Thursday, January 20, 2011

My Rants (Issue 1 -- 20 JAN 2011)

My Rants
Issue 1 -- 20 JAN 2011
 
 
This represents a periodic (every so often) statement of my rants, my observations, and my wisdom.  The views expressed are mine, and do not represent the views of any organization or association of which I may be a part.  For now.
 
Read and embrace.
 
 
 
If maintaining freedom requires giving up freedom--including the sacrifice of self-indulgence in favor of political activism and forsaking of personal rights for military service--then why bother having freedom at all?  There are alternatives not requiring such inconsistencies but which allow for a great deal of self-indulgence.  
 
 
 
Polling regarding repealing ObongoCare is shifting more in favor of the socialized healthcare program.  It seems the people who voted so strongly against it last year are liking some of the consumer-protection elements of it.  So, even as the social conservatives sold their souls last year to win the election and address their materialism--typified by anti-homosexuality pro-life Christians embracing Tammy Bruce, an openly lesbian pro-choicer--some of the broad Tea Party movement are selling out their anti-socialist semi-libertarianism in favor of government-mandated niceness (and personal financial interests).  My only question is about which trait of the American people is more at play here--their hypocrisy or their stupidity.
 
 
In 1963, a Leftist assassinates a Democrat President, and so the people followed the Leftist route--hippies, "tolerance," defeat in Southeast Asia.  In 2011, a nutcase who seems more Left than Right attempts to assassinate a Democrat Congresswoman, and the people are tolerating the false implication of the Right.  The American people are morons.
 
 
Why do people blame politicians?  People like Barney Frank are elected by others.  Think about it--there is a Congressional district in Massachusetts where most people like and want what he is doing.  So, it is the district--that is, its constituents--who are to blame.  They, more than the officeholder, who ought to be opposed.  The flipside of democracy is that the people themselves are responsible for such things... even--especially!--those too lazy or selfish to do what they know they should do.
 
 
The Bible upholds the institution of slavery, yet despite somewhat widespread Christian recognition of this before the War of Northern Aggression, it was abolished in America, and within a generation seemingly every major Christian movement had re-interpreted or ignored those scriptures to oppose it.  The Bible also opposes same-sex romantic relations, yet despite virtually unanimous Christian recognition of this, we are seeing legal prohibitions on "same-sex marriage" being removed.  I predict that within 40 years, every major Christian movement in the country will have re-interpreted or ignored those scriptures to uphold such arrangements.  (Yes, you Christians, in your retirement years you'll probably be going to church with "sodomites," and probably think how backward you were way back when.) 
 
None of this should be taken to mean I condone or encourage any such departure from orthodoxy in the predominate religion of our people.  I make no more specific opinion here on Christianity departing from its scriptures' teaching on homosexuality no more than I do it departing from their teachings on slavery.  My point here is simply to note an historical pattern.  
 
 
Dick Morris and Dana Perino say Sarah Palin ought to have stayed silent in the face of attacks about the AZ shootings.  Bush-43 took such advice, leading to the losses of 2006 and 2008.  Palin has nothing to lose by hitting back, and has shown she is prepared to take the hits.
 
 
As I sit here ready to watch "Married... With Children" on TBS, "Thelma and Louise" is ending.  (No comment on the contrast there.)  Thinking of the story of that movie, it's interesting how we are made to feel sorry for someone like Susan Sarandon's character who kills an assailant even after the threat is eliminated, yet the same people who champion this lesbian movie condemn the far more justifiable actions of Charles Bronson's character in the "Death Wish" series.
 
 
The Cabelas website has a graphic of the 12 best-selling calibers.  Essentially, they are military-type calibers.  This is a good thing, as it demonstrates my long-standing point that weapons calibers should be largely limited to military ones, in order to facilitate supply and usage in the event of an, uh, "extreme" situation.  Shooters and supposed Second Amendment advocates who resist such a restriction are self-indulgent individualists who, like libertarians, actually endanger the very freedom they claim to champion. 
 
Most Popular Calibers
 
 
Include .357 Magnum as an addendum to .38 Special (buy a .357 revolver, but stockpile mostly .38 ammo for widest usage).  Then throw in .410 and 12 gauge (shotgun ammo rarely makes overall "best seller" lists), .50 Beowulf and .50 BMG for specialty "higher-power" arms, and perhaps .30-30 out of respect for its historical significance and widespread civilian usage.  With these additions, this final list of 17 calibers (hardly restrictive) presents all the civilian world really needs free access to in 2011 America.
 
 
COMMENTS ON SOME PJTV VIDEOS:
 
1.
 
Bill Maher is closer to the truth than they want to admit.  The Founders were elitists (and if we read the Right-Left spectrum back on to them, they were Leftists), included a large number of Unitarians, and probably knew how to spell the word, "didn't". The only specific he really missed was about slavery.  A good number of the Founders departed from the biblical teaching and opposed slavery.
 
JFK noted that the extremes often looked more like each other than they did the Center.  He was right.  On the present-day spectrum, the Founders would be classed as Rightwing (they didn't believe in PC toward less-than-desireable elements and let people have guns), but like the Left today, they were the elite who avoided the democracy the Tea Party unwittingly promotes.
 
 
2.  
 
As much as I tend to hate libertarians, the one here, Conor Friedersdorf, at least has a much better perspective on just how the political realm is.  He even hints at having the proper understanding of the Right-Left spectrum.  I disagree with a number of his policy positions, have social concerns he does not share, and do think he somewhat underplays the effect of general ideological mindset on what a politician will do.  But much can be learned by listening to this guy for his technical knowledge of poltical science apart from his ideology.
 
Understand that "tyranny" is not synonymous with "oppressive."  It simply refers to a vaguely dictatorial approach.  A "tyrant" can mandate that the free markets control the economy, allow people their religion and guns, and listen to the ignorant masses to deal with their concerns.  This is probably not what you were taught at your Tea Party meetings, but then, you also didn't learn how to spell "didn't" there.
 
 
 

Limbaugh: Gov. Palin "would Wipe the Floor with Obama"


Gov. Palin "would wipe the floor with Obama," Rush Limbaugh twice said in his radio broadcast today. He said both the left and the intelligentsia on the right are terrified of Gov. Palin. "There are smart people in both parties who want nothing to do with Palin because of the threat she poses to their claim and hold on power." Gov. Palin is in the power brokers' cross hairs, and the Tuscon shooting was a golden opportunity for her leftist enemies to launch their attacks. Citing the Legal Insurrection blog, Limbaugh said this was a test run for Obama's re-election campaign. If the leftists were to succeed in politically destroying Gov. Palin, the remaining Republicans would fall like dominoes in a row, resulting in the party's catastrophic failure.
 
 
Thank you for reading. 

at