liberalization in the German Weimar Republic and the threat from Communism, and responded by going back hard the other way. In doing so, though, they took with them some of the techniques and appearances of the Left--a certain collectivism, a certain populist idealism (every German received a two-week paid vacation). But it applied these things with an ideological eye toward traditional things, like material gain and national greatness for the sake of national greatness. Mussolini started out as a Leftist Socialist, but made his move to the Right based on his nationalism triggering a "reaction" against the (Leftist) Socialists opposing Italian involvement in WW1. He even referred to members of his movement as "soldiers of the Right." People need to give up freedom not to to equalize all peoples, ways, etc., but rather to exalt their own people, way, etc.

Communism, on the other hand, will use nation-states and military establishments, as well as ideas of nationalism and racial concerns. But it is not for those matters' own sake, but rather with the eye toward their eventual abolition. They seek to nurture and evolve humanity toward a time when no government or religion will be necessary, when all will fall in line with a "stateless utopia". People need to give up freedom not to exalt their own people, way, etc., but rather to equalize all peoples, ways, etc.

Hitler and Tojo looked to empires of thousands of years. Communism looks to no empires at all.

Notice I said "Communism," not "Stalin" or "Mao". When examining the Right-Left distinction, it is important to remember that it is an issue of the ideology's aims, not the aims of its professed adherents. That is a weakness of the Left (and liberalism). it professes a wonderful, selfless, no-distinction approach without personal gain, but the natural inclinations of humans get in the way. Stalin sought personal power and some ethnic agendas, and Ho Chi Minh actually had some nationalist desires, and to some degree tried to use Communism/Leftism to accomplish them. Nonetheless, the stated ideology was one which ultimately rejects such things. (This is, in fact, why Communism will never succeed: The human factor gets in the way.)

Think of the difference this way: It's the difference between National Socialism and International Socialism. Nationalism is simply the upholding of the traditional, natural (and some would say, divinely-intended) familial and cultural distinctions. "Internationalism" is simply, in its ideologically-stated conclusion, the breakdown of those very distinctions.

Ask yourself: When does the Left focus on things like gender, race, religion, national status, etc.? It is ONLY when doing so will break down the "traditional" (at least, in their view, "traditional") order: Leadership by the male, White, Christian/Judeo-Christian, American/Western types. Please, remember their phrase, "traditionally-oppressed peoples." Their aim is give those people special consideration to equalize their status vis a vis the (I guess you would call them) "traditionally oppressing people(s)." Instead of giving special advantages to the ones who allegedly have traditionally had them, they give special advantages to the ones who allegedly never had them. The aim is eliminate the distinctions by making them of no impact at any level. Today we call it, Affirmative Action.

Conservatism is actually rather moderate/centrist (though definitely with an eye to the Right) on the universal scale. It doesn't usually go extreme on matters, and really doesn't lend itself to much overt activism. It's hard to get excited about conserving the status quo. One can become defensive against moves to either direction, but it's difficult to "spread same-o same-o".

The Left/liberal press calls mainstream Conservatives, the "extreme Right." BThis is of course in part to brand them as extreme and in the same league with the Nazis in people's eyes. But there is one element of truth to their statement: It reflects how far to the Left America has slid. When Tammy Bruce can be an openly lesbian pro-choicer and yet be "Rightwing," things have definitely moved left from the 1950s. In this immediate, current context, the "center" is made up of McCain and Lieberman, and indeed, the "far Right" is the Malkins, Limbaughs, etc.

Of course, many here will argue with me. But be aware, it makes us on the Right look dumb to try to twist the definition used in political science in order to shove people you don't like into the other side. This is what definitions like the one from the comment I quoted do. They are contrived with a set end-result, and seek a construct by which all they perceive as good is on their end, and all they perceive as bad is on the other.

Both sides do it. Recently I had a young, fairly reasonable but politically still-learning liberal suggest Communism shouldn't be considered Leftwing, because both it and Nazism call for dictatorship. (And just for the record, that liberal is a soldier in the U.S. Army.) I explained to him just what I just explained to you.

...

======================

"Right" and "Left" have simply come to be terms of convention for the two basic directions of sociopolitical aims and desires. The Right represents standard and traditional values and order, while the Left represents ultimately an idealistic vision with values that deviate from the standard and traditional. In practice, the Right recognizes "human nature", but the Left does not. To borrow Bill O'Reilly's description of the Liberal/Conservative distinction, the Left has superior theory, but the Right is realistic. The Left has this great and impossible vision, while the Right sees that the ideal cannot be humanly achieved. Rightists often differ on how their values, including order, are best manifested, but their differences are simply different arrangements within the same traditional framework, the framework Leftism seeks to destroy.

In simple terms: The Right is a lot of country music; the Left is John Lennon's "Imagine."

Five basic sociopolitical differences between Left and Right (listed in alphabetical order), with Right-biased commentary:

FAMILY/NATION/ETHNICITY, ETC.--
Left: "Brotherhood of man" gone wild. Tries to destroy the concept of blood distinctions and traditional orders in human existence in favor of a universal collective filling such roles (e.g., "It takes a village..."), even as it uses such distinctions in disrupting society and order (e.g.,"playing the race card"). Blood lineage is not a factor in ideological position.
Right: "Focus on the family." Respects and maintains the institutions, both familial and racial, even while recognizing the value of the individual and acting at times when necessary to correct wrongs and promote harmony between and among the various families of humanity. Blood lineage is a factor in ideological position.

MILITARY INSTITUTIONALITY (NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH "MILITANCY")--
Left: "Peace and love ("unless you're a Socialist guerrilla")." Ideologically holds "violence" to be wrong in its very concept, but uses violence and murder against free nations and parties even as its cohorts among the free peoples of the world demand unilateral disarmament and pacifism.
Right: "Peace through superior firepower." Recognizes the reality of the world we live in and hence respects the military institutution and the legitimacy of free and good people being prepared for and actually using force and violence for righteous ends. (Belief in a private right to keep and bear arms may accompany this.)

POLITIES/"THE STATE" (Arguably, the most distinctive issue)--
Left: "Internationalism." Ultimately, the ideology calls for the abolition of all government and all political entities (per classical Communism), yet creates some of the most brutal and totalitarian states for the alleged purpose of preparing people and the world for their utopia.
Right: "Nationalism." Recognizes the value of political states and the fact that human nature and failings preclude the Leftist "stateless utopia" from ever being achieved by earthly means; believes in a certain intrinsic duty/debt of loyalty being owed to one's own polity.

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE AND PROPERTY--
Left: "Collectivism." Tries to destroy these in favor of collective ownership and elimination of all wealth classes; everybody equally miserable.
Right: "Individual accomplishment." Respects and maintains the practice and right, even if at times recognizing a need for measured regulation; people free to succeed.

RELIGION--
Left: "Opiate of the people." Atheist in its purest form; to the degree the far Left has "religion," it often (but not universally) tends more toward an ethereal "spirituality," viewing the Deity less as a thinking personal Being and more as a concept or karmic functioning, and thus seeks to tear down trust in a Supreme Being ("Providence") and fear of/respect for an eternal judgment.
Right: "God-given rights," "Providence," etc. Tends to be--in ideology, if not always in application or practice--more respectful of the Deity as real and personal, often holding (rightly or wrongly) more set dogmas and doctrines.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is from the comments to that original blog post:



1. Comment by Chris on November 9, 2008 at 11:05am

Comparing American Conservatives to French "Conservatives" is an insult and I don't appreciate it one bit.

In my opinion, you've confused yourself with far too much Poli-Sci and not nearly enough of the foundational beliefs of liberty and the rule of law in what has been learned since the dawn of man as no liberal sniveling that we hear now hasn't been heard before.

Think about it.


And my reply:

Comment by Tommygun on November 9, 2008 at 11:57am

Thank you for proving my point (and you are welcome for approving your insulting comment). You have literally no understanding of the matter. You condemn me for using political science, when "Right-Left" is nothing but a convention in political science!

You are basing your definition on what you want the distinction to be. If you wish to set up a spectrum to describe your point, you are free to do so. But using Right-Left to do so only shows your ignorance.

"Left-Right" is not about "liberty-tyranny." Read literally any decent dictionary's definition of Right and Left in terms of politics:

From www.dictionary.com (used only because it is handy):

33. the Right, a. the complex of individuals or organized groups opposing change in a liberal direction and usually advocating maintenance of the established social, political, or economic order, sometimes by authoritarian means.b. the position held by these people: The Depression led to a movement away from the Right. Compare left 1 (defs. 6a, b).
c. right wing.

34. (usually initial capital letter) the part of a legislative assembly, esp. in continental Europe, that is situated on the right side of the presiding officer and that is customarily assigned to members of the legislature who hold more conservative or reactionary views than the rest of the members.
35. the members of such an assembly who sit on the Right.


6. the Left, a. the complex of individuals or organized groups advocating liberal reform or revolutionary change in the social, political, or economic order.
b. the position held by these people. Compare right (def. 33a, b).
c. left wing.

7. (usually initial capital letter) Government. a. the part of a legislative assembly, esp. in continental Europe, that is situated on the left side of the presiding officer and that is customarily assigned to members of the legislature who hold more radical and socialistic views than the rest of the members.
b. the members of such an assembly who sit on the left.



2. From a now-deleted comment by the now-deleted member "Countryman": As I recall, he had posted a link to an online test people could take to determine where they fell on the political spectrum (according to whoever created the test). Here was my reply:

Comment by Tommygun on November 15, 2008 at 11:12pm

Countryman, I've seen that test before and find it flawed. It makes very much the same mistake I was addressing.

It is really just a flawed attempt to show where a person falls in present-day American politics as schematized by libertarians. Take the draft question: That issues universally speaking says nothing about Left vs. Right. Leftists in America opposed the draft in the 1960s, but most Communist countries have (had) a draft. Plus, Obama's people are talking about mandatory public service. On that test, supporting a draft will pulls someone to the Right.

Left vs. Right is not a matter of specific issues. It's a matter of overarching philosophy. If you like traditional measures of judgment and categorization and work for their institution, you are on the Right. The exact positions on issues can vary, based on the background of a given country and a person's priorities. But they all go to tradition. If you dislike such traditional measures and work for their deprecation or abolition, you are on the Left.

The issues aren't "issues" of and in themselves. At one time, it was people on the Right who wanted abortion, in order to control certain populations--i.e., based on and reinforcing a traditional categorization and structure. Today, it's liberals, in order to create "equality of outcome" between males and females--i.e., eliminating the natural difference between the genders in terms of the outcome of sex (that is, both can, uh, indulge without the "traditionally oppressed class" having a more severe consequence). And today, there are pro-abortion Rightists (controlling and making for an efficient societal institution) and pro-life liberals (protecting the rights of "unborn-Americans").

Issues can shift. Philosophy is what remains.


Kel-Tec SUB-2000

‎"The SUB-2000 is a self-loading carbine for pistol cartridges. Different versions of the SUB-2000 will accept most modern handgun magazines; see below for a complete list. The SUB-2000 has a greatly enhanced accuracy and extended range compared to a handgun. The superior precision is also very useful against small or partially covered targets at shorter range. The amount of training to master the SUB-2000 is only a fraction of that required for a handgun. The SUB RIFLE-2000 has been developed from our highly successful SUB-9 rifle. Although retaining some features of the old rifle, the SUB-2000 is a completely new design. Emphasis has been put on consumer safety, but without impeding the performance. Polymers are used to a large extent, resulting in increased durability and reduced price. The SUB-2000 is available in 9 mm Luger or .40 S&W calibers."

http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/rifles/sub-2000/
 

Monday, September 20, 2010

Cats 101 : Animal Planet

facebook
Lee Thomas Walker
8:41am Sep 20th
Cats 101 : Animal Planet
To ltw03y.cgsp@blogger.com
 
If you do not wish to receive this type of email from Facebook in the future, please click here to unsubscribe.
Facebook, Inc. P.O. Box 10005, Palo Alto, CA 94303